|
Bar Ran Dun posted:Well this risk isn’t even limited to only absolutism. It’s the risk of any idealism. And imagining a society that doesn’t materially exist but ought to be always carries that risk. All moral ideas are only real in so far as we (living in moral ambiguity ) inhabit them. I agree with you any ideal carries a risk when acted upon. I think that’s why we should allow room for doubt, which not incidentally has some bearing on the religion discussion. some plague rats posted:Okay so I think the problem here is one of communication, in that you're using a definition of moral absolutism that absolutely no one else apart from you subscribes to. You also seem to have some very odd opinions about the causes of imperial conflicts in the last century, which is not really what this thread is about, but I mean: Except the child-like justification is always what accompanies the action. What modern power has ever said “we’re grabbing your land/resources because we want it”? I can’t think of any. There’s always a special moral rule that is invoked or fabricated as a justification. Now, you might say that’s the opposite of absolutist but to me it’s just another form of it because the claim is made that there’s a higher rule that supersedes more universal ideas of peaceful coexistence. That said, I agree we’re operating on different definitions. I do think mine gels with common usage as any googling of Bush and moral absolutism would bear out.
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 07:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 06:41 |
|
|
some plague rats posted:Has he proposed anything with the transformative power and scale of the New Deal and shown a willingness to do what's necessary to get it passed, or has he just said a bunch of stuff about liking FDR? Because talk is cheap Whether he's succesfully emulating him is an entirely different question from what was asserted.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 07:55
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:I agree with you any ideal carries a risk when acted upon. I think that’s why we should allow room for doubt, which not incidentally has some bearing on the religion discussion. Fabricating a justification is categorically not what you said in your first post. You claimed pretty explicitly that moral absolutism produced wars-- yronic heroism posted:Less cynically (but also more cynically), moral absolutism tends to ruin people and societies and most generations can think back to a major war or two that was started by a moral absolutist who decided, “Hey, this time we got it right.” I don’t think castigating a political party for not treating every issue as a inerrantly holy mission is a major own when most people do live with moral ambiguity. --but after being challenged about it, you're now claiming that war produces moral absolutism? Moreover, who gives a poo poo what a modern power says as flimsy justification for wars of imperial conquest? You're talking about ad copy, it's not germane to this at all
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 08:06
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:Whether he's succesfully emulating him is an entirely different question from what was asserted. Then why bring up his repeated invoking of him at all if it's just meaningless politician babble?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 08:08
|
|
|
I never said it was mere ad copy except maybe for Putin, though probably not if his moral absolute is Russian nationalism. I said the claim accompanies the action. And I would go further than that. As far as we know Bush really tunnel-visioned on the idea of getting the bad guys and saving the world. You can’t separate Hitler’s belligerence in Europe from the racism. And you can’t separate the US role in Vietnam from an ideology of anti-communism. yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 08:20 on Jun 14, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 08:16
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:I never said it was mere ad copy except maybe for Putin, though probably not if his moral absolute is Russian nationalism. I said the claim accompanies the action. You didn't say it was ad copy, you just described ad copy and then took it at face value Like do you think, for instance, that health insurance corporations are really trying to look out for your health? That's what they say they're doing, after all
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 08:29
|
|
|
Yronic...cart before the horse. Political justification is just the spackle that fills in the cracks around the patch.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 08:32
|
|
|
some plague rats posted:Then why bring up his repeated invoking of him at all if it's just meaningless politician babble? Because I want to hear vbc's explanation for the position they claim, which was thrown out there with nothing backing it
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 08:37
|
|
|
TheIncredulousHulk posted:You didn't say it was ad copy, you just described ad copy and then took it at face value You’re forgetting two crucial things: 1. Like I said in my last post, the decisionmakers in the examples I cite also (usually) buy the line they themselves are selling. In fact, these decisions generally undermined realpolitik considerations because the absolutists in these cases bit off more than they could chew. 2. In cases of pure fabrication, the appeal to moral absolutism is still used to shame and overcome domestic critics (these are the doubters I mentioned in another post). Otherwise why bother trying to harness absolutism at all? yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 08:50 on Jun 14, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 08:44
|
|
|
Yronic you are making some utterly baffling assumptions in your argument to the point I think you need to restate what you are actually trying to argue. Like come on are you genuinely claiming that loving dubya of all people wasn't motivated by revenge and petty greed in the Iraq war?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 08:52
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:Yronic you are making some utterly baffling assumptions in your argument to the point I think you need to restate what you are actually trying to argue. I mean literally the OP about this topic agreed with my response that moral absolutism could go to some dark places. That’s what I said before getting asked for examples. Either readers buy the examples, or you don’t and can come up with your own that you find more convincing. Or I guess they don’t see too much tradeoff in being a moral absolutist. More people 10-15 years ago did. More people 20 years ago didn’t. Changes with the times. Edit: Revenge for what? For Iraq not planning or executing 9/11? (I know you mean stuff with HW Bush, it’s a joke.) I think in spite of various other motivations that the story Bush told himself is pretty much what he told the public in terms of stopping “evil.” Also, tldr to the day crew: It sounds like me using a more colloquial mid 2000s working definition of moral absolutism maybe is being viewed as at odds with a philosophical definition, but I don’t know. I don’t think anyone else has provided their definition or been challenged to do so. yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 09:28 on Jun 14, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 09:02
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:You’re forgetting two crucial things: How do you know they buy the lines they're selling
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 09:03
|
|
|
TheIncredulousHulk posted:How do you know they buy the lines they're selling This does seem to be a sticking point "The liars and petty tyrants that rule us are inherently driven by moral concerns, why would they pretend otherwise?" seems to be, if you will pardon me, a touch daft.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 09:07
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:I mean literally the OP about this topic agreed with my response that moral absolutism could go to some dark places. That’s what I said before getting asked for examples. Either readers buy the examples, or you don’t and can come up with your own that you find more convincing. Or I guess they don’t see too much tradeoff in being a moral absolutist. More people 10-15 years ago did. More people 20 years ago didn’t. Changes with the times. No the problem here is that you're using a, quite frankly, absolutely baffling definition of moral absolutism that seems to bear no relation to any understanding of the term I've ever encountered before. You keep making these high-handed pronouncements like the above that sound wise and meaningful until you actually think about them and realise they're absolute gibberish! I'm really starting to feel like this is a bit and you're just messing with us! (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 09:08
|
|
|
TheIncredulousHulk posted:How do you know they buy the lines they're selling How do you know they don’t? In the present day Trump has kind of pushed this to the breaking point in our minds, but most people say some version of what they believe most of the time. Are people, and their institutions, motivated reasoners? Yes, that’s also the case. Two things can be true at once. yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 09:15 on Jun 14, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 09:12
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:How do you know they don’t? In the present day Trump has kind of pushed this to the breaking point in our minds, but most people say some version of what they believe most of the time. Are people, and their institutions, motivated reasoners? Yes, that’s also the case. Two things can be true at once. Then we look at the results. Surprisingly the imperial ends happen to be what is achieved in these conflicts, as opposed to the moral reasoning.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 10:00
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:How do you know they don’t? In the present day Trump has kind of pushed this to the breaking point in our minds, but most people say some version of what they believe most of the time. Are people, and their institutions, motivated reasoners? Yes, that’s also the case. Two things can be true at once. Because all those wars you listed can be comprehensively explained as attempts at conquest undertaken by imperial powers You're the one claiming wars are willed into being by the uncompromising moral philosophies of heads of state. The burden of proof here is on you
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 10:07
|
|
|
TheIncredulousHulk posted:Because all those wars you listed can be comprehensively explained as attempts at conquest undertaken by imperial powers In that case, see # 2 above, though you should also explain why you don’t think Imperialism is a moral absolutist claim to national or ethnic superiority. There’s been plenty of demanding I show my work, so please show yours. yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 10:25 on Jun 14, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 10:23
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:In that case, see # 2 above, though you should also explain why you don’t think Imperialism is a moral absolutist claim to national or ethnic superiority. There’s been plenty of demanding I show my work, so please show yours. Because imperialism is about stealing other people's poo poo e: to make sure I don't get probed for low content--Bush called a bunch of countries "bad guys" but we only invaded two, the latter of which the imperial state had been preparing to invade for a loving decade. He was backed by numerous imperial institutions, as well as by members of the party you originally posted your bizarre claim in defense of. The US in Vietnam was likewise an attempt to take a colonial handoff from France, after Vietnam asked us for help in liberating themselves from their French oppressors and we declined We invaded because we wanted their things, not because of "moral absolutism" TheIncredulousHulk fucked around with this message at 10:46 on Jun 14, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 10:32
|
|
|
TheIncredulousHulk posted:Because imperialism is about stealing other people's poo poo Then it would make no excuse for itself if that’s the only ideology. But in the real world that’s not how it developed. You’ve heard of the poem “White Man’s Burden”? People don’t cast themselves as villains.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 10:40
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:It seems to me that the failure of "the left" or any voting bloc that might support their policies plain and simple comes down to the fact that anyone with that mindset or advocating for those solutions just straight up has no loving money and lacks the support of anyone who does. Money is power and that's it. All the fundraising done by candidates doesn't seem to bear this out, though. Combined hundreds of millions of dollars can achieve things if you do other things then tell people how nice you will be if you are elected. They've heard that message, everyone has, and it just isn't enough. Do something else. You know why Trump got attention? Millions worth of free publicity, the eye of not only media that was on his side but media that wasn't? He poo poo on a lot of people and was controversial because of that. If attention is the problem, start with that. The left's potential targets are deserving of it, too. Gumball Gumption posted:There are lots of left wing religious charity groups in the US. Neither political party wants much to do with them and they themselves don't care about building political movements, they care about feeding hungry people on the street. One of the most radical housing groups I know, they literally just build shelters anywhere someone will let them, is connected to a church and does amazing work with almost no political help or outreach to them from political groups who supposedly say they want to house the homeless. It's not "one weird trick" it is multiple extremely old and normal measures with proven workability both abroad and at home for literal millenia in one form or other. It is entirely the left's own fault if they don't resort into those due to useless moral purity or pointless infighting over irrelevant ideological purity. No outside forces are preventing them from doing them and the way America exists, no outside force could not because an attempt to do so would be just free publicity. But you know, maybe this time buying bunch of ads to tell people how lovely things are if you'll vote for them, and appealing to the material conditions and inherent goodness of everyone will work. Because no outside forces are actually preventing them from doing that either. They've been allowed to do it. Because it achieves nothing and is honestly pathetic by this point. But hey, maybe 11th (?) time is the charm! DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 11:15 on Jun 14, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 11:13
|
|
|
I love how the story of the GOP primaries is mostly just Trump's all-time vindictive streak and getting even with people that he feels didn't win him the 2020 election. Spent his whole presidency settling scores basically and his whole post-presidency and a large wing of his lovely parties plan for America has been about settling one man's petty scores. Not a whole lot of room for policy or at least culture war bullshit is seemingly the secondary priority. After that there's literally nothing though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 12:53
|
|
|
There are things a majority of Americans want, that neither party nor our system will deliver. Many align with the demands of "the left", but Americans hate "the left" despite agreeing with them. I've had several folks who rightfully hate Trump scrunch their face and immediately shut me down when I get to the "socialist" part of DSA. Theyll call socialists nazis or communists.. Our political understanding and culture as it pertains to voters and parties is toxic, and captured in the sense it can be manipulated easily and quickly. Americans are some combination of too loving ignorant misinformed and led by the nose, too apathetic and selfish, and even too comfortable for a leftist (or any appropriate) coalition to gain actual and timely political clout. However, since the majority of us have the same material needs, we simply need people to direct their anger up all together, shut the system down. Now you have leverage, and even without centralized leadership to make demands as we saw in FDRs case concessions suddenly become possible because "continuing to exist" serves the system.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 13:00
|
|
|
BRJurgis posted:There are things a majority of Americans want, that neither party nor our system will deliver. Many align with the demands of "the left", but Americans hate "the left" despite agreeing with them. I've had several folks who rightfully hate Trump scrunch their face and immediately shut me down when I get to the "socialist" part of DSA. Theyll call socialists nazis or communists.. Our political understanding and culture as it pertains to voters and parties is toxic, and captured in the sense it can be manipulated easily and quickly. Yes I've read this thread before so I know all about that one and how posters here feel about it. Like...believe me. I feel like the Democrats have sort of become the conservative party. You know preserve the liberal capitalist system status quo that makes social mobility basically impossible in 2022, occasionally try to pass popular practical legislation but walk it back to something "palatable" to party centrists such that it at best mildly makes life less lovely for everyday Americans instead of actively better. Stuff you'd expect from a typical Conservative party basically. Meanwhile the GOP has leaned so far into far right wing culture wars they're basically only willing to deal with one miniscule aspect of one WASPy group of people's grievances at all anymore and have zero policy interest in running a country beyond enforcing that and settling scores. Big Business? gently caress em' if they won't support our culture wars in lock step and punish them for it politically and financially. Non-White male voters, gently caress em' too and let's chip away at their basic rights with whatever policy decisions we happen to come out with. It's totally okay with them from a policy standpoint to enact policies that cause willful harm as long as it satisfies their pettiness. It's definitely "The choice" as that one image puts it and those are the choices. Anyway where my observations differ from the thread is that I don't see the Democrats as actively out to get leftists, they're just largely indifferent to their concerns because they're running a conservative government...progressive conservative at best maybe as a center-left sometimes center-right political party. The Republicans however do seem just out to get people and settle scores and are anti-democratic (not the party) in the extreme. The constant rhetoric they level against progressive and left leaning ideologies that doesn't even make loving sense to be so vindictive about makes it pretty evident lately. Their whole party platform is a punitive reaction to a caricature of the modern progressive that they've drummed up, tried to attach to the Democrats at large and paint themselves in a great cultural war against. Kale fucked around with this message at 13:16 on Jun 14, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 13:03
|
|
|
The perfect encapsulation of this thread is someone saying they're a Muslim leftist who believes in moral absolutism and this motivated them to help the needy and it leading to an accusation of wanting a Sharia law dictatorship and the accusation moral absolutism is the cause and result of every recent modern war.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 13:08
|
|
|
Here's some more information about where some of that quarter of a billion dollars Trump scammed out of his supporters went. Trump Jr's girlfriend was paid $60,000 from the "election legal defense fund" (that did not exist) several times to give a two minute speech at Trump fundraisers. https://twitter.com/jonathanvswan/status/1536491227197095936
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 13:42
|
|
|
McConnell is going to kill the Supreme Court Justice Security Bill because Democrats expanded the bill to include spouses and children of Justices, Supreme Court staffers, and Law Clerks. The bill makes Supreme Court Justices and those additional groups of people eligible for the same type of overtime/after hours protection as members of Congress can request if they are threatened. https://twitter.com/mikedebonis/status/1536466374469500935 Apparently, he thinks this is a political statement and does not want staffers or law clerks covered. https://twitter.com/mikedebonis/status/1536467379810717697
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 13:55
|
|
|
Good, let it die The Justices should have to live in fear if that’s the world they’re creating for the rest of us
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 13:59
|
|
|
New York State says they are opening an investigation into the Trump fraud allegations. https://twitter.com/NewYorkStateAG/status/1536535752502280193 Also, a majority of Americans say that transgender people should be accepted into American life, but only 30% of Americans think that trans athletes should be allowed to play in female sports. I wish they had asked about trans athletes competing in men's sports to see if the ratio is similar. 68% say trans athletes have an unfair advantage over cis female athletes, 2% say cis female athletes have an unfair advantage over trans athletes, and 30% say that neither of them has an unfair advantage or they don't know if either has an unfair advantage. Weirdly, slightly more people are okay with transwomen athletes competing in high school than they are with them competing in college or professional sports. https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1536676979700813826
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 14:11
|
|
|
Yeah my gay mother in law was saying to my wife the other day that trans women had an unfair advantage, which I strongly disagree with But the options are you either keep things status quo, or you basically tell them that they can’t compete in sports at all, because there are so few of them that they can’t compete separately.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 14:15
|
|
|
BRJurgis posted:There are things a majority of Americans want, that neither party nor our system will deliver. Many align with the demands of "the left", but Americans hate "the left" despite agreeing with them. I've had several folks who rightfully hate Trump scrunch their face and immediately shut me down when I get to the "socialist" part of DSA. Theyll call socialists nazis or communists.. Our political understanding and culture as it pertains to voters and parties is toxic, and captured in the sense it can be manipulated easily and quickly. The thing is, that sort of people are not impossible for the leftists to convince to follow them. They've done it with say, highly religious literal illiterates in Imperial Russia of the early 1900s. I'm going to laugh at any American leftists who claim that the forces arrayed at them are more threatening, the means available to them less, or the people they need to convince any harder to convince. If you're dealing with people too uneducated, unintelligent, tired, distracted or whatever to have listened to your tireless appeals to material realities and the system thus far, then change the message. The present buzzwords don't work outside core believers? Well, ask Lee Atwater what to do in that case. There are synonyms and substitutes for "socialism". They're selfish? Then bank on their fear and self-preservation. Apathetic? Hate doesn't leave time for apathy. Ignorant, misinformed, led by the nose? Then lead them by the nose. Comfortable? Fear works there too. I don't believe that all of that can be exploited by anyone except the left until the left gets off its rear end and at least tries to exploit it instead of wrapping itself in the shield of moral superiority in a fight and the excuse of omnipresent and omnipotent three-letters when they eventually get their asses kicked by the guys who use bats and shanks. DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 14:25 on Jun 14, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 14:17
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Good, let it die which end of the political spectrum do you think is causing the most fear for justices?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 14:40
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:which end of the political spectrum do you think is causing the most fear for justices? The antifa super soldiers in their heads.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 14:42
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:The antifa super soldiers in their heads. I mean that in the tangible sense of which side is sending them the most death threats.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 14:44
|
|
|
I don't think anyone has solid data on that at all. Death threats directed to supreme court judges don't appear to be collated anywhere. Though they're already well protected, it's funny that Mitch thinks adding staff is political when the entire thing is political but he wanted to make it look like the judges were suddenly vulnerable due to the leak but he's clutching pearls when the Dems expand on his logic and push protection to staff as well who currently really are not as well protected.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 14:49
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:McConnell is going to kill the Supreme Court Justice Security Bill because Democrats expanded the bill to include spouses and children of Justices, Supreme Court staffers, and Law Clerks. The bill makes Supreme Court Justices and those additional groups of people eligible for the same type of overtime/after hours protection as members of Congress can request if they are threatened. So basically McConnell wants to be able to hurt people responsible for the leaks. Got it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 14:50
|
|
|
We also don’t know if a Clerk leaked it There are a lot of other people, including Congressional staffers, who would have had access to the draft
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 14:54
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:We also don’t know if a Clerk leaked it Oh I'm sure, but what other reason could their be to NOT protect Justice adjacent folks? He just wants to leave the door open to punish whomever the hell it was.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 14:55
|
|
|
Yes it’s bullshit
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 14:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 06:41 |
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:We also don’t know if a Clerk leaked it There are no congressional staffers who would have access to a draft opinion. The only possible scenario where it wasn't a justice or law clerk is someone from the GAO publishing office who prints the final decisions leaking it before it is public. But, given this was a draft opinion and not the final opinion, there is no way the specific opinion that leaked would have been at the publishing office.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 15:00
|
|