|
The Sean posted:For 1 To be clear, I was only referencing the link in the quoted post which had a timeline from the HRC of things the Biden admin did. Nothing I was posting about was executive orders, they're administrative rulemaking and different actions from what you're posting now, which I guess shows that Biden's doing even more stuff-- 1. The finalized rule from the link is https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2024-00091.pdf and 3. HCR didn't provide a link, but looking through the Fed Register, I'm pretty sure it's this one: https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...s-iv-e-and-iv-b Both of which are concrete actions that legitimate help lgbt people. as far as 2. I'm ambivalent about it myself, but I don't think it should be dismissed as merely performative since I think that sort of performative work shows normies that lgbt people aren't demons from the pit of hell. As far as the EOs go, for the first one-- it's a little more complicated. Bostock v. Clayton does provide the legal background for protection of lgbt+ minorities, but that EO is what executes it. For the other one, I'll note that language like "shall consider whether to issue guidance" isn't a suggestion, it's an order. Shall consider means HHS is legally required to factually determine whether issuing that guidance will meet the policy goals of that section of the EO and lay out their reasoning for why it would or would not. Presumably it does (it's hard to see how it wouldn't) so this is essentially ordering HHS to make rules barring the use of "conversion therapy" in federally funded programs. With regards to comparison to weapons sales, Biden is exercising his power more or less to the same extent. But none of these things are suggestions, these are legal orders which require specific concrete actions to be taken. Edit to add: My point here isn't that any given person should vote for or against Biden. Everybody has different priorities and weighs different policies differently. My point is that when you are weighing policies, you should do so correctly. Saying that Biden is offering suggestions and empty performances when it comes to something you support and pulling all the stops for things you oppose might make the decision feel easier, but that's not accurate read of what his administration is doing. If you look at these actions as the concrete acts they are and say it still doesn't outweigh Biden's policy vis-a-vis the Palestinians (or other issues) and that voting for him is still a bridge too far, that's fine. I may not agree with your assessment, but I don't think it's a wild position to hold. But! it's important to understand that you are making a tradeoff of very real policies and acts in how the government operates that almost certainly have saved lives not just empty platitudes; and understand that those policies and acts will come to an end under Trump. It's the same tradeoff that everyone makes by engaging politically. Minimizing good things that Biden does is just tricking yourself into believing that you're making the morally pure decision, but there isn't one. Dopilsya fucked around with this message at 15:57 on Mar 9, 2024 |
#
?
Mar 9, 2024 15:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 10:47 |
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:He’s not going to. The idea of Democracy as religion in the context of American politics was a Niebuhr piece title Democracy as religion published in Christianity in Crisis. It’s not some loving fringe concept. You are citing a specialist newsletter editorial from 1947 as your source for a non-fringe definition of a concept, when you could look it up on wikipedia and see you have it exactly inverted, and that even in the nonsectarian American context, your definition still isn't relevant. If you have read the editorial you are citing as he basis, you are aware that Niebuhr spends only the first couple paragraphs on the idea of democracy as religion (not a civic religion), a notion he introduces entirely to criticize as something he heard in recent uncited commencement speeches, so he can talk up Christianity's needed role as civic religion. Additionally, Niebuhr is not the source of the claim that democracy is the American religion; at a minimum Thomas Davidson was writing about it in 1899. He does so more cogently than Niebuhr does (admittedly a low bar), but the claim is itself such a fringe one that even from Davidson it bordered on thought experiment. You really, really need to read anything by literally anyone other than the midcentury Thomas Friedman. If you had read any other author or source on the subject, or employed google, you would know that civic religion is the state incorporation of external religious elements. Participation in or belief in engagement with civic functions tied to the structure of the state is not considered a religious belief. It only made sense, even for Davidson, as a contrast with monarchic civic religion. To the degree that the argument is raised today by authoritarians and by Niebuhr in the 1940s, it is to argue for the moral degradation of society in the absence of traditional moral religious authority or to undermine the concept of liberal democracy by painting it as a subject of blind faith.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2024 03:42
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:midcentury Thomas Friedman. First Niebuhr isn’t some midcentury Thomas Friedman. For context here, Niebuhr write Moral Man and Immoral Society which King references in Letter from Birmingham Jail, Niebuhr idea that groups are less moral than individuals underlies Kings idea that we have responsibility to oppose unjust laws, explicitly because King says so in the letter. Further Niebuhr was the head of Union Seminary (in Harlem) for many decades. He sent Seminary students to study in India the nonviolent resistance movement with Ghandi. That’s how that enters the African American churches. Later he writes The Irony of American History which is the internal criticism of the US in the Cold War. LBJ gave him the medal of Freedom. So when DV hand waves away his importance ya know have the context in mind. Especially don’t go on think about the direct influence his ideas had on US foreign policy. Anyway enough about him for the moment. Discendo Vox posted:To the degree that the argument is raised today by authoritarians and by Niebuhr in the 1940s, it is to argue for the moral degradation of society in the absence of traditional moral religious authority or to undermine the concept of liberal democracy by painting it as a subject of blind faith. When you read this argument ask if I am doing this? DV is assuming I’m doing something he doesn’t like other people doing. If anyone other than DV thinks I am I’d like to know. Part of the problem here is that some of the conversants have a very very different understanding of basic religious concepts. DV isn’t aware of this having not participated in those conversation and not having a background in theology. Let’s look to another theologian MLK studied (wrote his doctorate about actually) Tillich. What is Faith? Faith is “Ultimate Concern for”. (Dynamics of Faith). When one sees the idea that Faith is belief without proof, that’s a garbage straw man. The real concept of faith is much more akin to a dynamic struggle with what matters to us more than anything else. The back and forth of wrestling with belief and doubt (and doubt demonstrates concern). The object of faith is what one is ultimately concerned with. DV thinks thinks these concepts of religion critiquing government as a civic faith goes back to 1899 . Again there is context he is unaware of. Christianity has been criticizing civic religion as long as it has existed. The Christmas story is a religious critique of civil religion (it is an inversion of an Emperors birth narrative) Theology is filled with critiques of civic religion eg Augustine and City of God. Religious apology of the early church is between the logocentric early Christian and the Stoic’s with their Logos and is about participation in the civic religion of the times. This listing could go on endlessly. DV wants to pretend that only authoritarians and conservatives do it. No, there are thousands of years of thought about government as civic religion and it’s a hugely diverse topic. Anyway circling back around. Discendo Vox posted:Participation in or belief in engagement with civic functions tied to the structure of the state is not considered a religious belief. Participation in symbolic acts, shared by a group or community, that we consider to have meaning, that’s very much religion. And you very much want to protect those civic functions, and you very much are deeply concerned with our democracy. Thinking about democracy as religion isn’t a threat to what you want to protect nor is it a threat your object of concern. You demonstrate how much our democracy matters to you though your anger. It matters and is clearly intensely important to you. Look at your own relationship to the idea of democracy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2024 05:12
|
|
|
The Sean posted:I did and I maintain my thoughts on the matter. It might not matter to you. It matters to me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2024 10:29
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:Participation in symbolic acts, shared by a group or community, that we consider to have meaning, that’s very much religion. The thing I find most interesting in this Good series of posts is the implication that people who talk about civil religion "want to undermine [it]," because it gets to the heart of this in a very specific way. Are the "people who are raising this argument" and therefore trying to "undermine the concept of liberal democracy" physically interfering with the machinery of liberal democracy? Are they smashing voting machines, bulldozing the locations where you vote, defacing the iconography of the great fathers, such as the image of George Washington ascending into heaven, which has a prominent place in the capital building? Is this "undermining" a material activity?  Well, no. The way people bringing up the argument are "undermining the concept of liberal democracy" is by spreading doubt. Say what you will about all the other aspects of the argument (which I think Probably Magic and Bar Ran Dun are covering rather interestingly), but trying to defend liberal democracy as not being a civic religion by appealing to the fact that our enemies will cause people to doubt it and disbelieve in it is extremely funny. If anyone is really interested in the issue of defining a civic religion, there's a pretty interesting paper called "The Relevance of the Concept of Civil Religion from a (West) German Perspective." that can be found online in it's totality that goes over the debate using a specific, local context. Some of the more interesting bits: quote:Luhmann sees civil religion as guaranteeing the state and integrating its citizens, as demanded by Böckenförde. For him, civil religion represents a minimum of shared religious elements including the recognition of core values like liberty, democracy, and fairness. In his social systems theory, civil religion relates to the overall system as a mode of communication between the different sub-systems, for example law, politics, or academia (although it works differently in all sub-systems). In fact, to Luhmann, civil religion rules supreme over religion, which, like Talcott Parsons, Bellah’s Ph.D. supervisor, Luhmann identifies as structure-preserving. Ultimately, to Luhmann, civil religion better adapts to the growing generalization in differentiated societies and reduces complexity. Hence, in his theory, civil religion replaces religion. quote:Similarly, political scientists Roland Benedikter and Georg Göschl call for a unifying European (secular) civil religion with a transnationally and transethnically defined set of values such as democracy, freedom, and human rights, all of which the authors historically identify as decidedly “European ideals.” This civil religion should focus on European cultural, political, social, and economic achievements forging a sense of unity and solidarity among European nations (Benedikter and Göschl 2014; see also Hildebrandt 2006; Nix 2012). However, how this civil religion should come into being remains unclear, especially in view of recent populist gains. Already in 2001, the legal scholar Michael Heinig pointed to the failure of a project by the European Commission in the 1990s to create some kind of European civil religion (Heinig 2001). In 2014, Benedikter and Göschl were still hoping for a top-down project by the European Commission (Benedikter and Göschl 2014). Which, I think, illustrates exactly where Probably Magic and Bar Ran Dun are coming from. The entire reason that "liberal democracy" and "religion" can jockey for first place is because they are competing for the same turf - the set of basic values that under-gird our society. And of course, in that case, in can be undermined by doubt - if people stop believing in "liberty, democracy, and fairness" as unifying values that we all agree on, it does, in fact, undermine the whole process. (A careful reader might notice that part of the reason this thread exists is because people have started to doubt the efficacy of the system and the universalism of it's basic values!) (There is, by the way, an interesting part of the paper on that mentions how some political theorists described post-war German churches as "folk churches" who spread the basic values of the post-war German civil religion - in other words, the competition goes both ways!)
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2024 11:22
|
|
|
There's a difference between a religion and a set of axioms.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2024 13:00
|
|
|
Mormon Star Wars posted:(A careful reader might notice that part of the reason this thread exists is because people have started to doubt the efficacy of the system and the universalism of it's basic values!) Right and why does that happen? Years ago one of the subjects my wife was interested in and studied was what happens when undergrads goto university and study religion. Right out if the gate they give them biblical criticism. This breaks a lot of folks, especially evangelical and fundamentalist folks. They have serious doubt and they leave Christianity. Naive idealism encountering first real criticism and analysis basically unprepared. But there is another set of people for which it’s just not a problem, because they’ve had basic introductions to Theology and have an understanding of how we construct our relationships with meaning. Doubt isn’t a big deal once one has that, it’s sublimated into faith as a part of of faith. The irony (ha!) here is that by understanding Democracy as a civic religion one gets intellectual tool(s) that can be used to protect it! DV is fighting against a way to get what he wants. And Democracy does need protection right now! Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 19:57 on Mar 10, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2024 19:54
|
|
|
The problem is that Democracy as a system for deciding things is increasingly resistant to change and to the thing that makes it useful in terms of taking in different ideas, making them more suited for the majority, and then spitting them back out. When things become increasingly zero sum you end up in a situation where people go "Well if I can't get this officially, I will look elsewhere".
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2024 20:14
|
|
|
“ In the face of the split between classes, the democratic belief in harmony as held by the bourgeois is shattered; in the face of bourgeois class rule, democratic belief in harmony as held by socialism collapses.” (The Socialist Decision, 1933)
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2024 20:47
|
|
|
So I haven’t brought a specific book up on purpose, The Children of Light and the Children of Darkness. It rather in depth digs into this question of how do we justify and support democracy. I’d been kicking around starting a thread on Moral Man (and have even written a few effort posts) but this thread has convinced me Children is the better book to go through with a fine tooth comb. Anyway when I get around to it I’ll link to it here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2024 03:47
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:You don’t live here though. If your armed forces left my country and your ministry of foreign affairs stopped interfering in our politics posters from other countries would have a lot less reasons to care about the happenings in America. American electoral politics affects the sovereignty and the politics of several other countries unfortunately because your government and various American groups have decided to involve themselves in the affairs of other countries. The voters of America could solve the issue by replacing your elected representatives with people more focused on your own country but unfortunately the voters in America seem to be too busy doing whatever it is Americans do to do that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 21:01
|
|
|
Jon Pod Van Damm posted:but unfortunately the voters in America seem to be too busy doing whatever it is Americans do to do that. being disenfranchised, mostly
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 21:18
|
|
|
Jon Pod Van Damm posted:I may not live in your neck of the woods but your armed forces is over here in my country so your government have made your government's business my business. Right our elections and especially the presidential election are unique because the consequences are global and we should be more engaged and participate in them more because the consequences are higher for everyone.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2024 05:24
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:Right our elections and especially the presidential election are unique because the consequences are global and we should be more engaged and participate in them more because the consequences are higher for everyone. I mean even local poo poo like school board elections have huge impact on your life if you have kids or care about someone who does.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2024 05:25
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:Right our elections and especially the presidential election are unique because the consequences are global and we should be more engaged and participate in them more because the consequences are higher for everyone. See this is the thing, I am unsure as to how choosing who helms the empire changes the underlying assumptions of Imperialism. It may be different in terms of what is done, but the involvement of the USA in various places does not change because the structures are still there. Like a waterwheel, the empire continues to turn regardless of who is in charge of it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2024 08:11
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:See this is the thing, I am unsure as to how choosing who helms the empire changes the underlying assumptions of Imperialism. It may be different in terms of what is done, but the involvement of the USA in various places does not change because the structures are still there. That’s the problem with only looking at the 10000 foot view when it comes to policies. It makes it so easy to broad brush and pretend like nothing matters because X will still occur. Especially when it’s as mammoth of an issue like your example of imperialism. That would be impossible for any single president to completely solve for a variety of issues. That’s why I think it’s better to zoom in and see all of the differences in candidates. Along with what specific things they have done in their political career. I feel like this is similar to the examples Bar Ran Dun stated in their prior post that you had responded to. After that, I think it becomes a lot clearer to see the benefit of participating instead of sitting on the sidelines/only casting protest votes/etc. Especially since, for most people, it’s such a low effort task to do Kalit fucked around with this message at 14:15 on Mar 30, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2024 14:04
|
|
|
Kalit posted:That’s the problem with only looking at the big picture when it comes to policies. It makes it so easy to broad brush and pretend like nothing matters because X will still occur. Especially when it’s as mammoth of an issue like your example of imperialism. That would be impossible for any single president to completely solve for a variety of issues. This is the thing you seem to believe that this makes it necessary to vote for a lesser evil because nothing can be done about those big issues by any singular individual. The overarching problem must be fixed by doing things outside of the current structure, as much as possible. I think that looking at things holistically as a whole instead of zooming in to such an extent that you miss the other things being done by a candidate/structure. Fundamentally this is a large divide and I am unsure can be bridged.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2024 14:15
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:This is the thing you seem to believe that this makes it necessary to vote for a lesser evil because nothing can be done about those big issues by any singular individual. The overarching problem must be fixed by doing things outside of the current structure, as much as possible. What current country has done enough for you to be satisfied with the 10000 foot view? I cannot think of a single one. So, if I adopted your viewpoint on this, it seems weird to hold out hope and think “one day”. Especially since voting does not interfere with doing things outside the system either, such as activism, grassroots organizing, etc Kalit fucked around with this message at 14:24 on Mar 30, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2024 14:19
|
|
|
Kalit posted:What current country has done enough for you to be satisfied with the 10000 foot view? I cannot think of a single one. This seems like an unsatisfactory answer. If no one can provide a good example, if we grant your hypothesis, then one need never be presented? We can argue that it all went sideways around the time when Ike made the speech about the military-industrial complex and how he saw that as a Bad Thing, but the POTUSes since have also wielded immense power, and it isn't an unreasonable ask to say they should be held to high scrutiny. If someone doesn't vote for anyone for that office, it doesn't invalidate their choice by simply saying "every other nation is crap too, what do you want from me, I'm walking 'ere?" Does withholding that vote make a difference? Probably not, but it seems like a reasonable argument that if someone wishes to abstain from voting for all the bad poop, they should be free to do so, without anyone scolding them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2024 14:40
|
|
|
Kalit posted:What current country has done enough for you to be satisfied with the 10000 foot view? I cannot think of a single one. Does that have any relevance whatsoever? Is there any national party that I would vote for at the moment in my own nation depends on the candidate and what they are aiming to do. If they are talking about destroying those structures in some way then I may well vote or support them. But again, I have to turn this around and ask if you are as cross with people not being directly supportive of policies as much as you are at politicians ignoring demands/ out and out lying to people. One day is never, but we still work on it. In the same way that someone will never be perfect but we can work towards it. Ultimately if the structure makes it easier to kill someone than feed them, something more is required than interest rates changes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2024 14:54
|
|
|
Rappaport posted:This seems like an unsatisfactory answer. If no one can provide a good example, if we grant your hypothesis, then one need never be presented? I think you're mistaking my argument for a "vote blue, no matter who" argument. First of all, I was talking about elections in general, as that was what Bar Ran Dun had stated (with an emphasis on POTUS). But regardless of that, I'm talking about not writing off all elections for a reason that's impossible to solve with a single election. That's different than stating "you must vote for the D in every single election, every single time". Hell, I voted for a 3rd party in the 2012 election. And I would do the same again. However, that's because I looked at the main candidates, their views, and what they've done. I didn't write them off because of some reason like "they're going to continue imperialism", because that's literally every serious presidential candidate. And it will continue to be the case for the foreseeable future. Josef bugman posted:Does that have any relevance whatsoever? Is there any national party that I would vote for at the moment in my own nation depends on the candidate and what they are aiming to do. If they are talking about destroying those structures in some way then I may well vote or support them. The reason I brought up that example is because you're taking your ball and going home. You seem to be refusing to participate in something that's concretely meaningful to a lot of people because you want to hold out hope in something that literally has never been achieved in the entire world. You can still work on an idealistic future while doing something as simple as voting. One doesn't negate the other.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2024 15:48
|
|
|
I didn't mean to suggest you were making a call for Team D no matter what, I apologize. I vote in (somewhat less important) elections every chance I get, and I understand voting third party in the US. Everyone posting in Dungeons and Debates that cares enough about voting probably does, I just meant that your specific argument, which I probably misread, that because no nation is perfect therefore abstaining from voting is a poor choice. Which does not seem to follow, not voting can be a valid choice for many reasons, moral ones among them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2024 16:01
|
|
|
Kalit posted:The reason I brought up that example is because you're taking your ball and going home. You seem to be refusing to participate in something that's concretely meaningful to a lot of people because you want to hold out hope in something that literally has never been achieved in the entire world. You can still work on an idealistic future while doing something as simple as voting. One doesn't negate the other. Again, I ask you if you are this concerned about powerful people doing worse things than a single, far less powerful, person doing something other than expressing support for the structure. It may be concretely meaningful to many people, that is their decision and I am okay with that. But is me going "No, and I will work against this structure" not also okay? Is it that moral qualms should be a matter of popular vote? But the thing is one does undercut the other in practical terms. Again if I were to vote Labour or Tory at the next election I would be supporting transphobes who want to make things worse of working people whilst giving out money to the wealthy. Why then is the onus on me to change my own behaviour instead of those with more power?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2024 16:24
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Again, I ask you if you are this concerned about powerful people doing worse things than a single, far less powerful, person doing something other than expressing support for the structure. It may be concretely meaningful to many people, that is their decision and I am okay with that. But is me going "No, and I will work against this structure" not also okay? Is it that moral qualms should be a matter of popular vote? Honestly, I still have no idea what you're asking. What do you mean by "concerned"? I'll take a stab to what I think you're asking. This is a thread about electoralism, which is why I'm talking about my thoughts regarding it. I wouldn't start ranting about it if someone casually mentions they're not voting in an upcoming election to me in a conversation. People can have whatever thoughts they want about it. If my opinion is asked or if it's the basis of a topic, such as here, that's when I'll share my thoughts. As far as your last question, I don't know enough about UK politics to answer your question. I will say that if the choice in a presidential election here in the US was between 2 people who were actively seeking out to strip rights away from the transgender community, I would probably be hesitant to vote for either of them. But, luckily, we haven't been in that predicament in the recent past.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2024 17:52
|
|
|
Kalit posted:
Hesitant but you still would? See, this, ultimately, is where we are having difficulties. Because ythere are lines which you will not cross, but do you think others can have the same and them be at different places than you and it still be valid?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2024 18:01
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:It might not matter to you. It matters to me. It does matter to me. It doesn't matter to Biden, though. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/u-s-embassies-banned-from-flying-pride-flags-new-government-spending-bill/ He approved banning pride flags. What a champion of the movement.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2024 18:59
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:See this is the thing, I am unsure as to how choosing who helms the empire changes the underlying assumptions of Imperialism. It may be different in terms of what is done, but the involvement of the USA in various places does not change because the structures are still there. Yeah I’m gunna get that other thread started and it’ll deal with some of that. Works just been too busy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2024 19:07
|
|
|
The Sean posted:It does matter to me. You seem to be unaware that Biden did not write that bill, the REPUBLICAN-CONTROLLED HOUSE did. You also seem to be unable to understand the concept of spending bills, or are unaware that Presidents specifically are legally banned from individually vetoing specific lines and therefore the only way to remove that part would be to veto the entire big package, start the budget process all over again and hope the Republicans don't just put the exact same provision in again. In other words, your post does not reflect well on you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2024 19:10
|
|
|
Stabbey_the_Clown posted:You seem to be unaware that Biden did not write that bill, the REPUBLICAN-CONTROLLED HOUSE did. You also seem to be unable to understand the concept of spending bills, or are unaware that Presidents specifically are legally banned from individually vetoing specific lines and therefore the only way to remove that part would be to veto the entire big package, start the budget process all over again and hope the Republicans don't just put the exact same provision in again. "Signed by President Biden" (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2024 19:11
|
|
|
The Sean posted:"Signed by President Biden" Oh, sorry. Apparently I wasn't clear enough with my explanation. Let me try again: You're a moron. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2024 19:14
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:Yeah I’m gunna get that other thread started and it’ll deal with some of that. Works just been too busy. Thank you! And sorry for wittering, if you could provide a link when it's done that'd be grand!
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2024 19:45
|
|
|
Stabbey_the_Clown posted:Oh, sorry. Apparently I wasn't clear enough with my explanation. Let me try again: Apparently I wasn't clear enough: I know how the process works and that he didn't write the bill. He signed it. Buck stops with him. Edit: I'm not even sure if you're following the conversation or just jumping in to throw a fit with no context. Biden is not a champion for the lgbtq+ community, is what is being discussed. And it is one of the reasons I am protesting voting for Biden. The Sean fucked around with this message at 20:11 on Mar 30, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2024 19:55
|
|
|
The Sean posted:Apparently I wasn't clear enough: Okay, so you expect Biden to veto the entire budget bill over that one line. Do you have a plan to stop the Republicans from putting that line in the next budget they put forth, and the next, and the next, until the debt ceiling is reached? You've vastly oversimplifying the issue to the point of absurdity. Budgets are imperfect, and they're especially difficult to put together with a split House and Senate. You don't have to like that part got into the bill, I don't like that part being in the bill either. However, your viable choices for President are either Joe Biden, or a member of a party which is openly anti-LGBTQ+ and passing bills to that effect in states all over the country. The way to get more LGBTQ champions, the way to get that crap out of budget bills is to get more Democrats elected. I don't see how you get to where you want from your methods.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2024 20:44
|
|
|
Stabbey_the_Clown posted:Okay, so you expect Biden to veto the entire budget bill over that one line. Do you have a plan to stop the Republicans from putting that line in the next budget they put forth, and the next, and the next, until the debt ceiling is reached? You've vastly oversimplifying the issue to the point of absurdity. Budgets are imperfect, and they're especially difficult to put together with a split House and Senate. Cool for all that. I'm happy to respond after you respond to the original discussion instead of gishgalloping around it. Biden is not a champion for lgbtq+ persons. That is my claim. Feel free to interact with it. As for the topic of the thread, this type of lack of support doesn't inspire me to vote for a candidate. The Sean fucked around with this message at 21:10 on Mar 30, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2024 20:57
|
|
|
Stabbey_the_Clown posted:Oh, sorry. Apparently I wasn't clear enough with my explanation. Let me try again: One doesn't need to solely blame Biden to see something like this as a damning indictment of our system. It's not just about this specific issue, this flag. It's unacceptable compromises the whole way down because "this is how this works". The machine demands compromise. The market will be served first. The empire requires genocide. Justice and sustainability are not compatible with this, and to argue better things aren't realistically possible is little defense (however accurate). As we suffer more consequences of late stage capitalism and automation, of overshoot (and the general unraveling of what we've left of the natural world we rely on), things will become more desperate, more inequitable, more exploitative. What electorate would accept, would reward imposed sacrifice (or even minor inconvenience) when things get worse and they still see the rich getting richer? Hell, right up to whomever the second richest motherfucker is. Stability and progress are perverted. They can not be our priorities when this is our trajectory.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2024 21:04
|
|
|
The Sean posted:Cool for all that. I'm happy to respond after you respond to the original discussion instead of gishgalloping around it. What is your goal in making your claim? What is the policy outcome you are seeking? Am I supposed to believe that with a Republican party which is practically trying to make LGBTQ+ citizens non-persons with all the laws they're passing in multiple states, that you really, really need some additional incentive to try and keep a Republican out of office? EDIT: Well, if you're not going to answer my simple question, then I'm not going to engage in this discussion any further. Stabbey_the_Clown fucked around with this message at 21:35 on Mar 30, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2024 21:27
|
|
|
Stabbey_the_Clown posted:What is your goal in making your claim? What is the policy outcome you are seeking? Like I said: Feel free to interact with my claim. Asking what my goal is is not interacting with my claim. quote:EDIT: Well, if you're not going to answer my simple question, then I'm not going to engage in this discussion any further. Yeah, your bullying tactics aren't working on me Glad you noticed. If you feel like returning to the conversation by responding to what I said instead of demanding that I only respond to things you personally ask after ignoring my stated claim then feel free to come back with your head up. Until then, you're coming off as a gishgallop that won't respond to what I've said. Take your ball and go home. I'll stay on the court. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) The Sean fucked around with this message at 21:50 on Mar 30, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2024 21:31
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Hesitant but you still would? See, this, ultimately, is where we are having difficulties. Because ythere are lines which you will not cross, but do you think others can have the same and them be at different places than you and it still be valid? It's unlikely, but it could be possible. For an easy example of a similar situation, if Obama would have been a lot different in some of his views (supported medicare for all, ending overseas wars, etc), I probably would have voted for him in 2008 and 2012. And that's acknowledging that he was still against gay marriage, which I've always been deeply in support of. To summarize, I don't consider a vote a full endorsement of a person's complete moral compass. If that was the case, I could never ever vote in any election unless I was running in it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2024 22:03
|
|
|
Kalit posted:It's unlikely, but it could be possible. For an easy example of a similar situation, if Obama would have been a lot different in some of his views (supported medicare for all, ending overseas wars, etc), I probably would have voted for him in 2008 and 2012. And that's acknowledging that he was still against gay marriage, which I've always been deeply in support of. This is the thing though, if you accept that it does exist then it's just an argument about degree and becomes a purely personal line of preference. This is the thing though, the vote doesn't matter as anything other than a show of support and what it can practically do. Which is not a lot. You can make a level of compromise about it, but it still exists.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2024 22:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 10:47 |
|
|
Josef bugman posted:This is the thing though, if you accept that it does exist then it's just an argument about degree and becomes a purely personal line of preference. Votes are how people win elections.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2024 22:38
|
|