|
mycot
Crazy as fuck


Registered: 05/31/06
Posts: 1,112
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 6 days, 13 hours
|
|
Double post.
Edited by mycot (08/28/21 10:20 PM)
|
mycot
Crazy as fuck


Registered: 05/31/06
Posts: 1,112
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 6 days, 13 hours
|
Re: Coronavirus Chat [Re: mycot]
#27447110 - 08/28/21 10:15 PM (2 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: But just because you don't mention the contradictions that come with saying 'Conservatives are the new rebels', doesn't mean you can just wave them away. I still believe that your confusion comes from reducing the political landscape to 'Dems vs Conservatives'.
"The valuing of freedoms, willingness to question dominant narratives, broadmidedness rather than narrow mindedness, "conspiracy theories" and alternative thinking were at one time associated with the left, now it's more likely to be found with the "conservatives"(although perhaps only in America)."
Consider the above quote; if we consider the response to police brutality, the left is much more likely to be associated with the listed values; if we consider covid-19, then Conservatives are much more likely to be associated with the listed values (except open-mindedness imo).
Even going back through the decades, these values have never been associated with just one political group. Has there ever been a group against freedoms? The difference is what they considered freedoms (freedom to live anywhere in this country vs freedom to segregate). Questioning the dominant narratives and alternative thinking? Sure, we have hippies and punks - but we also have religious cults like the Branch Davidians and anti-government terrorists like Timothy McVeigh. All of these groups go against the dominant narrative going back decades. There is no 'two sides' to politics.
So how can you expand the political landscape to avoid these contradictions?
Well, the most obvious is to not conflate the political left with the Democratic party. If you think the hippies of the '60s or the punks of the '80s were representative of the Democratic party back then, of course it would be confusing to think that it went from the party of rebels to the party of Hillary Clinton - but that's not what happened. The closest the Democratic party has every gotten to radicalism would be, imo, during the civil rights movement - but the Democratic party was decidedly moderate compared to the actual radicals of that time.
Another conflation is the political right with Conservative with the Republican party. You use Joe Rogan as your main example. Sure, Rogan holds some socially conservative views, but he also holds some socially progressive views - why should he be considered a progressive Conservative rather than a conservative Progressive? I don't think that's how he self-identifies. My guess would be that, since Rogan was more supportive of Trump than Biden, you consider him a Republican and therefore a Conservative. Why should he be a better representation of Conservatives than, for example, religious fundamentalists? They have vastly different views on psychedelics compared to Rogan. These contradictions disappear if you don't try to collapse all these things into one tiny package.
Politics isn't composed of two teams who always take opposing sides - it's a series of intersection spectrums. There's conservative vs progressive - do you support traditional beliefs or new ones. Radical vs moderate - do you keep your methods of support within cultural and legal limits? Left vs Right - which originally referred to supporters of the French revolution (Left) or the monarchy (right), but now usually means something like socialism vs reactionarism; it's also probably the most useless of all political labels.
But wait! There's more spectrums. Human societies are complex. Authoritarian vs anarchism; communitarianism vs individualism; clericalism vs anti-clericalism; urban vs rural; interventionism vs isolationism; pacifism vs militancy; multiculturalism vs nationalism; and so on.
Expand your political horizons, and the confusing problem of the Conservatives seemingly being the new rebels goes away. Rebels and toe-the-line'ers exist on both sides of your Democrat vs Conservative dichotomy - always have - always will.
I agree with your first sentence and I don't wave anything away.
If I'm 'reducing the political landscape to 'Dems vs Conservatives' it's because at the end of the day, one of them ends up running the show. Personally I don't give a fuck for either of them. They are both oppressive as far as people are concerned.
Those conflations that you mention of both left and right. Don't most people hold those conflations ? This isn't getting any clearer.
Yes I do use Rogan as an example of a free-thinking human individual who dislikes power over others and values human freedom. I don't know what label to apply to him except maybe freedom-lover and rebel. But for some reason people do associate him with the Republicans. For such an individual and many others with similar values such as hippys etc, which side should they and would they pick ? I'd prefer an answer to this question rather than it being taken as rhetoric. Perhaps only anarchy can satisfy.
Yes there are many spectrums and we may multiply them endlessly ad infintum but that doesn't make things any clearer, just more complex to the point of absurdity.
I'll mention a couple though since they quite central, some of the others may be encompassed by an overall value system. Authoritarian vs anarchism - As far as human freedom is concerned, anarchism wins, we have already got insane levels of authoritarianism. Communitarianism vs individualism - This is a false dichotomy as illustrated by this quote from Charles Hampden Turner 'Maps of the Mind'
Quote - "Ruth Benedict,the anthropologist and poet,is credited with introducing the idea of synergy into social science. She had made an exhaustive comparative study of American Indian communities and felt intuitively that atleast three, the Zuni,the Arapesh and the Dakota,had something vital, secure and likeable about them, while the Chuckchee,the Ojibwa,the Dobu and the Kwakiutl gave her the shivers. She poured over her variables and classifications,the geography, climate, size, whether they were matrilineal or patrilineal and their attitudes to suicide, but nothing worked,either Singly nor in combination. Perhaps because she trusted the poet in her,she looked for the pattern that was in none of the pieces and called it 'synergy'. 'From all comparative material',she wrote,'the conclusion emerges that societies where non-aggression is conspicuous have social orders in which the individual by the same act and at the same time serves his own advantage and that of the group... not because people are unselfish and put social obligations above personal desires,but when social arrangements make these identical.'
|
ballsalsa
Universally Loathed and Reviled



Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 21,259
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
ballsalsa said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: Establishment: people who use their wealth to collectively benefit themselves at the expense of others.
That's just Capitalism. That's literally what capital is and the basis for the entire economic system.
So capitalism is bad?
Bad? Good? Who can say? I think that at best, it has outlived its utility to society
--------------------
Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
|
shivas.wisdom
בּ



Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,462
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 8 hours, 25 minutes
|
Re: Coronavirus Chat [Re: mycot]
#27448083 - 08/29/21 01:07 PM (2 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
"For such an individual and many others with similar values such as hippys etc, which side should they and would they pick ? I'd prefer an answer to this question rather than it being taken as rhetoric. Perhaps only anarchy can satisfy."
I guess we haven't interacted too much yet, but yes - emphatically yes - only anarchy can satisfy.
Now, I'm not suggesting that we have to consider every possible element of political alignment to the point of impracticality - I'm just trying to illustrate why reducing things to a single dichotomy is over simplified, and bound to lead to confusion and contradiction. Somewhere between infinity and one, there's a sweetspot. Even if many people commonly make the same conflations, that's no reason for us to do the same.
On a final note, I fully agree with you that communitarianism vs individualism is not a dichotomy. It was not my intention to portray it as such, but rather as a spectrum. Some ideologies believe individual identity arises through community, and others believe individual identity gives rise to community - but there is no contradiction between individuality and communalism.
--------------------
Edited by shivas.wisdom (08/29/21 02:21 PM)
|
RJ Tubs 202



Registered: 09/20/08
Posts: 6,030
Loc: USA
Last seen: 6 hours, 47 minutes
|
|
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said:
I still don't think you can simplify the political landscape to two opposing sides. How does the massive movement against police violence factor into your rebel dichotomy?
I try to not see everything as black & white, right & left. It's difficult since politics is now seen & sold as a holy war = good vs evil. I try to be consistent.
For example, I don't think George Floyd deserved to be killed because he broke the law (assaulting three law officers) and I don't think Ashli Babbitt deserved to be killed because she broke the law. Side note - some Americans are celebrating the death of both of these people. I don't need to explain further.
BUT, I ponder - could I be convinced that George Floyd and Ashli Babbitt deserved to be killed for their decisions to break the law? I doubt it, but maybe. But I don't think anyone would try to make that argument as each situation has it's own partisan mutually exclusive narrative spun by the media.
|
mycot
Crazy as fuck


Registered: 05/31/06
Posts: 1,112
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 6 days, 13 hours
|
|
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: yes - emphatically yes - only anarchy can satisfy.
You sound like a man after my own heart. 
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: Now, I'm not suggesting that we have to consider every possible element of political alignment to the point of impracticality - I'm just trying to illustrate why reducing things to a single dichotomy is over simplified, and bound to lead to confusion and contradiction. Somewhere between infinity and one, there's a sweetspot. Even if many people commonly make the same conflations, that's no reason for us to do the same.
Fair enough, though all those people holding that perception vastly shape election results and perhaps that is what is wanted. Like the working class man decades ago likely identified more with the left and workers unions and social programs. Nowday, it appears that we are more likely to find him on the right, implying that he had been abandoned. I'm trying (not very well I think) to wrap my head around what American politics is about. I've certainly got the confusion and contradiction down pat - My head hurts. From what you are saying, do you then see it as a matter of single issue politics, or a matter of the populus seeking some balance point between extremes ? Or may we simply view it as a matter of a choice deciding the lesser of two evils ?
|
Neomorph


Registered: 12/10/14
Posts: 767
Loc: Europe
|
Re: Coronavirus Chat [Re: mycot]
#27449416 - 08/30/21 12:11 PM (2 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
|
Brian Jones
Club 27



Registered: 12/18/12
Posts: 12,362
Loc: attending Snake Church
Last seen: 3 hours, 40 minutes
|
|
Quote:
RJ Tubs 202 said:
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said:
I still don't think you can simplify the political landscape to two opposing sides. How does the massive movement against police violence factor into your rebel dichotomy?
I try to not see everything as black & white, right & left. It's difficult since politics is now seen & sold as a holy war = good vs evil. I try to be consistent.
For example, I don't think George Floyd deserved to be killed because he broke the law (assaulting three law officers) and I don't think Ashli Babbitt deserved to be killed because she broke the law. Side note - some Americans are celebrating the death of both of these people. I don't need to explain further.
BUT, I ponder - could I be convinced that George Floyd and Ashli Babbitt deserved to be killed for their decisions to break the law? I doubt it, but maybe. But I don't think anyone would try to make that argument as each situation has it's own partisan mutually exclusive narrative spun by the media.
George Floyd posed no immediate threat to the police while he was being choked to death for many minutes. The officer who killed Ashli Babbit had every reason to think she was an immediate threat to the people it was his job to protect. Floyd was alone and physically subdued; Babbit was part of a crazed mob, and she was breaking down barriers to get further into the capital. The capital police were extremely outnumbered; the Minneapolis police had three other cops standing there watching.
-------------------- "The Rolling Stones will break up over Brian Jones' dead body" John Lennon I don't want no commies in my car. No Christians either. The worst thing about corruption is that it works so well,
Edited by Brian Jones (08/30/21 01:01 PM)
|
Kryptos
Stranger

Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,326
Last seen: 58 minutes, 1 second
|
Re: Coronavirus Chat [Re: mycot]
#27449655 - 08/30/21 02:50 PM (2 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
mycot said: From what you are saying, do you then see it as a matter of single issue politics, or a matter of the populus seeking some balance point between extremes ? Or may we simply view it as a matter of a choice deciding the lesser of two evils ? 
Gerrymandering, especially with modern technology, allows politicians to essentially pick their voters.
This means that the vast majority of elections that take place in the US have already been decided ahead of time. They are "safe" districts. Republicans will keep winning republican districts and democrats will win democratic districts.
What this means is that the real competition is in the primaries, where each party decides their candidates. Now, the type of person that votes in the primaries is the type of person that is very motivated by politics, and is likely closer to a political fringe. As a result, fringe candidates are becoming more and more likely to be elected, because they only need to appeal to their own party. There is no need to appeal to the general population, because the general election was decided during redistricting.
|
mycot
Crazy as fuck


Registered: 05/31/06
Posts: 1,112
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 6 days, 13 hours
|
Re: Coronavirus Chat [Re: Kryptos]
#27449729 - 08/30/21 03:32 PM (2 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
So Kryptos, what you are saying is that American politics is simply a gerrymandering football game to see whether its going to be the red hats or the blue hats that are going to run the show ? And that the labels democrates and republican mean nothing in themselves other than a designation of red team or blue team. That's some weird ass politics. But this doesn't sound right either as one is associated with conservative and the other progressive, whatever those terms mean. 
Edited by mycot (08/30/21 04:17 PM)
|
Kryptos
Stranger

Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,326
Last seen: 58 minutes, 1 second
|
Re: Coronavirus Chat [Re: mycot] 2
#27450007 - 08/30/21 07:30 PM (2 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Exactly. What do those mean?
You mentioned earlier, for example, the valuing of freedoms. What freedoms? Whose freedoms?
For example, mask mandates. What freedom does each side protect, when it comes to mask mandates? What freedom does a mask mandate protect? What freedom does a mask mandate ban protect?
Or, for a significantly more uh, iconic issue: abortion. Who protects whose freedom?
As far as how I see the two parties, they differ on only one real factor, and that is entitlement. The republican party protects historical entitlement-those that once wielded power must continue to wield it, and those that once obeyed must continue to obey. Mask mandates are anathema to the GOP, because wearing a mask to protect others implies that other people are equal and deserving of protection, which to them is not always true. Similarly, abortion implies that a woman's freedom to her body is greater than a man's freedom to father children with that woman, which, again, implies that a woman is equal to a man. Which, to some people, is not true.
The democratic party, on the other hand, focuses less on traditional entitlement. The white male is not automatically the most valuable person to the democratic party.
Now we get to the much more interesting question: the working man. Who protects the working man?
I say neither party. The parties disagree on entitlement, sure, but they agree on one thing: The rich deserve more than the poor. Of course, in republican world, "the rich" are distinctly more, uh, monochromatic than they would be in democratic world, but in both worlds they run the show.
Republicans, obviously, have very little love for unions (except for pro-state unions like the police union) and labor organizing in general. They have very little interest in raising the minimum wage. They don't like any kind of welfare.
Democrats, much like republicans, also have very little love for workers. They just do it in a slightly different way. California is an interesting example. For the last few years, you've almost certainly heard republican think pieces about how people are fleeing California for states with lower taxes, like Texas. And yes, people are leaving California and moving to Texas. What they don't mention is that people are also moving to California. There is an interesting difference between the people that move to California and those that leave California. People moving to California tend to be well educated, and either with a good career or good career prospects, who will soon be making lots of money. People leaving California tend to be uneducated and generally poor. They are being priced out of the state in a statewide display of mass gentrification. California, for all its democratic blue state splendor, is also the face of NIMBYism. Part of why there's a homelessness issue is because California actively resists building any new housing ever.
Democrats, much like Republicans, have no love for the workers. They are simply a little bit more subtle about it. Where republicans are happy to enforce their will through police violence, democrats enforce their will with meaningless trinkets.
Republicans are the boss that says "do this or you're fired". Democrats are the boss that says "do this and we'll have an office pizza party". Neither boss is giving you a raise.
|
Psilynut2
Stranger

Registered: 04/28/17
Posts: 5,189
Last seen: 12 minutes, 23 seconds
|
Re: Coronavirus Chat [Re: Kryptos] 1
#27450184 - 08/30/21 09:44 PM (2 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
ICU's in Louisiana are almost full and they are still whoopin teachers asses in Florida over mask mandates . Should have started a freezer truck rental company .
|
RJ Tubs 202



Registered: 09/20/08
Posts: 6,030
Loc: USA
Last seen: 6 hours, 47 minutes
|
|
Quote:
Brian Jones said:
George Floyd posed no immediate threat to the police while he was being choked to death for many minutes. The officer who killed Ashli Babbit had every reason to think she was an immediate threat to the people it was his job to protect. Floyd was alone and physically subdued; Babbit was part of a crazed mob
In his recent interview Lieutenant Michael Byrd says he shot Ashli because she would not follow his orders. He is very clear there was no indication that she had a weapon or was potentially going to harm him. He defends his right to shoot her although he did not feel she was a threat to him. She disobeyed his orders.
George Floyd assaulted 3 police officers. During the fight, if the police shot George in the head because he did not obey orders, I doubt THEY would be exonerated as Michael Byrd has been. I think the analogy is strong. If cops can shoot people for not obeying orders, let's just admit it and stop crying when it happens.
Regarding "crazed mobs", let's not forget the 30 people murdered by BLM terrorists last year. These people killed were ignored by Joe Biden and NPR, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, BBC, AP, CNN, NY Times, WAPO and so on.
|
RJ Tubs 202



Registered: 09/20/08
Posts: 6,030
Loc: USA
Last seen: 6 hours, 47 minutes
|
Re: Coronavirus Chat [Re: Kryptos]
#27450244 - 08/30/21 11:09 PM (2 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kryptos said:
Part of why there's a homelessness issue is because California actively resists building any new housing ever.
About 80,000 new homes are built in CA each year. I doubt if it was 400,000 many street campers would move into them. One big reason for the increase in tent cities is that the CA government has created special places as they promote a sanctuary atmosphere under freeways. Providing bathrooms & water. These are now established communities.
Then there's Gavin Newsom’s $12 billion plan to get people off the street and put them in old run down hotels!
On another note, there are some indications that millions of people who got Covid and have natural immunity have a more robust immunity defense than folks who received some of the vaccines. Of course this is seen as a huge threat to getting every human jabbed - which is why very few news outlets will ever discuss it.
The approach is to ignore or deny natural immunity so people will feel they MUST get the jab. There can be zero effective treatments so people feel they MUST get the jab. BTW, I heard an interview where someone was harshly criticized for sharing some positive Covid data because that info might INHIBIT folks from getting the shot!
Don't tell the public what is going on or they might choose to not get the shot. It's fascinating to watch.
|
christopera
Stranger


Registered: 10/13/17
Posts: 14,270
Last seen: 8 hours, 32 minutes
|
|
Quote:
RJ Tubs 202 said:
On another note, there are some indications that millions of people who got Covid and have natural immunity have a more robust immunity defense than folks who received some of the vaccines. Of course this is seen as a huge threat to getting every human jabbed - which is why very few news outlets will ever discuss it.
The approach is to ignore or deny natural immunity so people will feel they MUST get the jab. There can be zero effective treatments so people feel they MUST get the jab. BTW, I heard an interview where someone was harshly criticized for sharing some positive Covid data because that info might INHIBIT folks from getting the shot!
lol wut? The reason people prefer the jab is that the side effects are nearly zero, as opposed to getting the sickness.
-------------------- Enjoy the process of your search without succumbing to the pressure of the result. A Dorito is pizza, change my mind. Bank and Union with The Shroomery at the Zuul on The internet - now with %'s and things I’m sorry it had to be me.
|
feevers


Registered: 12/28/10
Posts: 8,546
Loc:
|
|
I love the "no one is talking about this" argument RJ loves to use, when a simple google search shows tons of people reporting on it ans talking about it. Anecdotes are awesome as well.
Another reason for the vaccine is that it's predictable and easier to manage. A company can look at your vaccine card, how do you prove that you had COVID? What if you were never tested? Was your infection robust enought to activate lasting immunity? What if it was a false positive? This is all much better controlled with a safe and effective vaccine. Once we know more about the duration of immunity there's probably a good argument for antibody titer proof being used though.
|
Mach z 800
Stranger


Registered: 12/04/15
Posts: 1,580
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
|
Re: Coronavirus Chat [Re: feevers]
#27450513 - 08/31/21 07:02 AM (2 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Get your 5 shots an wear 5 mask an you will be just fine.
|
anatomality
Nothern Counterpart



Registered: 05/31/20
Posts: 1,354
Loc: North East
Last seen: 11 days, 20 hours
|
|
I hate how a virus has become politics.
Fuck man.
* edit to actually contribute something:
Do your countries have 'vaccine passports' ?
Our is implemented in September, a QR code to show the double doses, or total exclusion from public spaces (businesses, everything...)
I'm gonna participate in it (use it to go places), but man, this is a whole thing.
-------------------- “The strength of a person's spirit would then be measured by how much 'truth' he could tolerate, or more precisely, to what extent he needs to have it diluted, disguised, sweetened, muted, falsified.”
Edited by anatomality (08/31/21 07:13 AM)
|
Kryptos
Stranger

Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,326
Last seen: 58 minutes, 1 second
|
|
Quote:
RJ Tubs 202 said:
Quote:
Kryptos said:
Part of why there's a homelessness issue is because California actively resists building any new housing ever.
About 80,000 new homes are built in CA each year. I doubt if it was 400,000 many street campers would move into them. One big reason for the increase in tent cities is that the CA government has created special places as they promote a sanctuary atmosphere under freeways. Providing bathrooms & water. These are now established communities.
Sounds great! 80,000 homes per year, wow! Too bad the population of California has grown by 240,000 per year during the last ten years. There's enough new homes for an entire 25% of the people that moved there.
Quote:
anatomality said: I hate how a virus has become politics.
Fuck man.
* edit to actually contribute something:
Do your countries have 'vaccine passports' ?
Our is implemented in September, a QR code to show the double doses, or total exclusion from public spaces (businesses, everything...)
I'm gonna participate in it (use it to go places), but man, this is a whole thing.
Biden is anti-covid. Republicans are anti-Biden. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
It's the Obama playbook all over again. Republican strategy since '94 has been "stop the Democrats at all costs". If that means allying themselves with one of the deadliest viruses in recent memory, then they will ally themselves with a deadly virus.
|
ballsalsa
Universally Loathed and Reviled



Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 21,259
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
|
I love watching you twist yourself into these insane logical pretzels. Tell me more about the benefits of getting sick as a defense against sickness and how much that is preferable to being vaccinated as a defense against sickness. I want to understand how that makes sense in your reality.
--------------------
Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
|
|