US Politics Thread

[Federberg]

You may not like "facile" or "reactionary," (though I do think your position on the trans issue favors a return to the status quo, so it qualifies.) But I didn't call you "butt-hurt," or a little girl. Or suggest you come back when you're all "growed up." I'm not quite sure why you think I'm adopting "full Gen Z," because there's nothing especially 21st C. about my positions. But I'll work on my editorializing, if you'll work on the insults. Deal?

There is no deal, you child. I don't come directly at you if you don't come at me. It's ever been thus. If you want to continue along this path do so. Just end the whining and trying to cast yourself as a victim when I respond, that's really the only bothersome thing. Your lack of accountability for the responses you provoke is the very essence of the problem with Gen Z, which was my reference.

You progressives will continue to fractionalise society into smaller and smaller identity groups for no other purpose than you can do so. You don't make the world a better place, it's certainly not happier. There is no discernible over arching principle that you people appear to want to achieve. You just seem to believe that everything that existed before was bad. It's the most fucking retarded ideology. I can excuse the kids, they don't know better, but I reserve my utter contempt for people of your age

 

[Kieran]

If it doesn't feel organic, then that's because it isn't organic. It's driven top-down, and at speed. The incoming economy has been defined around ESG. It's all in black and white on the UN and WEF websites. The likes of the BBC, Fox and CNN aren't going to tell you - go and look at the text in the treaties, and the other legislation passed or finalised. The puppets are in a rush to meet certain 2025 and 2030 deadlines by any means necessary. That's why the same things are happening in the "Western" nations regardless of "perceived" political leanings. As a Klaus Schwab said himself - it's a Tsumani of change.

Sign up, login and do some research:

The World Economic Forum

Welcome to the United Nations

www.un.org

Someday I’ll gonna deep dive into this stuff when I have time, but tented was referring to pronouns being enforced on an employee. Is that mentioned in these websites?

 

[Kieran]

You progressives will continue to fractionalise society into smaller and smaller identity groups for no other purpose than you can do so.

Well, the purpose is to dismantle it, create division. Leave it in pieces. Destroy it. It’s a revolutionary purpose. This is why I’m always saying that the cure to todays political malaise is a strong conservative movement, to push back. The left certainly aren’t going to push back against a problem they refuse to see…

 

[Federberg]

Well, the purpose is to dismantle it, create division. Leave it in pieces. Destroy it. It’s a revolutionary purpose. This is why I’m always saying that the cure to todays political malaise is a strong conservative movement, to push back. The left certainly aren’t going to push back against a problem they refuse to see…

I think you're being charitable to say that there's a purpose. It seems fairly clear that there's an arms race, where victimhood is the currency, find a marginalised grouping of which you're a part, and you're the winner. But step back and look at the bigger picture there's nothing. No moral or rational philosophy that underpins any of it. I'll be happy to hear a guiding philosophy or principle driving all of this. I've been waiting to hear one with interest for years...

 

[Kieran]

I think you're being charitable to say that there's a purpose. It seems fairly clear that there's an arms race, where victimhood is the currency, find a marginalised grouping of which you're a part, and you're the winner. But step back and look at the bigger picture there's nothing. No moral or rational philosophy that underpins any of it. I'll be happy to hear a guiding philosophy or principle driving all of this. I've been waiting to hear one with interest for years...

I agree with this and certainly for the general unthinking tribalist, they’re simply following what they’re told, ask no questions, believe all lies. They’ll defend their tribe because they’re conditioned to see the others as evil, nazi, depraved, whatever. They buy into the false compassion of the left, because they’re conditioned to believe the left are the side that care for the underdog, which is false.

And the right isn’t without its idiotic tribal errors too. But the left have won the culture war, they control most of the big institutions, such as the media, the universities, the schools, and they’re merciless in pushing these extreme and extremely dangerous new ideas. And although your average punter is nodding their head without questioning their team, the ‘arms race’, as you put it, is definitely guided, and from the left side it’s radical, revolutionary and divisive - and that’s only the beginning. Truth is out the window and The Science is on the floor. They want to overthrow, they want to destabilise society, they believe the west is evil, racist, all kinds of phobic, the worst place ever, and the ungrateful bastards don’t seem to realise just how good they’ve had it all along..

 

[Federberg]

I agree with this and certainly for the general unthinking tribalist, they’re simply following what they’re told, ask no questions, believe all lies. They’ll defend their tribe because they’re conditioned to see the others as evil, nazi, depraved, whatever. They buy into the false compassion of the left, because they’re conditioned to believe the left are the side that care for the underdog, which is false.

And the right isn’t without its idiotic tribal errors too. But the left have won the culture war, they control most of the big institutions, such as the media, the universities, the schools, and they’re merciless in pushing these extreme and extremely dangerous new ideas. And although your average punter is nodding their head without questioning their team, the ‘arms race’, as you put it, is definitely guided, and from the left side it’s radical, revolutionary and divisive - and that’s only the beginning. Truth is out the window and The Science is on the floor. They want to overthrow, they want to destabilise society, they believe the west is evil, racist, all kinds of phobic, the worst place ever, and the ungrateful bastards don’t seem to realise just how good they’ve had it all along..

would love to seem them try this shit in Russia, Iran or China

 

[Kieran]

would love to seem them try this shit in Russia, Iran or China

Yeah, imagine telling Putin, "well, you have your truth and I have my truth." The scary thing is, these are the same far left fifth columnists who praised the Soviet Union and probably think that communist China is a hunky dory place to live...

 

[tented]

I get Kieran's point, and I think many have made it: why go to a vendor who is disinclined? I actually think most wouldn't...problem solved. For web design, it can be done virtually, so that's easy. But what about services that can only be local? What if there's only one caterer, or the best one, in your small town, and they won't cater your gay wedding? That IS discrimination, isn't it? What if the best dressmaker in Jackson, MS won't make my dress because I'm black? Does she have the freedom of speech right to be a racist? Are we really going to go back to this?

Here’s a relevant section in Sotomayor’s dissent. (I can’t copy/paste, so I’ve taken screenshots)

 

[Moxie]

Here’s a relevant section in Sotomayor’s dissent. (I can’t copy/paste, so I’ve taken screenshots)

View attachment 8364View attachment 8365

Thanks for taking the time to post that. I think this is a lot of what I was trying to say, though Justice Sotomayor obviously said it better, and with citations of precedence. This resonates: "The deprivation of personal dignity that surely accompanies denials to equal access to public establishments."

 

[Moxie]

Well, I didn’t say the majority of Americans favour the right to abortion either but to be inadvertently correct is better than nothing at all, so I’ll take it! As for the difference between being in favour of the right to abortion, and being in favour of abortion, that’s the actual battle ground. Even the good Popes are in favour of the right to abortion, under certain circumstances.

Curious to know which good Popes have come out in favor of abortion, in certain circumstances. I must have missed that. I disagree that the difference between being in favor of the right to abortion, and being in favor of abortion is the battleground. No one, that I have ever encountered, in theory or in practice, has ever said, "Yippee, I'm pregnant! Now I get to have that abortion I've always wanted, as a political act." Women have abortions for many reasons, including fetal inviability, their own cancers, being in a bad relationship, not being able to afford another child, etc. But no one wants to have an abortion, in the sense that they wish they weren't pregnant in the first place, for many. Men and women have sex, and women get pregnant. But I don't see how you can justify any notion that anyone "favors" abortion, over, say, not getting pregnant in the first place. You probably don't have the issues that we have in the US with women's health clinics being closed across the country, due to association with abortion, but that limits women's access to birth control, to regular PAP smears, to all kinds of free health assessments, and yes, it's responsible for unwanted pregnancies. Women in this country have less access to good medical care and birth control, and also less access to abortion.

 

[Moxie]

This all falls into interesting territory for liberal societies, because there are endless scenarios we can imagine for services which might be only available locally. The religious might suffer equally in this place too.

As has been discussed. I agree that a liberal society has many messy issues to sort out. That's the problem and the beauty of a free society. It seems that, in the US, the religious Christian position is beginning to hold more sway, with the courts, in particular. We used to establish a difference in the country between Church and State, though. We are in name but not in fact a secular country. And there are considerations for various religious groups, but huge preference to Christians.

We tend to see whether or not somebody is truly liberal when they’re faced with choices they don’t like. To say - as I have said - that people should be kinder to each other, doesn’t apply when there are people who think our questions are violence, and our disagreement is bigotry.

I would argue that true liberals question things all the time. You could also say that Conservatives (in this country) are not true to their values when they support someone like Trump. Thrice married, adulterer, cheated the little guy endless times in business, pretends to be a populist, but favors the rich in tax policies. You're worried about how you get spoken to in public and in social media. I'm worried about the fact that my country is being taken over by the rich and influential, and that Trump basically staged a coup on January 6th.

If somebody faces racism through a refusal to make a dress for them because they’re black, then we’d all hope the law would catch up to this.

So hopeful of you, but please see the judgement that the court just made.

I don’t know if there are such easy solutions to every scenario though because although it would be easy to say that somebody should move from a local place if they’re not provided the full range of services there, or don’t feel welcomed there, or that they should be fired from a job they need because their conscience tells them that the task they’re being ordered to perform is deeply immoral, these are not straightforward things. It’s difficult to move, and a person might find that they desperately need that job. They may want to be accommodated.

Why should people be forced to move from where they live because it's inhospitable to them for their race or etc? Shouldn't we, as a society, prefer to protect them? What about the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness?

As to being fired from a job, I made a very specific example. If you work for the government, you are obligated to abide by the rules and laws of the government. I don't see that as controversial. If the laws change, you might have a moral choice to make, based on your personal beliefs, but they are separate from civil law.

On the other hand, if we allow the employees conscience to be the ultimate arbiter in what gets done, we end up like some modern publishers who are often held captive by their woke staff. We’re treading into illiberal times, actually, with far left overreach, and this is the test for all liberal societies: how to stay liberal in such times, and still get the job done..

Of course, I find the overreach at this time to be coming from the right. Publishers are being muscled by their "woke" staff? I'd appreciate an example of that.

 

[tented]

Of course, I find the overreach at this time to be coming from the right. Publishers are being muscled by their "woke" staff? I'd appreciate an example of that.

Bari Weiss’s tenure at and subsequent resignation from the NYT is an excellent example. In her resignation letter (a must read) she wrote about the pressure being put on editors by writers who didn’t “feel safe” after the paper published the op-ed piece by Sen. Cotton. The op-ed editor was removed from his job for publishing it. She spoke in an interview I saw about that editor’s successor coming in and telling the writers the most important thing was for them to feel safe.

 

[tented]

Bari Weiss’s tenure at and subsequent resignation from the NYT is an excellent example. In her resignation letter (a must read) she wrote about the pressure being put on editors by writers who didn’t “feel safe” after the paper published the op-ed piece by Sen. Cotton. The op-ed editor was removed from his job for publishing it. She spoke in an interview I saw about that editor’s successor coming in and telling the writers the most important thing was for them to feel safe.

@Moxie - another example is when David Remnick invited Steve Bannon to The New Yorker Festival, then disinvited him after facing a fierce backlash, complete with threats to boycott and unsubscribe if he didn’t rescind the invitation.

I’m no fan of either Cotton or Bannon, however I don‘t think they should be silenced because a number of people make threats because they don’t like them. It’s childish and embarrassing to think people don’t feel safe because people they disagree with are allowed to voice their opinions. I’m quite certain I wouldn’t agree with upwards of 98% of what Bannon had to say, but I’m capable of hearing him and not feeling I now need a safe space.

This reminds me again of the story I know I’ve told on this site before: when I was in college, Louis Farrakhan was invited to speak. I went, listened to him, disagreed with everything he said (some of it was absolutely appalling), but I was curious and wanted to hear him. I didn’t feel unsafe because I went. If anything, it allowed me to experience firsthand what he’s about, instead of having information distilled and disseminated via others.

Sadly, I bet if he were invited to speak today, the idea would immediately generate mass protests, Twitter hysteria, threats by students (and their enabling parents), and the administration would rescind the invitation. This kind of thing has happened many times, though, for real at multiple universities. These are prime examples of illiberal behavior by supposed liberals. In fact, I refuse to refer to them as “liberals” anymore. This behavior is fascist: a minority dictating what the majority is allowed to hear and read. This is the antithesis of the liberal idea of the free exchange of ideas. This is the shutting down of ideas.

 

[Kieran]

I would argue that true liberals question things all the time.

I agree. Tribalists, however, question nothing, if it pertains to correcting their own side. And this is the important act of the liberal, to be open to correction. You have actual liberals in the west who are heterodox when it comes to far left ideas on race, gender, etc, and they get battered for it. Hounded.

By the left.

You could also say that Conservatives (in this country) are not true to their values when they support someone like Trump. Thrice married, adulterer, cheated the little guy endless times in business, pretends to be a populist, but favors the rich in tax policies. You're worried about how you get spoken to in public and in social media. I'm worried about the fact that my country is being taken over by the rich and influential, and that Trump basically staged a coup on January 6th.

I’m not worried about how I get spoken to anywhere. And I certainly don’t like Trump. But do you not think that if you put forward better candidates against him then people wouldn’t vote for him? You’re electing shady careerists and you’re wondering why people are voting for Trump. People voted for Bubba. Hillary. You probably think they’re saints compared to him. Looking at it from afar, they seem no different to him.

Why should people be forced to move from where they live because it's inhospitable to them for their race or etc? Shouldn't we, as a society, prefer to protect them? What about the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness?

I agree. I think that was my point.

As to being fired from a job, I made a very specific example. If you work for the government, you are obligated to abide by the rules and laws of the government. I don't see that as controversial. If the laws change, you might have a moral choice to make, based on your personal beliefs, but they are separate from civil law.

Your conscience is a higher law than civil law, when it comes to forming your character. But this is an example of the difficulty for liberal societies, and how they try to accommodate conflicting belief systems. Just pointing at the contract is one way to deal with it, and I can see the merits in that, but I can also see how it can compel somebody to do this that they find deeply immoral.

The west is still the great historical exception in how we try to accommodate differences though, and there’s bound to be wrinkles.

Of course, I find the overreach at this time to be coming from the right. Publishers are being muscled by their "woke" staff? I'd appreciate an example of that.

Of course you do. Yet the left control the media, the universities, and are forcing the rest of us to believe lies. So there has to be push back. You must start to question the left. You’d enjoy it. But more than that, it’s imperative. You are not a non-man. Don’t put up with that nonsense, even if it comes from Johns-Hopkins.

As for publishers being muscled, there are many examples.

 

[Kieran]

Curious to know which good Popes have come out in favor of abortion, in certain circumstances.

In certain circumstances, when the mothers life is threatened, the church is in favour of abortion. There’s a whole theology around it. You’d find it interesting.

I disagree that the difference between being in favor of the right to abortion, and being in favor of abortion is the battleground. No one, that I have ever encountered, in theory or in practice, has ever said, "Yippee, I'm pregnant! Now I get to have that abortion I've always wanted, as a political act." Women have abortions for many reasons, including fetal inviability, their own cancers, being in a bad relationship, not being able to afford another child, etc. But no one wants to have an abortion, in the sense that they wish they weren't pregnant in the first place, for many. Men and women have sex, and women get pregnant. But I don't see how you can justify any notion that anyone "favors" abortion, over, say, not getting pregnant in the first place.

They favour it over having the baby, however. And the baby is the really big discussion. Now I'm not one of these hardasses that’s unsympathetic to women who have abortions. I try to understand, and I’m glad I’m not in that position. I understand I never will be. But it’s a problem for all society, not only women. The burden falls on women, however. The ‘judgment’ within society falls on women. The stigma. I think this is wrong, but I also think the conversation is often framed politically rather than as a simple one relating to life itself.

It’s not often an atheist evangelist like Christopher Hitchens articulates something that crosses the aisle so effectively but his views on abortion resonate with me. The methods of abortion are more akin medieval torture than healthcare.

The left tends not to think of the foetus as being a baby, as being yet another candidate for life, as we all were. “It’s only a cluster of cells, it’s not a baby it’s a foetus, it’s not human if it has no consciousness,” etc, little realising that they themselves are also clusters of cells seemingly lacking consciousness.

This website gives the reasons for abortion in the USA, and they’re complex and varied, and they’re really more a discussion for Americans in their politics than for me looking in from the outside, but I wish the discussion on abortion would involve more talk about the life that’s taken.

You probably don't have the issues that we have in the US with women's health clinics being closed across the country, due to association with abortion, but that limits women's access to birth control, to regular PAP smears, to all kinds of free health assessments, and yes, it's responsible for unwanted pregnancies. Women in this country have less access to good medical care and birth control, and also less access to abortion.

Well, medical care in America is very different to here in Ireland, and most EU countries. For instance, we have a medical card for unemployed and elderly people to be able to access hospital and doctor care, medicines etc. We have a good system and I definitely sympathise with Americans over healthcare. This is another issue that gets politicised, but for me - as a Catholic - it’s about community, and caring for your sisters and brothers, etc. Who would devise an ideal society where the vulnerable are punished? We have to care more for each other..

 

[Kieran]

Bari Weiss’s tenure at and subsequent resignation from the NYT is an excellent example. In her resignation letter (a must read) she wrote about the pressure being put on editors by writers who didn’t “feel safe” after the paper published the op-ed piece by Sen. Cotton. The op-ed editor was removed from his job for publishing it. She spoke in an interview I saw about that editor’s successor coming in and telling the writers the most important thing was for them to feel safe.

She’s a wonderful woman and this case sums it up. I’d love to know why these people say they feel unsafe. What kind of threat do they think they face? Genuine question.

And of course, they’re probably never asked that..

 

[Kieran]

@Moxie - another example is when David Remnick invited Steve Bannon to The New Yorker Festival, then disinvited him after facing a fierce backlash, complete with threats to boycott and unsubscribe if he didn’t rescind the invitation.

I’m no fan of either Cotton or Bannon, however I don‘t think they should be silenced because a number of people make threats because they don’t like them. It’s childish and embarrassing to think people don’t feel safe because people they disagree with are allowed to voice their opinions. I’m quite certain I wouldn’t agree with upwards of 98% of what Bannon had to say, but I’m capable of hearing him and not feeling I now need a safe space.

This reminds me again of the story I know I’ve told on this site before: when I was in college, Louis Farrakhan was invited to speak. I went, listened to him, disagreed with everything he said (some of it was absolutely appalling), but I was curious and wanted to hear him. I didn’t feel unsafe because I went. If anything, it allowed me to experience firsthand what he’s about, instead of having information distilled and disseminated via others.

Sadly, I bet if he were invited to speak today, the idea would immediately generate mass protests, Twitter hysteria, threats by students (and their enabling parents), and the administration would rescind the invitation. This kind of thing has happened many times, though, for real at multiple universities. These are prime examples of illiberal behavior by supposed liberals. In fact, I refuse to refer to them as “liberals” anymore. This behavior is fascist: a minority dictating what the majority is allowed to hear and read. This is the antithesis of the liberal idea of the free exchange of ideas. This is the shutting down of ideas.

They’re good examples. Free speech isn’t important only for people we agree with. In fact, the test of it is how we feel about speech we don’t like. That’s where we test our free speech principles. I don’t think Unsafe understand this because I don’t think they’ve been exposed to opposing views. I posted before about Jonathan Haidt, co-author of The Coddling of the American Mind, but he’s instructional as to why these ‘kids’ are like that. You have my sympathies and admiration for sitting through Louis Farrakhan:

 

[tented]

She’s a wonderful woman and this case sums it up. I’d love to know why these people say they feel unsafe. What kind of threat do they think they face? Genuine question.

Some thought they would be attacked — their lives felt threatened — because Senator Cotton’s op-ed called for military intervention for riots. (This was during the time of the George Floyd aftermath.) They thought people would raise arms against the NYT just for publishing it.

 

[Kieran]

Some thought they would be attacked — their lives felt threatened — because Senator Cotton’s op-ed called for military intervention for riots. (This was during the time of the George Floyd aftermath.) They thought people would raise arms against the NYT just for publishing it.

There’s no logic to that, is there? Who would raise arms against the NYT? The rioters? They were busy destroying cities. Anyway, if the rioters attacked the NYT then that halfwits might actually be glad to see the army rescue them..

 

[Federberg]

Beware of the champagne liberals. They’re often the most racist in the room!