US Politics Thread

[Kieran]

Sorry it took so long to get round to this. Sometimes the real world calls you away…

Cultural marxism differs from classical marxism. Let’s just get that out of the way first. But one could argue that cultural marxism evolved as an explanation (or excuse) for why classical marxism failed. I’ll try to elaborate… proponents of cultural marxism would argue that the theory of classical marxism - workers of the world would unite to overthrow the capitalist state - failed because Marx failed to account for culture.

What are they getting at? Culture? You need to look at culture through the lens of the cultural hegemony. And you can’t understand cultural hegemony without the proposition that intersectionality is real, that the patriarchy is real. There is a hierarchy of victimisation, or perhaps a pyramid would be a better descriptor. At the top of course you have the cis- white - male. At the bottom… take your pick… black - lesbian - transgender.. you get the point.

Why does all this matter? Because we are being told that we exist in a polity where most of us are oppressed to an extent which is dependent on where we - individually - sit on the pyramid.

This existed before Trumpism. Frankly Trumpism is a corruption - a mere boil on the ass if you will - that we need to be rid of to enable us to confront this nonsense. The last half decade has been shocking to me. I fear that people don’t comprehend that woke-ism, critical race theory, transgenderism, third wave feminism are all subcategories within the larger threat to Western culture and civilisation that is represented by cultural marxism.

There will be no end to the fractionalisation that will occur as a result of this political philosophy. But we already see the breakdown of the family unit. I fear things are going to get much much worse unless we collectively pull our heads out of our asses and reject the ideology and root it out of all of our institutions. It might be too late already.

That’s very good. And by the way, the bold part would explain why the left no longer cares about the working class.

Not that they ever did, but you know what I mean..

 

[Horsa]

As you see, I read them and really enjoyed them, thanks!

You're welcome. I'm glad you enjoyed reading my poems.

 

[Moxie]

Sorry it took so long to get round to this. Sometimes the real world calls you away…

No worries! We all have a real life...plus, it's summer, after all.

Cultural marxism differs from classical marxism. Let’s just get that out of the way first. But one could argue that cultural marxism evolved as an explanation (or excuse) for why classical marxism failed. I’ll try to elaborate… proponents of cultural marxism would argue that the theory of classical marxism - workers of the world would unite to overthrow the capitalist state - failed because Marx failed to account for culture.

Here's where I have an issue. I don't think there are "proponents" of "Cultural Marxism." That's how it's described from the outside, not the inside.

What are they getting at? Culture? You need to look at culture through the lens of the cultural hegemony. And you can’t understand cultural hegemony without the proposition that intersectionality is real, that the patriarchy is real. There is a hierarchy of victimisation, or perhaps a pyramid would be a better descriptor. At the top of course you have the cis- white - male. At the bottom… take your pick… black - lesbian - transgender.. you get the point.

Cultural hegemony does imply patriarchy, (or certainly a dominant culture,) but I'm not sure that it implies "intersectionality."

Why does all this matter? Because we are being told that we exist in a polity where most of us are oppressed to an extent which is dependent on where we - individually - sit on the pyramid.

I would argue that many groups would feel they don't have to be "told" they're oppressed to know it.

This existed before Trumpism. Frankly Trumpism is a corruption - a mere boil on the ass if you will - that we need to be rid of to enable us to confront this nonsense.

Thank you for addressing this point. I was wondering how the end of Trump, to your point in your earlier post, would help solve the "problem," as you see it. I still think it could be illuminated upon, but if you're saying that the extreme activism on the Right against the "Culture Wars" would bring the discussion to a more reasonable level, then we agree.

The last half decade has been shocking to me. I fear that people don’t comprehend that woke-ism, critical race theory, transgenderism, third wave feminism are all subcategories within the larger threat to Western culture and civilisation that is represented by cultural marxism.

I can tell you've been pretty agitated. I still think that "woke-ism" is a flabby and over-used term, and that critical race theory is something only discussed well at the higher echelons of academia and has nothing to do with general education. It gets thrown around a lot, with little understanding of what it is. (You, I know, understand what it is.) I don't really want to re-litigate all of this. I know how you feel about it.

There will be no end to the fractionalisation that will occur as a result of this political philosophy. But we already see the breakdown of the family unit. I fear things are going to get much much worse unless we collectively pull our heads out of our asses and reject the ideology and root it out of all of our institutions. It might be too late already.

My point about this "political philosophy," as you call it, is that it's not a philosophy. It's a conspiracy theory. Others find these to be individual conflicts, worthy of their own fights. Yes, there is reason for groups to join each others' struggles and to align with them. (I guess that's where you find the importance of "intersectionality.") But I don't believe there's one concerted effort to re-train society on a Marxist model. Certainly not to undermine it by one. (Which is part of the theory of Cultural Marxism, as seen from the outside, or as those who are anti- would describe it.)

I really don't know how you see this as the breakdown of the family unit. This has been shouted out since the normalization of divorce, and the invention of the birth control pill. This is an issue from the 70s and 80s, and not new in the 2020s. In fact, divorce rates have gone down since the 80s.

 

[Moxie]

For those trying to keep track, this is rather a handy cheat-sheet for the Trump indictments.

Tracking the Trump criminal cases

A definitive guide to the key players and legal risks in the four criminal probes of the former president.

www.politico.com

 

[tented]

My new favorite description of Donald Trump:
“He speaks like a five year old telling you about a dream he had two weeks ago.”

 

[Moxie]

In other US news, the entertainment industry is on strike in the US. While the Director's Guild has settled (no surprise,) the Writer's Guild and the Actors Guild are on strike, for the foreseeable future. I know a lot of people might not think it's important, but it is. It's a major industry in the US.

While I think streaming rights and wages in the new economic models are more important, a very interesting aspect of the negotiations is the advent of artificial intelligence. The writers say, for example, that if AI is used to write a script, they should get a portion of it. They kind of have a point, since AI only learns from what has been previously generated. Just curious if anyone has an opinion of the AI aspect of these union negotiations.

This is a basic article on it:

Actors vs. AI: Strike brings focus to emerging use of advanced tech

SAG-AFTRA has joined the Writer’s Guild of America in demanding a contract that explicitly demands AI regulations to protect writers and the works they create.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[Moxie]

Also in other US news, Ohio voted down Issue 1.

That was about raising the level of percentage votes needed to change the state's constitution. This was seen as a move my state republicans to make it harder for abortion rights to be enshrined in that state's constitution.

What the rejection of Ohio's Issue 1 could mean for abortion rights in the state

The proposal, rejected by Ohio voters, would have made it more difficult to amend the state Constitution. The result could have significant ramifications for abortion rights in the state.

www.cbsnews.com

It's a little complicated, but it seems to prove, once again, that the abortion issue is not winning the Republicans any friends, or elections.

 

[Federberg]

Here's where I have an issue. I don't think there are "proponents" of "Cultural Marxism." That's how it's described from the outside, not the inside.

Are you on the inside? Do you represent them?

Cultural hegemony does imply patriarchy, (or certainly a dominant culture,) but I'm not sure that it implies "intersectionality."

read my words carefully, I said that in order to understand...

I would argue that many groups would feel they don't have to be "told" they're oppressed to know it.

your argument is irrelevant to me. We are all associated with one group or another, if we don't feel oppressed, it's rather patronising to be told that we are..

Thank you for addressing this point. I was wondering how the end of Trump, to your point in your earlier post, would help solve the "problem," as you see it. I still think it could be illuminated upon, but if you're saying that the extreme activism on the Right against the "Culture Wars" would bring the discussion to a more reasonable level, then we agree.

that isn't what I'm saying. Again... read my words carefully. Trumpism is a distraction that takes all the oxygen out of the room. Meanwhile mass stupidity is being inflicted on us in universities, and elsewhere. We won't get the opportunity to confront all of the nonsense until Trumpism is in the dustbin of history

I can tell you've been pretty agitated. I still think that "woke-ism" is a flabby and over-used term, and that critical race theory is something only discussed well at the higher echelons of academia and has nothing to do with general education. It gets thrown around a lot, with little understanding of what it is. (You, I know, understand what it is.) I don't really want to re-litigate all of this. I know how you feel about it.

Higher echelons of academia? This isn't scholarship. It's ideology with no intellectual substance and no standardised peer review (in fact some academics, as an exercise have shown that scholarship isn't even being properly vetted when published). I for one would be glad to see real scholarship and intellectual debate. Whether you think the terms are misunderstood or not, is not particularly relevant if actual policy is being implemented as a result. This needs to be properly challenged, and my contention is that the current socio-political environment has created a space where this nonsense is being mainstreamed.

My point about this "political philosophy," as you call it, is that it's not a philosophy. It's a conspiracy theory. Others find these to be individual conflicts, worthy of their own fights. Yes, there is reason for groups to join each others' struggles and to align with them. (I guess that's where you find the importance of "intersectionality.") But I don't believe there's one concerted effort to re-train society on a Marxist model. Certainly not to undermine it by one. (Which is part of the theory of Cultural Marxism, as seen from the outside, or as those who are anti- would describe it.)

I have a lot of sympathy for that type of attack claiming things to be a conspiracy theory (there's entirely too much of that going on right now, the number of debates I've had with some of my friends about Trump or Bolsonaro is frankly quite disheartening). Unfortunately this is the recourse that many on the right are falling back on. But in this case, with progressives, we see the actual evidence of a movement, and way of thinking in real life. This is not some fantastical thing with no real world implications. We see children being sexualised at younger and younger ages. We see the whole gender ideology thing being pushed with no scientific basis (100 genders??). What saddens me is that a smart educated woman like yourself has absorbed and appears to accept the ideology with no push back at all. I would love for you to challenge the ideology as vigorously as you're trying to challenge me right now. If this correspondence achieves one thing, that would be it. If you do disagree with any of this new thinking, please feel free to elaborate, I'm sure I'm not the only one here who would love to know

I really don't know how you see this as the breakdown of the family unit. This has been shouted out since the normalization of divorce, and the invention of the birth control pill. This is an issue from the 70s and 80s, and not new in the 2020s. In fact, divorce rates have gone down since the 80s.

yet again you're making huge assumptions about the things that I say. I have to tell you I find it deeply frustrating. Where have I made specific comment about divorce rates in my response? Nor have I stated anywhere that this ideology is new. My concern is due to the pervasiveness and the acceleration of norms being deconstructed.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are genuinely misunderstanding the points I make, but it's a bit frustrating how easily my points can be misrepresented. Please do me the courtesy of asking for clarification before making assumptions. I say this with no anger or emotion. It would simply make the exchange of ideas more efficient

 

[Federberg]

Also in other US news, Ohio voted down Issue 1.

That was about raising the level of percentage votes needed to change the state's constitution. This was seen as a move my state republicans to make it harder for abortion rights to be enshrined in that state's constitution.

What the rejection of Ohio's Issue 1 could mean for abortion rights in the state

The proposal, rejected by Ohio voters, would have made it more difficult to amend the state Constitution. The result could have significant ramifications for abortion rights in the state.

www.cbsnews.com

It's a little complicated, but it seems to prove, once again, that the abortion issue is not winning the Republicans any friends, or elections.

as I've said before, I think if Trump gets the GOP nomination, the loss will be bigger this time. I can't understand how Republicans have so badly read the room on this issue. The fact that it's not going away, and is probably even getting stronger as an issue should be terrifying for them. It would make far more sense to enshrine it into law with decent time limits.

 

[tented]

In other US news, the entertainment industry is on strike in the US. While the Director's Guild has settled (no surprise,) the Writer's Guild and the Actors Guild are on strike, for the foreseeable future. I know a lot of people might not think it's important, but it is. It's a major industry in the US.

While I think streaming rights and wages in the new economic models are more important, a very interesting aspect of the negotiations is the advent of artificial intelligence. The writers say, for example, that if AI is used to write a script, they should get a portion of it. They kind of have a point, since AI only learns from what has been previously generated. Just curious if anyone has an opinion of the AI aspect of these union negotiations.

This is a basic article on it:

Actors vs. AI: Strike brings focus to emerging use of advanced tech

SAG-AFTRA has joined the Writer’s Guild of America in demanding a contract that explicitly demands AI regulations to protect writers and the works they create.

www.nbcnews.com

I have complete empathy for the writers strike. They’ve always been underpaid and under-appreciated. Let’s face it: not one single film, TV show, play, cartoon, commercial, etc. would exist if not for a writer. I can appreciate their concerns in terms of losing out on the money generated through streaming.

They’re getting into a tricky area, though, with AI. If we were to give AI a stack of current best-selling fiction, then asked it to create a screenplay, then it would be an obvious problem since the AI would be using copyrighted material, even though coming up with a different idea. But if we were to give AI every single book which is beyond copyright (all of Dickens, Tolstoy, the Brontes, etc.), and asked it to generate a screenplay, then that’s fair game.

 

[Federberg]

I have complete empathy for the writers strike. They’ve always been underpaid and under-appreciated. Let’s face it: not one single film, TV show, play, cartoon, commercial, etc. would exist if not for a writer. I can appreciate their concerns in terms of losing out on the money generated through streaming.

They’re getting into a tricky area, though, with AI. If we were to give AI a stack of current best-selling fiction, then asked it to create a screenplay, then it would be an obvious problem since the AI would be using copyrighted material, even though coming up with a different idea. But if we were to give AI every single book which is beyond copyright (all of Dickens, Tolstoy, the Brontes, etc.), and asked it to generate a screenplay, then that’s fair game.

it's truly disturbing, and I think it's critical that the writers and actors win. This generation of billionaires have no respect for the social contract that people like Henry Ford did. And he was a rabid Nazi sympathiser!

PS, Often science fiction writers have great solutions for future problems well after their time. It would be great if legislators consider some of the insights offered by both Frank Herbert (Dune series, specifically the Butlerian jihad), and Isaac Asimov (Foundation series, Laws of Robotics). Both scenarios offer interesting ideas for what might be needed for humanity's future...

 

[Moxie]

Are you on the inside? Do you represent them?


read my words carefully, I said that in order to understand...


your argument is irrelevant to me. We are all associated with one group or another, if we don't feel oppressed, it's rather patronising to be told that we are..


that isn't what I'm saying. Again... read my words carefully. Trumpism is a distraction that takes all the oxygen out of the room. Meanwhile mass stupidity is being inflicted on us in universities, and elsewhere. We won't get the opportunity to confront all of the nonsense until Trumpism is in the dustbin of history



Higher echelons of academia? This isn't scholarship. It's ideology with no intellectual substance and no standardised peer review (in fact some academics, as an exercise have shown that scholarship isn't even being properly vetted when published). I for one would be glad to see real scholarship and intellectual debate. Whether you think the terms are misunderstood or not, is not particularly relevant if actual policy is being implemented as a result. This needs to be properly challenged, and my contention is that the current socio-political environment has created a space where this nonsense is being mainstreamed.

I have a lot of sympathy for that type of attack claiming things to be a conspiracy theory (there's entirely too much of that going on right now, the number of debates I've had with some of my friends about Trump or Bolsonaro is frankly quite disheartening). Unfortunately this is the recourse that many on the right are falling back on. But in this case, with progressives, we see the actual evidence of a movement, and way of thinking in real life. This is not some fantastical thing with no real world implications. We see children being sexualised at younger and younger ages. We see the whole gender ideology thing being pushed with no scientific basis (100 genders??). What saddens me is that a smart educated woman like yourself has absorbed and appears to accept the ideology with no push back at all. I would love for you to challenge the ideology as vigorously as you're trying to challenge me right now. If this correspondence achieves one thing, that would be it. If you do disagree with any of this new thinking, please feel free to elaborate, I'm sure I'm not the only one here who would love to know


yet again you're making huge assumptions about the things that I say. I have to tell you I find it deeply frustrating. Where have I made specific comment about divorce rates in my response? Nor have I stated anywhere that this ideology is new. My concern is due to the pervasiveness and the acceleration of norms being deconstructed.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are genuinely misunderstanding the points I make, but it's a bit frustrating how easily my points can be misrepresented. Please do me the courtesy of asking for clarification before making assumptions. I say this with no anger or emotion. It would simply make the exchange of ideas more efficient

I understand, but your definition comes with certain colorizations and conclusions that I don't happen to agree with. I thought we could dig into it. But I'm fine to leave it. Thanks for taking the time to clarify your meaning when you use the term.

 

[Moxie]

I have complete empathy for the writers strike. They’ve always been underpaid and under-appreciated. Let’s face it: not one single film, TV show, play, cartoon, commercial, etc. would exist if not for a writer. I can appreciate their concerns in terms of losing out on the money generated through streaming.

The writers and the actors, (and the DGA, which has already settled,) gave up streaming for pennies back in the 90s, but obviously it has become a much bigger deal, especially since the pandemic. They have to stand on it now. The models for how many episodes get contracted in a year is also different, and writers, (and actors) need to make a certain living in order to stay in the game. The producers, in my opinion, are being short-sighted about reaching for profits at the expense of a broad talent pool. It's an important industry in the US, and we are world-leaders, but that may not stay true, if the producers won't pay the talent that provides for that a living wage.

They’re getting into a tricky area, though, with AI. If we were to give AI a stack of current best-selling fiction, then asked it to create a screenplay, then it would be an obvious problem since the AI would be using copyrighted material, even though coming up with a different idea. But if we were to give AI every single book which is beyond copyright (all of Dickens, Tolstoy, the Brontes, etc.), and asked it to generate a screenplay, then that’s fair game.

This is why I brought it up in terms of AI...specifically because it IS so tricky. Where it stands now, AI can write scripts based on every script that has been uploaded. Many of those scripts were written by living writers. It's a use of intellectual property. Now, everyone who writes stands on the shoulders of others. But if you're going to exclude writers in favor of a program that uses their work, there's an argument for giving them a portion. It also means it's less cheap for producers to use it.

Sure, you could say that you use an AI that has only been fed literature and scripts that are in the public domain. But there needs to be a conversation/provision in contract for proving that. It's complicated.

I suppose AI will get good at it...by some accounts it's pretty good already. Surely it could already produce a formulaic script, at least as well as actual hacks. But is AI capable of innovation? Can it come up with something that has never been done before? It can write scripts, but can it envision films? We do still need writers, and actors. Art is meant to interpret the human condition. Can computers do that?

 

[Federberg]

I understand, but your definition comes with certain colorizations and conclusions that I don't happen to agree with. I thought we could dig into it. But I'm fine to leave it. Thanks for taking the time to clarify your meaning when you use the term.

I honestly don't know what you mean. I'm happy to discuss definitions and conclusions. But that never seems to be the ground you try to challenge me on. You make assumptions about my meaning and comment on that basis. When I tell you that you have not understood my meaning, you completely ignore that. Do you disbelieve me, still misunderstand me or do you only insist on your understanding? Again.. not being contentious, I'm genuinely trying to understand why dialectic with you is so difficult. I think these discussions would actually be quite interesting and illuminating if there is mutual good faith...

Can you tell me specifically which definitions and conclusions you disagree with? Perhaps we can start from there

 

[tented]

I suppose AI will get good at it...by some accounts it's pretty good already. Surely it could already produce a formulaic script, at least as well as actual hacks. But is AI capable of innovation? Can it come up with something that has never been done before? It can write scripts, but can it envision films? We do still need writers, and actors. Art is meant to interpret the human condition. Can computers do that?

AI-generated short film. Based on this, I’d say Hollywood executives are looking forward to getting rid of writers and highly paid actors/actresses.

 

[Kieran]

AI-generated short film. Based on this, I’d say Hollywood executives are looking forward to getting rid of writers and highly paid actors/actresses.

That’s actually very good, we get a lot of blockbusters that are less coherent. The Trump cameo was hilarious, and the totalitarian alien Holocaust was disturbing, but it was a good watch, and I think you’re right. Hollywood execs will think there’s a lucrative short cut here…

 

[Federberg]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/08/08/justice-department-bias-against-republicans/

 

[Federberg]

AI-generated short film. Based on this, I’d say Hollywood executives are looking forward to getting rid of writers and highly paid actors/actresses.

that is terrifyingly good...

 

[tented]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/08/08/justice-department-bias-against-republicans/

This is extremely well-written and thought out. I hope it helps at least somewhat.

 

[Moxie]

I honestly don't know what you mean. I'm happy to discuss definitions and conclusions. But that never seems to be the ground you try to challenge me on. You make assumptions about my meaning and comment on that basis. When I tell you that you have not understood my meaning, you completely ignore that. Do you disbelieve me, still misunderstand me or do you only insist on your understanding? Again.. not being contentious, I'm genuinely trying to understand why dialectic with you is so difficult. I think these discussions would actually be quite interesting and illuminating if there is mutual good faith...

Can you tell me specifically which definitions and conclusions you disagree with? Perhaps we can start from there

I tried. Which is why I separated the points. We can drop it. Mostly it's been discussed a lot on the PC thread.