US Politics Thread

[mrzz]

When I said "open minds to more liberal thought," I should have said that I don't mean politically liberal. I meant "open" and "flexible." It's hard to learn with a closed mind.

I made the same point above. We can't be talking the same about every department.

I'm not clear if you mean professors or students. If you're referring to professors, the world of academia is notoriously byzantine and insular, but different departments within different various universities have their own intrigues and preferences. It's hardly a monolith, however.

What point do you think we've arrived at, then?

I fully agree that is hard to learn with a closed mind. Here we agree 100%. But I truly believe that most people today, and I really mean the vast majority, have utterly closed and square minds -- on the scale of this we will probably disagree though.

I meant professors, since they are echoed by students -- which later become professors (and given the closed minds, they do not free themselves in general from what they were told to believe).

We arrived at a point where we are paying the price of a simple fact: the most efficient career move is not think by yourself and/or have high standards for your own work, and/or pay due respect for the field you are studying by cleansing your work from prejudice or obvious bias. It is way more efficient to be part of the machine.

A while ago someone here posted a video of an archaeologist giving a lecture to teenagers, where just after making a huge, basic conceptual mistake, he hides himself behind the authority argument ("I have a PhD"). It is a perfect example, and I unfortunately met hundreds of similar situations in my past life (one of the reasons it is in the past), in a plethora of different areas, but, before someone asks -- yes, more in the humanities than anything else -- but surely not exclusively there.

(Edited some horrendous typos)

 

[Federberg]

given our recent discussion about US political reform, I thought this was timely....

 

[shawnbm]

Henry Kissinger has passed. A giant on the world stage for over half a century and being played up as a polarizing figure.

 

[britbox]

Henry Kissinger has passed. A giant on the world stage for over half a century and being played up as a polarizing figure.

Rockefeller Globalist stooge. I'm sure Aldo Moro's family will be having a glass of champagne tonight.

 

[shawnbm]

I am not surprised at the comment, but still funny.

 

[Federberg]

wow! Even white conservative men resort to claiming victimisation in this era when things are going against them. Every time I think I've seen the worst of this culture, something new under the sun happens to surprise me

 

[britbox]

I am not surprised at the comment, but still funny.

Funny if you revere genocidal psychopaths.

A brief history of Henry Kissinger’s alleged war crimes

Henry Kissinger sided with military dictators and genocidal regimes in his pursuit of projecting US power during the Cold War, resulting in the deaths of millions of innocents, Bevan Hurley reports

www.independent.co.uk

All is not lost though mate. His protégé Klaus Schwab continues the work at the World Economic Forum.

 

[shawnbm]

I do not revere him, but everything is hyperbolic about him and that time. Back when a lot of this happened, the domino theory held currency in many parts still and it was largely a binary world--and us versus them mentality. Despots were tolerated more than they are today. It was a different world where real revolutionary threats existed and were being fostered by powers far away. I am just happy we are far removed from that period now--as we have enough problems still around the world of a different nature.

 

[Federberg]

I do not revere him, but everything is hyperbolic about him and that time. Back when a lot of this happened, the domino theory held currency in many parts still and it was largely a binary world--and us versus them mentality. Despots were tolerated more than they are today. It was a different world where real revolutionary threats existed and were being fostered by powers far away. I am just happy we are far removed from that period now--as we have enough problems still around the world of a different nature.

has the world changed that much though? I think it's just couched in more subtle terms now. Kissinger's amoral foreign policy where the US was willing to befriend despots or destabilise democracies, contingent on US strategic aims. If anyone thinks that's stopped I've got a bridge to nowhere to sell you. Even this Biden Administration is guilty of this. There are democracies in Africa that should be supported by the US - assuming it has an interest in minimising future economic and climate migration, and the net long term economic benefit that would also accrue - but that's not the case. Instead they've expended more energy trying to lecture these countries about LGBTQ and scolding them about why China doesn't have their best interests.

And let's be real.. despots are still tolerated. Remember MBS and Khashoggi? There are myriad other examples. Nothing's changed except perhaps the exigency of the perceived threat, and that's more to do with the fall of the Soviet Union than moral growth. If the relationship with China goes sideways I guarantee you in Cold War 2.0 the same sort of stuff will happen again

 

[shawnbm]

^ points well taken, Federberg

 

[Moxie]

wow! Even white conservative men resort to claiming victimisation in this era when things are going against them. Every time I think I've seen the worst of this culture, something new under the sun happens to surprise me

The whining is not nearly as bad as the abuse of campaign finance laws. And apparently they are not that hard to abuse. Santos is a fraud and a huckster, and has gotten what he deserves. But we should look at what enabled him to misuse so much of his campaign funds. IMO, this is the issue.

No point in trying to figure out how he could lie through his teeth and still get elected...he learned that from Trump.

 

[Federberg]

The whining is not nearly as bad as the abuse of campaign finance laws. And apparently they are not that hard to abuse. Santos is a fraud and a huckster, and has gotten what he deserves. But we should look at what enabled him to misuse so much of his campaign funds. IMO, this is the issue.

No point in trying to figure out how he could lie through his teeth and still get elected...he learned that from Trump.

I think you're missing my point. It's not about what's worse. It goes without saying that his level of corruption is eggregious. I find it troubling that an individual like this, who in theory should be on the other side of the culture divide has unwittingly co-opted the philosophy of this age - claiming victimisation. Everyone is a victim these days. There was a time when men were men and owned up to their malfeasance when caught. It's both sad and worrying that this individual instinctively sought to use the pathetic social tools of this era. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. In another era, as soon as he was found out he would have resigned. We're growing a group of bitch-men these days

 

[Moxie]

I think you're missing my point. It's not about what's worse. It goes without saying that his level of corruption is eggregious. I find it troubling that an individual like this, who in theory should be on the other side of the culture divide has unwittingly co-opted the philosophy of this age - claiming victimisation. Everyone is a victim these days. There was a time when men were men and owned up to their malfeasance when caught. It's both sad and worrying that this individual instinctively sought to use the pathetic social tools of this era. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. In another era, as soon as he was found out he would have resigned. We're growing a group of bitch-men these days

I know what you point is, but I don't agree. IMO, George Santos is pathological in his lying, cheating ways, and would have been in any era. Resigning, or doing anything honorable would never have been in his DNA. I get your complaint about using the tools of this era as another weaselly attempt at self-preservation, but I don't think he's a product of this era, in particular. There have always been scrupulous hucksters. This one managed to get elected to Congress.

 

[Federberg]

I know what you point is, but I don't agree. IMO, George Santos is pathological in his lying, cheating ways, and would have been in any era. Resigning, or doing anything honorable would never have been in his DNA. I get your complaint about using the tools of this era as another weaselly attempt at self-preservation, but I don't think he's a product of this era, in particular. There have always been scrupulous hucksters. This one managed to get elected to Congress.

Sigh… if you fully understood my point we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Your focus on Santos misses the fact that it’s the victim culture pathology I’m concerned about. Anyway… moving on

 

[Moxie]

Sigh… if you fully understood my point we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Your focus on Santos misses the fact that it’s the victim culture pathology I’m concerned about. Anyway… moving on

You make this point often enough, and it's not hard understand. Obviously, it bothers you. I'm just saying that I don't think this is how we got George Santos. We're not really arguing, I was just saying it doesn't apply to everything. George Santos, IMO, would have existed in any era. He's just using a trope of this one because he utterly without a moral compass.

 

[Federberg]

You make this point often enough, and it's not hard understand. Obviously, it bothers you. I'm just saying that I don't think this is how we got George Santos. We're not really arguing, I was just saying it doesn't apply to everything. George Santos, IMO, would have existed in any era. He's just using a trope of this one because he utterly without a moral compass.

how Santos came to be is utterly irrelevant to my point. If you want to make another point that's fine. Not what I was talking about

 

[Moxie]

how Santos came to be is utterly irrelevant to my point. If you want to make another point that's fine. Not what I was talking about

All good. I know what you're talking about and happy to move on.

 

[mrzz]

Santos is a son of Brazilian parents. 80% of our congress at least is just like him.

 

[Kieran]

wow! Even white conservative men resort to claiming victimisation in this era when things are going against them. Every time I think I've seen the worst of this culture, something new under the sun happens to surprise me

He pulls a leftist victim card to try distance himself from the consequences. He’s probably watched too much CNN and thought, this will go down well here..

 

[Moxie]

He pulls a leftist victim card to try distance himself from the consequences. He’s probably watched too much CNN and thought, this will go down well here..

Hold on...CNN invented victimhood? Who is the biggest, whiniest "victim" in the US? Donald Trump. Santos is a Republican. What about their sense of victimization is "leftist?"