What on Earth is going on in the world today? It's gone mad

[Front242]

@Front242, I'm going to respond to you here, to get the French elections out of the ATP General News thread. You posted:

"I'm really not sure why so much is made of Le Pen being supposedly so far-right. Macron is a complete pos who showed during the last 2 years with covid you're only free in France when you do what he tells you to do. He's a fascist pos. The way he spoke to his country during covid was a disgrace. Neither are great candidates but there you go, that's politicians for you."

___________________

Does "National Front" mean nothing to you. OK, they changed the name and have tried to tone down some of the more extremist views, but I'm not sure where you get off saying "supposedly so far-right." And then you call Macron a fascist.

Couldn't reply earlier as I went for a walk and ended up walking back in monsoon style rain for 5 miles. Really since covid, Macron has shown himself to be extremely fascist, yes. Controlling society and dividing people over that bs covid pass was 100% fascism but he's hardly alone in that many countries showed their true colours and did the same. Treating certain people in society like second rate citizens is exactly what fascists do and what Macron did. You can't talk to your society the way he did and he's not fit for president. I don't think much of Le Pen either but unfortunately France are gonna be stuck with one of them, most likely Macron. Le Pen has toned things way down and given how Macron handled covid he's every bit as far right as her. Macron also has a lot of nerve accusing Le Pen of siding with Putin when he's all pally with him himself. Clown president imo but like I said, it's not much of an option between the 2 and France will have a crap president either way.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europ...covid-law-debate-suspension-media-2022-01-05/

 

[Moxie]

Couldn't reply earlier as I went for a walk and ended up walking back in monsoon style rain for 5 miles. Really since covid, Macron has shown himself to be extremely fascist, yes. Controlling society and dividing people over that bs covid pass was 100% fascism but he's hardly alone in that many countries showed their true colours and did the same. Treating certain people in society like second rate citizens is exactly what fascists do and what Macron did. You can't talk to your society the way he did and he's not fit for president. I don't think much of Le Pen either but unfortunately France are gonna be stuck with one of them, most likely Macron. Le Pen has toned things way down and given how Macron handled covid he's every bit as far right as her. Macron also has a lot of nerve accusing Le Pen of siding with Putin when he's all pally with him himself. Clown president imo but like I said, it's not much of an option between the 2 and France will have a crap president either way.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europ...covid-law-debate-suspension-media-2022-01-05/

I think it's a bit much to throw around the term "fascist" in this case, and I know about the speech you cite. Even I don't use it with Le Pen, and her party was historically much more close to those concepts. Yes, Marine, the daughter, has pulled things back from the party of her father, and even tossed him out, I think. Certainly made it more socially acceptable, and in a time when nationalistic tendencies are on the rise, so good timing on her part. I don't pretend to know much about French politics, but I do read that most people/pundits inside and outside of France believe the choice is between a lesser of two not-so-appealing options. But I think using extreme measures in Covid is not the same thing as being a dictator. France didn't do much different from any other country in the West, did it? I know you have had a huge problem with strict Covid measures, and attitudes about the vaccine, but it doesn't make Macron especially different, and certainly not a fascist, IMO. The run-off election is tomorrow. Personally, I hope France doesn't join the growing number of countries in Europe that are opting for the far-right.

 

[Federberg]

regarding the conversation about CRT. I read up a lot on this as I found the topic intriguing. What struck me was that the current interpretation of it is so far away from the original intent I was actually left confused. I forget the name of the originator, but he was a bit of a maverick thinker and a lot of his peer black intellectuals resisted his conclusions. If I can presume to describe his thinking here, it wasn't actually about systemic racism at all. His argument was.. and I'll use both the Civil War and the Civil Rights Act 1964 (as these were his points of reference)... that whenever blacks in America see progress towards equality, both blacks and those who advocate on their behalf tend to see those changes as permanent, but they constantly fail to prepare for the inevitable backlash. After the Civil War, there was Jim Crow. And after the Civil Rights Act, not only were the most prominent leaders killed, but Nixon's Law and Order campaign was emblematic of the inevitable backlash. The originator of the thesis, wasn't talking so much about institutions perpetuating micro-racism. Rather he was focused on the macro-racism in America that would fight against real progress. He was more interested in castigating black Americans for mis-diagnosing what needed to be done than worrying about racists. For example, my sense (and this is just my personal view), is that he would have considered a Ketanji Brown on the Supreme Court a more significant thing than an Obama becoming President. He would have expected the resistance Obama experienced, Obama's ineffectiveness at advancing the black condition and the arrival of a Trump to repudiate Obama's success. Hope that makes sense. I may have misunderstood but that was my take away...

 

[Moxie]

regarding the conversation about CRT. I read up a lot on this as I found the topic intriguing. What struck me was that the current interpretation of it is so far away from the original intent I was actually left confused. I forget the name of the originator, but he was a bit of a maverick thinker and a lot of his peer black intellectuals resisted his conclusions. If I can presume to describe his thinking here, it wasn't actually about systemic racism at all. His argument was.. and I'll use both the Civil War and the Civil Rights Act 1964 (as these were his points of reference)... that whenever blacks in America see progress towards equality, both blacks and those who advocate on their behalf tend to see those changes as permanent, but they constantly fail to prepare for the inevitable backlash. After the Civil War, there was Jim Crow. And after the Civil Rights Act, not only were the most prominent leaders killed, but Nixon's Law and Order campaign was emblematic of the inevitable backlash. The originator of the thesis, wasn't talking so much about institutions perpetuating micro-racism. Rather he was focused on the macro-racism in America that would fight against real progress. He was more interested in castigating black Americans for mis-diagnosing what needed to be done than worrying about racists. For example, my sense (and this is just my personal view), is that he would have considered a Ketanji Brown on the Supreme Court a more significant thing than an Obama becoming President. He would have expected the resistance Obama experienced, Obama's ineffectiveness at advancing the black condition and the arrival of a Trump to repudiate Obama's success. Hope that makes sense. I may have misunderstood but that was my take away...

I think you might mean Derrick Bell. There is no one originator of CRT, (is my understanding,) but he is one who worked within the Civil Rights movement, and found a certain, if not disillusionment with outcomes, but it sounds to me like a deeper dive into cause-effect. I don't think it can be said that CRT isn't about systemic racism, but certainly that it's much more complicated than that.

In that wiki dive I found this, which is very interesting:

Bell and these other legal scholars began using the phrase "critical race theory" (CRT) in the 1970s as a takeoff on "critical legal theory", a branch of legal scholarship that challenges the validity of concepts such as rationality, objective truth, and judicial neutrality. Critical legal theory was itself a takeoff on critical theory, a philosophical framework with roots in Marxist thought.

I bolded the above because I would think that most of us would think "critical legal theory" as described above would be a worthy intellectual endeavor, in the seeking of a more refined justice system. The follow-on sentence notes that this comes from "critical theory," and noting that it comes from Marxist thought. And it does. But this is why people on the right, who have extracted almost nothing of the reality or value of CRT, but they seem to be able to tell you it's a Marxist idea. From the early 20th C. But the idea is to challenge power structures. To question them. Is there anything fundamentally wrong with that? Well, there is, if you are the power structure, and that's one of the hearts of the problem. But I thought the genealogy of the term and theory was interesting.

Like you, I find the topic to be complicated. We are told it is only taught in graduate schools, and so that probably explains it: it's a pretty rarefied subject and theory. And now we get people trying to tell us it is invading elementary school math books. Not because they know what it is, but because they have tried to make it into something it is not, which is reductive, yet monstrous, and they have weaponized it in, I have to say, a racist way.

You can make fun of me for getting most of my news from Comedy Central, but I cop to that. John Oliver does a good job of trying to explain it:

 

[Federberg]

Like you, I find the topic to be complicated. We are told it is only taught in graduate schools, and so that probably explains it: it's a pretty rarefied subject and theory. And now we get people trying to tell us it is invading elementary school math books. Not because they know what it is, but because they have tried to make it into something it is not, which is reductive, yet monstrous, and they have weaponized it in, I have to say, a racist way.

Thanks for this. I'll have a proper read later. But I slightly disagree with why the GOP is weaponising this. I don't think they're doing it for racist reasons. Frankly I think that racism itself is just a tool in their arsenal. They are trying to pin woke-ism on the Dems for the mid-terms. If it works they'll deploy it in 2024 too. This is purely about winning elections, I don't believe this iteration of the GOP has an ounce of ideology anymore...

 

[Moxie]

Thanks for this. I'll have a proper read later. But I slightly disagree with why the GOP is weaponising this. I don't think they're doing it for racist reasons. Frankly I think that racism itself is just a tool in their arsenal. They are trying to pin woke-ism on the Dems for the mid-terms. If it works they'll deploy it in 2024 too. This is purely about winning elections, I don't believe this iteration of the GOP has an ounce of ideology anymore...

While I agree that the GOP is not the "Dixiecrats" of the 60s, with an out-racist platform, (and I also believe they don't have much ideology to speak of, either, just naked ambition to power, though there is a very conservative agenda at the end of that rainbow,) their cynical use of CRT, for one example, is a tool in their arsenal to exploit racism in their base, and otherwise white anxieties over race, and loss of position and power in the "browning" of America. To me, this is racist, is it not? At its core? The vast majority of Republican voters are white. And male. They also play into gender anxiety in the same way. It's all very complicated, but there is a lot of dog-whistling from the Republicans on these issues, supported by right-wing media, and Trump taught them well. If you dance around it but don't really say it, it's hard for anyone to pin anything on you. Create a problem where none existed, playing on an anxiety and then riff on it towards other goals. If you could be bothered to watch the John Oliver video, and I don't blame you if you can't, you can see that CRT is one way of getting to "school choice," which means giving public funds as vouchers to parents to put their kids in private/parochial schools, something that has long been on the conservative agenda. You can also see from there how that would tend to segregate schools, and take money away from the public ones, and I don't have to tell you whom that would be the detriment.

"Woke-ness" is already firmly pinned on the liberal side in the US already, (rightly, though it comes from a very old African American concept/slang,) but clearly with DeSantis' Stop W.O.K.E (Stop Wrongs to our Kids,) they are clearly targeting that as a talking point for the elections. ("Wrongs to Our Kids"...how vague and inflammatory can you be?)

 

[Moxie]

It would certainly be helpful if they pointed to the books they’re banning, and outlined clearly where the problems are, but the statement clearly says that the books don’t meet the standards they set…

I listened to a long interview today on the radio with a woman called Dana Goldstein who writes for the NYT on education issues and has written a book on the history of education in the US. She looked at the books in question. The FL panel did not cite specifics, so they (she worked with a colleague) had to guess. Just to make this really complicated, there is another thing that this initiative objects to called "social emotional learning." So, while these math books don't have much to do with race, at all, (I'll get back to that,) they do have ways of talking to children about their math anxiety. Examples: after presenting a match problem, they ask questions like: on a scale of 1-4, how much did you struggle with solving this? Can you cooperate with a friend on solving it? There is some notion of grit and perseverance to keep going, even if you're not doing so well. Apparently these types of questions are considered "social emotional learning," and some folks object to them. And, given that math anxiety is more prevalent amongst girls in general and boys of color, in one book (or some) the examples of mathematicians in history, it seemed, tended to highlight men of color and women, rather than white men, who I'm sure we all know would be in the preponderance as to famous mathematicians. So I guess this gets seen as racist, or downplaying white men. (That category that needs so much bolstering, especially in math and science.) Or it's all too touchy-feely, which is a gateway to teachers indoctrinating their students all kinds of ways, which is seriously a conversation that is going on in the US.

 

[Jelenafan]

Getting back to the Macron presidency , I sort of chuckle when Macron is accused of arrogance, being autocratic, aloof , dictatorial, ruling by decree, etc, etc, etc.

ALL French Presidents are like that, simply because the current 5th Republic’s presidency was custom tailored for the most autocratic and powerful French politician of the modern era, CharlesDeGaulle. It really doesn’t have checks and balances. Pompidou, Giscard D’estaing, Chirac, Mitterrand, Sarcozy, etc have all been accused of the same “crimes” of Macron.

Why is France's president Europe's most powerful and is it a problem?

France is electing its next president this month. Experts say the position has an unprecedented amount of power. Why is that?

www.euronews.com

Even the parliamentary elections usually favor the sitting President by following so closely the Presidential elections.

So, for example, Macron’s COVID decrees were simply yet another an extension of the French President’s vast sweeping power. That’s how the office was structured.

 

[Kieran]

I listened to a long interview today on the radio with a woman called Dana Goldstein who writes for the NYT on education issues and has written a book on the history of education in the US. She looked at the books in question. The FL panel did not cite specifics, so they (she worked with a colleague) had to guess. Just to make this really complicated, there is another thing that this initiative objects to called "social emotional learning." So, while these math books don't have much to do with race, at all, (I'll get back to that,) they do have ways of talking to children about their math anxiety. Examples: after presenting a match problem, they ask questions like: on a scale of 1-4, how much did you struggle with solving this? Can you cooperate with a friend on solving it? There is some notion of grit and perseverance to keep going, even if you're not doing so well. Apparently these types of questions are considered "social emotional learning," and some folks object to them. And, given that math anxiety is more prevalent amongst girls in general and boys of color, in one book (or some) the examples of mathematicians in history, it seemed, tended to highlight men of color and women, rather than white men, who I'm sure we all know would be in the preponderance as to famous mathematicians. So I guess this gets seen as racist, or downplaying white men. (That category that needs so much bolstering, especially in math and science.) Or it's all too touchy-feely, which is a gateway to teachers indoctrinating their students all kinds of ways, which is seriously a conversation that is going on in the US.

I suppose this falls directly into the culture war, where Diversity, Inclusion and Equality is a policy in some places, and they don’t want to go that route, even for a moment. I can see the logic, if that’s what they’re doing, if their argument is that the thin edge of the wedge is still part of the wedge. I can see sense from that perspective, though it would still be preferable if the actual maths content was sound, to contact the authors/publishers and suggest changes…

 

[Kieran]

Getting back to the Macron presidency , I sort of chuckle when Macron is accused of arrogance, being autocratic, aloof , dictatorial, ruling by decree, etc, etc, etc.

ALL French Presidents are like that, simply because the current 5th Republic’s presidency was custom tailored for the most autocratic and powerful French politician of the modern era, CharlesDeGaulle. It really doesn’t have checks and balances. Pompidou, Giscard D’estaing, Chirac, Mitterrand, Sarcozy, etc have all been accused of the same “crimes” of Macron.

Why is France's president Europe's most powerful and is it a problem?

France is electing its next president this month. Experts say the position has an unprecedented amount of power. Why is that?

www.euronews.com

Even the parliamentary elections usually favor the sitting President by following so closely the Presidential elections.

So, for example, Macron’s COVID decrees were simply yet another an extension of the French President’s vast sweeping power. That’s how the office was structured.

Yeah that’s true, and maybe that’s a cultural thing, that the French still like the idea of having a napoleonic figure on the world stage, albeit a watered down version. The election was interesting from the perspective of Le Pen, who has shifted her party nearer the centre. We have had so many far left candidates running for office in the west that they’ve become normal, and so then anyone who’s centre-right often gets vilified as a Nazi - which means that somebody even further to the right almost gets a pass. Of course, centre-right actually is far-right if you’re stationed on the far left yourself. I mean, it’s a long distance to travel. Eventually, of course, far left and far right meet up and become indistinguishable, particularly when it comes to their views on race. But there will be more far left and far right players on the stage in the west, and each are equally bad, though it’s inevitable that they’ll succeed to be elected.

As a member of the EU, I don’t like the idea of macron as the most powerful person in the EU, we had enough of that with Merkel…

 

[tented]

As a member of the EU, I don’t like the idea of macron as the most powerful person in the EU, we had enough of that with Merkel…

Who would you prefer as the most powerful person in the EU? Or is it you don’t want anyone to hold such a position? There will always be someone, from one of the countries in this position, right?

 

[Kieran]

Who would you prefer as the most powerful person in the EU? Or is it you don’t want anyone to hold such a position? There will always be someone, from one of the countries in this position, right?

It’s an inevitable flaw, but it’s true. There’ll always be a president of the EU from any of the countries on a rotation basis but the real power - and self interest - lies with France and/or Germany…

 

[Jelenafan]

It’s an inevitable flaw, but it’s true. There’ll always be a president of the EU from any of the countries on a rotation basis but the real power - and self interest - lies with France and/or Germany…

With UK out of the European Union, it's just those 2.

It's interesting that the EU has managed to make Germany even more powerful economically, certainly more than even before both World Wars. IMO The French are "try hard" in appearing to be the movers and shakers of EU, at least diplomatically, but I always get the impression that the Germans simply shrugged and let them take those symbolic leads because Germany just couldn't be bothered.

One of the huge ramifications of this Ukrainian invasion is that Germany has lifted it's self imposed military reticence. An armed Germany will dominate Western Europe even more than before. it's ironic that it's Western partners seemingly all feel good about Germany flexing military might again. who would have thunk?

 

[Kieran]

With UK out of the European Union, it's just those 2.

It's interesting that the EU has managed to make Germany even more powerful economically, certainly more than even before both World Wars. IMO The French are "try hard" in appearing to be the movers and shakers of EU, at least diplomatically, but I always get the impression that the Germans simply shrugged and let them take those symbolic leads because Germany just couldn't be bothered.

One of the huge ramifications of this Ukrainian invasion is that Germany has lifted it's self imposed military reticence. An armed Germany will dominate Western Europe even more than before. it's ironic that it's Western partners seemingly all feel good about Germany flexing military might again. who would have thunk?

Yeah, and meanwhile they’re financing Putin’s War with their ill advised and controversial reliance on Russian fuel. But yeah, a strong Germany at the heart of the EU never struck me as a great thing, and now they’re re-arming. Part of me cheers, yay, they’re gonna kick Putin’s butt, but the larger part of me says, get a grip Kieran, you’re an idiot…

 

[Federberg]

With UK out of the European Union, it's just those 2.

It's interesting that the EU has managed to make Germany even more powerful economically, certainly more than even before both World Wars. IMO The French are "try hard" in appearing to be the movers and shakers of EU, at least diplomatically, but I always get the impression that the Germans simply shrugged and let them take those symbolic leads because Germany just couldn't be bothered.

One of the huge ramifications of this Ukrainian invasion is that Germany has lifted it's self imposed military reticence. An armed Germany will dominate Western Europe even more than before. it's ironic that it's Western partners seemingly all feel good about Germany flexing military might again. who would have thunk?

perhaps you underestimate how powerful Germany was before both wars. It's certainly strong again now, particularly with the addition of East Germany. But it took a large alliance to beat them in two wars. And in both cases the Americans were required to tip the scales. Think about it this way... can you imagine Russia and the United States on the. same side to defeat Germany? That's what happened...

 

[tented]

perhaps you underestimate how powerful Germany was before both wars. It's certainly strong again now, particularly with the addition of East Germany. But it took a large alliance to beat them in two wars. And in both cases the Americans were required to tip the scales. Think about it this way... can you imagine Russia and the United States on the. same side to defeat Germany? That's what happened...

That was a classic example of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

 

[Jelenafan]

perhaps you underestimate how powerful Germany was before both wars. It's certainly strong again now, particularly with the addition of East Germany. But it took a large alliance to beat them in two wars. And in both cases the Americans were required to tip the scales. Think about it this way... can you imagine Russia and the United States on the. same side to defeat Germany? That's what happened...

The last time we visited Europe and saw Germany efficiency and infrastructure, my wife quipped, "Remind me again how they Germans could have possibly lost the war? "

Nobody disputes the German Military was the single most powerful army in continental Europe for about 80 years until their defeat in WW11.

I specifically referred to “economic” might, especially with the economic integration thanks to the EU . As goes Germany so goes Europe, it’s the engine that drives the European economy and it holds up the Euro, dictating economic policy for the EU.

You certainly wouldn't say that pre World War 1 as the UK was the largest European economy per GDP and the world's strongest currency was the British Pound. Even pre WW11, a declining UK still clung to the pound as the reserve standard, though yea Germany had rebounded remarkably economically by then.

If you look today at Germany today, one could argue that without a strong standing army, 77 years later Germany "won" the war. Certainly alot of older Brits thought so when voting for Brexit and seemingly getting out of the thumb of German "domination".

 

[britbox]

The last time we visited Europe and saw Germany efficiency and infrastructure, my wife quipped, "Remind me again how they Germans could have possibly lost the war? "

Nobody disputes the German Military was the single most powerful army in continental Europe for about 80 years until their defeat in WW11.

I specifically referred to “economic” might, especially with the economic integration thanks to the EU . As goes Germany so goes Europe, it’s the engine that drives the European economy and it holds up the Euro, dictating economic policy for the EU.

You certainly wouldn't say that pre World War 1 as the UK was the largest European economy per GDP and the world's strongest currency was the British Pound. Even pre WW11, a declining UK still clung to the pound as the reserve standard, though yea Germany had rebounded remarkably economically by then.

If you look today at Germany today, one could argue that without a strong standing army, 77 years later Germany "won" the war. Certainly alot of older Brits thought so when voting for Brexit and seemingly getting out of the thumb of German "domination".

Quick question for you... Given the magnitude of WW2 and the ramifications... how many executions took place at the Nuremberg trials?

 

[Kieran]

The last time we visited Europe and saw Germany efficiency and infrastructure, my wife quipped, "Remind me again how they Germans could have possibly lost the war? "

Nobody disputes the German Military was the single most powerful army in continental Europe for about 80 years until their defeat in WW11.

I specifically referred to “economic” might, especially with the economic integration thanks to the EU . As goes Germany so goes Europe, it’s the engine that drives the European economy and it holds up the Euro, dictating economic policy for the EU.

You certainly wouldn't say that pre World War 1 as the UK was the largest European economy per GDP and the world's strongest currency was the British Pound. Even pre WW11, a declining UK still clung to the pound as the reserve standard, though yea Germany had rebounded remarkably economically by then.

If you look today at Germany today, one could argue that without a strong standing army, 77 years later Germany "won" the war. Certainly alot of older Brits thought so when voting for Brexit and seemingly getting out of the thumb of German "domination".

Germany had armed itself for the Second World War, so they were always going to get out of the gate early. The British - and I believe Americans - had to play catch up in that regard. So Germany swept all before it and only that Hitler was so lousy strategically, thinking to broaden the war into the east while still not victorious in the west, they would have been difficult to dislodge, but I believe they would have been, eventually.

The German virtues of pragmatism and good timekeeping, if you get me, make them organised and effortlessly ruthless economically, as well as militarily. They think that everyone else in the EU should be just like them, which of course is never gonna happen to the Irish, the Italians, the Greeks, the Spanish, and thank God for that!

 

[britbox]

Nobody disputes the German Military was the single most powerful army in continental Europe for about 80 years until their defeat in WW11.

Did you forget WW1?