Belisarius
.
No bio...
User ID: 2663
I was under the impression that Kulak, like most people with avatars of attractive women online, is actually a man.
I won't be able to fully address everything here. I do appreciate that your response wasn't as heated as it could had been.
I would like to focus on a minor point which is that those countries that are part of a western alliance, to remain in that isn't a bad thing necessarily if USA fixes its ideological issues and doesn't push destructive demands. Indeed, what I advocate still allows room for a saner than today USA as the strongest power. Chinese and Russian ambitions can also be destructive towards other countries, like their neighbors.
An attempt by the USA for worldwide full spectrum dominance or expanding spheres of influence has had too much a destructive path already, and will continue to do so in the future. So, when I argue for multipolarism is a different thing than when the Russians or Chinese do, for in their advocation includes them having a license to expand their sphere of influence.
When for me, is about trying to retain a status quo that avoids invasions, and avoids trying to coup and dismember countries like China, and Russia, or pushing too much propaganda about them being illegitimate regimes. There is a situation where such powers try to trade and seek more win-win diplomatic paths, and one where they try to undermine each other and prepare for hotter conflict.
Anyway, while you might believe that one country dominating will lead to global peace, the position of Europe since this conflict has been a worsening one, precisely as they became more dependent to USA. The reality is any power dominating gives it more opportunity for abuse. Including promoting extreme ideologies. Although, abuse of bigger powers in alliances or even among expected protectorates does result in them seeking to disentangle themselves. UK arrests far more people for their speech than Russia does, which matters when evaluating the current trajectory of western demcoracies. Most importantly, for USA to get global hegemony and the desirable peace, and to humiliate and keep down its rivals, far more war and conflict will have to ensue, including as in Syria possible civil war within Russia and China. I don't buy that an agenda that raises risk of WW3 and nuclear war is a good way to achieve peace. Nor did the conflicts that USA was involved in the middle east, did any good of the people there. It is in fact likely, that rather than peace, the attempt for worldwide hegemony will lead to similiar misfortune for those affected, and even not succeed at providing American hegemony, but waste blood and treasure. So avoiding both expanding moves like that, and what we already saw such as with the Iraq war, Syrian war and funding the rebels, etc, etc.
The arrangement of trying to deescalate tensions where the onus isn't just on the USA and the Chinese and Russians also have their own responsibility, seems like a much better bet.
Of course in practice, global powers are going to do their proxy conflicts, and part of that will include both influences of lobbies and the struggle relating to expanding spheres of influence, and at best this can be mitigated and reduced, but too idealsitic to expect it to stop. I do think that things have escalated and things can be put in a healthier equilibrium. And it really is completely unrealistic and putting lipstick to a process of great power competition, to talk of peace and the morality of continuous hegemony. It is a bit like the communists promoted this idea that it would be the defeat of capitalism, imperialism and great if they took over the world. Like colonialism had its white man's burden, we also now had in the case of pro american imperialism, narratives promising peace. Prior to the soviet utopian dream, the Russians promoted this idea of them as protectors of Christians against the Ottomans to jsutify expanding, and both Russia and USSR promoted this idea of them as protectors of slavs. Narratives are going always to exist to defend moves in the great chess game, which on the meantime can destabilize countries and can lead to the harm even of the involved great powers through conflict, and not just the destruction of the region that is fought.
Doesn't this betray the point of allowing different systems?
What determines the nation's values considering your hypothetical? Since such values might need to be established and maybe through time a system with condemned values, might perform better.
And how do you stop areas which have similar ideologies from ganging up on groups they are ideologically opposed to? Even if their way would work better, if left to their own devices.
For example, different form of antinationalists materialists (lets say socialists and pro market types), which also are more made up of certain ethnic groups, ganging up and utilizing mass migration policies in their own area and freedom of movement to help take over against an area that is more conservative, more nationalist made up of a different ethnic group because they are intolerant of this arrangement and consider it evil, fascistic, and also have some ethnic hostility towards them. Groups being offended and finding something abhorent based on their ideology is a very real possibility. This idea of military used against what is abhorent, how does it avoid the states from fighting a big ideological war> Just like the focus on ideology and countries captured by ideologies, has helped inflame antipathies and lead to real war and conflict in our own history.
Wouldn't a part that strongly identifies with an ideology, be motivated to find a way to impose it to other areas?
Actually what kind of ideologies are chosen could very well determine what ideologies dominate through such dynamics of what are the dominant similarities between them which can be different if different ideologies are chosen. Once ideologies have a foothold they would work together and evolve, not based on prediction markets, but by such ideologies finding true believers who further modify them.
My prediction of this system is that some kind of war for dominance of ideologies is more likely than some enlightened ruler disciplining this system and being easily in control, as in some videogame where you can push the slider a little to the left and a little to the right.
If progressive policies cause people to be more negatively inclined towards progressive favored "protected" groups, that doesn't mean that progressivism is perpetuating prejudice against such groups necessarily. AA would cause more suspicion bu ift people would be justifiably more suspicious of the quality of Affirmative Action hires, then that would be correct. Justifiable negativity is not prejudice. And unjustifiable positivity for one group would itself be unfair on other groups.
This force is in competition between progressivism cultivating irrational attitudes that are pro the groups benefiting from affirmative action. For example, if a group commits more crime but some people buy into a conspiracy theory that the cops and judges are just framing them, then progressivism benefits excessively this group actually. Distorting reality in its favor and at expense of other groups.
Additionally, if negativity is prejudice, then policies such as stop and frisk, are born of a society willing to be critical, suspicious and negative towards say blacks. Why isn't it prejudice then?
The prejudice against groups progressivism disfavors and in favor the groups it favors is the serious problem, and not progressivism inspiring bigotry against blacks. Actually, this idea of prioritizing the groups progressivism favors as victims of racism is part of the problem of progressivism and how it can be bigoted. Certainly it can inspire a backlashe, which if proportionate the backlash is actually the good thing and the bad thing is the problem that inspired it, and if disproprotionate, sure there might be something to criticize from that angle, focusing on the disproportionality. However, that shouldn't be the primary criticism of progressivism over it directly favoring certain groups too much, and being overly hostile towards other groups.
I challenged you directly if you think you should excuse blatantly immoral and destructive conduct under the idea that US hegemony is good. It seems to me that you want to do that and are just trying to promote it based on arguing that US hegemony is good actually. But you also say you accept restraint and criticism. And it doesn't seem that you really do in a substantial manner. How should current policy change if it means you accept that there are areas it has acted wrongly.
There are a few problems with this. Which is that destroying other countries and causing civil wars to cause more US hegemony will result in far more devastation.
And part of the peace has been because of existence of other powers and not adopting fully culturally marxist agenda. When Japan open its borders and follows more the cultural marxist agenda the result wouldn't be good for the Japanese but worse. Moreover, the existence of an other, helps restrain predation by Americans against their allies, and now seems less so.
Anyway, a USA that is against the immoral conduct of other countries, and restraints it self from instigating more trouble, will work better. Part of my solution includes a push for general deescalation that includes non Americans also doing that through negotiations and attempts to diplomacy being part of the process. I am not suggesting that the USA should stop having a military, but I do think that the neocons being highly representative of what I am critical of a criminal conduct, as a faction are removed from any influence.
When people like Bret Stephens arguing to replace the white working, this isn't good because higher GDP, because this agenda also comes along with massive redistribution, and quotas at expense of targeted group. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2023-09-30/how-corporate-america-kept-its-diversity-promise-a-week-of-big-take
The package offered by the modern GAE is also unattractive to many African countries because it comes with prioritising submission to cultural far leftist agenda. Chinese investment with less lecturing is more attractive. So, one of my alternatives is to abadon that and ideology of woke/neocon types to be abadoned. However, I don't think ideology should be absent from global politics. There is a value in certain human rights, and want those genuine rights to be protected. But the general cultural marxist conception of rights should be thrown to the garbage. And we don't need people trying indirect justifications due to GDP. It is both bad in its own right, but also alienates people who would be otherwise more positive towards USA influence.
Oh, and having a modern economy, and not aligning with American warmongering are different things. I don't want a world that doesn't trade with the USA, but one that doesn't support belligerence. Some of your rhetoric leads us to a more reductive path and makes it harder to face specific issues. Moves us away from clarity and conflates things that shouldn't be conflated. And it is anachronistic, not taking into account the massive amounts of investment that a more pro chinese aligned block is seeing.
European countries benefited much more when they traded and had more positive relations with Russia, China and USA. Being overly aligned with a neocon aggressive, arrogant USA is not a move for better economy but one were you suffer consequences at your expense. Although some protectionism is also reasonable to protect their own industries, so I am not free trade but pro trade against against trying to strongly suppress and stop trade and enact new cold wars.
In regards to American interests, there is an issue of interests of foreign lobbies, of weapon manufacturers, and of people with ideological obsessions that don't fulfill even American interests. There is also an issue of higher cost than they are worth. Much of American warmongering, has reduced American prestige, and USA can be a more credible pusher for world peace, by avoiding doing such actions, and retaining influence as the most powerful member of an actual alliance, where America treats other countries part of its alliance as allies and respects their rights. So, I genuinely think that people whose agenda is ethnically destructive are immoral on their own rights, and ironically help damage Pax Americana. They are incentivizing non Americans to correctly resist on grounds of their human rights to exist and self determination So, I would suggest you compromise and abadon trying to excuse such agendas. The cultural marxist agendas are irredeemably extreme and destructive.
This idea that with rhetoric and excuses, anything will be tolerated and people are going to accept any and all arrangements that are destructive against them, is simply not true. Hubris doesn't solve decline but accelerates it. So, a pax americana is going to rightfully end for good, or as you think for ill, if modern USA is a cultural marxist very arrogant country that has moved to a much more radical path than its previous conduct towards its allies were it was willing to compromise with the existence of nation state democracies. Indeed peace, becomes impossible under such an extreme USSA, because it promotes aggressive policy.
So, to summarize:
There is nothing wrong with an influential USA in a pro USA alliance, provided this USA avoids its substantial own bad behavior, and respects the rights of its allies which includes not trying to impose ethnically destructive and other social agendas.
There is plenty of wrong with much of American warmongering which has been destructive both economically and otherwise and it is of a different nature than countries being part of NATO or having some ties with the USA.
There is something wrong with an attempt by the USA to make the entire world aligned with it, and to succeed in destroying rival powers, will come with enormous blood and destruction.
It is better to have a multipolar world that collaborates and tries to some extend to share some principles on issues of opposing say invasions. Where good faith behavior makes it easier for principles to be taken seriously and there is more win-win entanglement. A connected world order in such ways. Trade, negotiation are key aspects of this, and there is probably a value in different blocs aligning to oppose the worst deeds of other blocs and restraining each other. So, I am not arguing here in favor of the disapperance of USA as an influential player.
Although its modern moral decline and rising extremism, is an enormous problem that needs to be corrected and not something to just dismiss. It is a massive elephant to the room of how USA became a much more radical power with its embassies promoting very extreme and destructive agenda. Although I also don't think that Russia and China with their own third world nationalist elements are an adequate solution. Cultural marxist ideology is a gigantic problem, and not part of a healthy alliance and the only solution is to be suppressed, and those elements with such ideology to not be allowed to have influence. Including outside the USA, GAE being about more than just USA. Indeed, ironically cultural marxism with its own antiwestern, anti the peoples of the alliance propaganda, helps promote Russia and China and non western countries as alternatives. Why should people support self hating west over nonwestern blocks, if they buy into this ideology? Including those outside the west? The contradictions can't be sustained by just the same tired propaganda of ww2, pretending opposition are far left, far right, promoting only the threat of Russia, and China, or claiming it is economically superior path. My conclusion, in addition to suggesting that it would be a good path for our world and the USA too, to abandon this ideology, is to note an inability for the cultural marxist GAE types to compromise. This ideological purity spiral would serve them as poorly as it served other very ideological empires which refused to compromise.
It is definitely convenient to paint anyone who disagrees with American foreign policy establishment as an extremist. It is blatantly propagandistic however and just sheer boo outgroup demagoguery.
The reality, is you are dealing with people making valid arguements, and it is actually false that these arguements and perspectives are part of a far left or far right perpective, except that they are part of perspectives of both moderates, far left, far right, whatever people. And of course outside the USA, you will find again even more so people and majority of spectrum be critical of the many immoral and against international law actions of the foreign pollicy establishment.
Ironically, the current American establishment is far more far left extremist than Jeffrey Sachs and you got plenty of people who combine far left extremism with supporting imperialism. Sachs seem more like a more timid leftist than say Joe Biden.
Moreover, this also applied during the buildup of WW2. The majority of Americans opposed involvement and also had a negative opinion of both the nazis and Stalin. Really, it was more like opposition to Iraq, Vietnam which again the driving force was not far left american haters, and it would be to strawman and negatively exaggerate people like Sachs to paint them in such colors.
The American goverment highly subverted and full of communist agents didn't just support intervention to WW2 but was massively for Stalin and helped him above and beyond to take half of Europe, when they could have followed better policy that wasn't as pro communist. The great book Stalin's wars goes more into this, showing how even after the Soviets were winning, they were prioritised to get help over even American troops and many more examples of this policy direction.
Additionally, when it comes to supporters of WW2, which changed after pearl harbor, there were those who had pretty far right views and wanted to kill the Japanese and saw them as racial enemies, or supported destroying the Germans because they saw them as enemies and were pro warcrimes. It really is overly reductive and just conveniently propagandistic to try to frame the policies taken by the state department, often highly influenced by foreign lobbies, as a moderate position that only far leftists and far rightists could oppose. This is false, and you will find people whose perspective pattern matches to far left, or far right among supporters of such foreign policy. Today, it is especially far leftists who openly see the GAE as a empire for imposing their ideology.
Skepticism of American foreign policy is widely popular because it does plenty of immoral and wrong things. It is in fact quite popular among non americans of all persuassions. And to a lesser extend it is popular among Americans and promoted by the most popular host in Tucker, because the framing that it is all for Americas interest against foreign enemies, isn't accurate when it comes to Ukraine and Israel too. There is in fact a redistribution outwards and of course in favor of the weapon manufacturers that are some of the biggest donors of think tanks. There are also foreign lobbies like the israeli lobby which support wars for self serving non pro American reasons. The America first identification of movements skeptical of American foreign policy, including by Trump in part, is not accurately captured by labeling it as far right just cause you say it is. There is validity in their perspective that interests of American people are not put first.
Now, I wouldn't argue that we need to be maximally skeptical of American foreign policy establishment and maximally apologist of non American powers. There are those like Chomsky who went too far in that direction, but certainly skepticism and opposition to the current foreign policy uniparty has many humanitarian, real politic, and other grounds to stand upon, such as seeing it leading the world towards more world war paths and can't be dismissed by booing them as extremists.
All powers need to know there will be opposition when they violate certain norms. To avoid bad behavior you need to let them know those that behave badly, and would behave worse still, that there will be opposition and hostility and consequences. Hence, why those favoring totalitarianism where certain groups are beyond criticism, and poison the waters by slandering critics are promoting something incredibly dangerous.
What are you going to do about international conflicts on which the USA plays a role at causing? Surely, you would want USA to dissuade other countries from causing trouble but be critical when USA itself causes trouble?
Do you think, we should see all the warmongering USA is responsible both in wars and including coups, funding extremist rebels as in Syria, as something that shouldn't be challenged and an acceptable sacrifice for the greater good? Because this way of thinking is exploitable and will lead to more bad behavior by the warmongering, CIA coups parts of USA.
Including those who deliberately might want conflict with other great powers so that they can be defeated and there would be American hegemony over them. If MAD is part of world peace, then that MAD includes the existence of rival powers too. Now, I don't think the way is to turn a blind eye to China, etc, but neither is to treat the American foreign policy establishment as the good guys.
I think in your model of world peace, you should not neglect to consider how American imperialist deeds, which include funding their own color revolutions/rebels should be restrained, because they actually have been the more warmongering active player around the globe.
Of course, it is also legitimate to treat the warmongering and threat of more, by non American powers as a problem.
Some part of the previous peace, relates to a different more friendly attitute of American foreign policy towards countries like Russia and China. And moreover, the fact that China was weaker, growing and not perceived as a threat while China it self also became more brazen. The Ukraine issue has been constantly debated, but certainly the Russians did have their own aggressive moves in Ukraine, in addition to the oust of their guy there from a western backed coup (with people like McCain openly supporting it). It seems to me that both the USA and the Chinese and Russians became more aggressive.
An aggressive American world dominance hegemonist perspective that seeks to dismember rival powers like Russia and China and seeks their submission as countries is itself war causing, and possibly ww3 causing. If there weren't nukes, it might have lead us there already. But international peace would require a general deescalation, not just from the USA, of course.
I very strongly disagree. There were smartphones before the iPhone, including with all sorts of applications and stylus interface over finger interface. The iPhone was the most popular smartphone and it will deserve a note on history for representing the moment that they spread, and represented an advance. But a small enough which was inevitable. As far as technological innovation goes, I am not that impressed. Still deserving praise for capturing the market though and some innovation on some features. But I wouldn't consider it sufficiently innovative to represent the definitive innovation of the 21st century. More representing the point of time that smartphones spread.
The OS was also preferable by many users over prior alternatives, and represented an inovvation, but I wouldn't call that a sufficiently impressive innovation for the praise you offered. Although definitely a great product at the right time.
ETA: Apparently a different smartphone was available in stores a month before the iPhone with a finger touchscreen interface. https://www.androidauthority.com/lg-prada-1080646/
I think he is good at what he does but not necessarily buy all the hype on any of his particular business. People like Thunderfoot have been predicting Musk to crash and burn for years. I don't believe that will happen in the future like it didn't happen so far.
Not quite. My analysis is that claims of Musk's greatness are based on his promises of delivering revolutionary new technologies that will change the world, and I'm saying these technologies are never going to be delivered. There will be no self-driving, robo-taxis, semis, bipedal robots doing manual labor for us, revolutionary new batteries, manned missions to Mars or the Moon. All of these things would make him a great man, if he managed to deliver, but he is not going to. This will also have financial consequences, because the stuff he might deliver is not going to be enough to sustain his companies, and as a result they will crash.
Probably no bipedal robots doing manual labor for us, and maybe not all of the other list, and in lesser extend. My model of Musk as successful, positive force but overpromiser, seems to fit more with his trajectory so far than the one where he crashes and burns. If the man continues being successful promoting some innovations, he can point those and keep hyping new stuff in the future too. The combo of successes + some bullshit can be sustainable.
He's being judged by the same metrics as Elizabeth Holmes or Trevor Milton, I don't think that's weird.
It isn't really fair to Musk to compare him to Elizabeth Holmes. The man has significant tangible successes.
Most of your analysis is based on economic performance and your negative opinion of how he runs his business even though he has been very successful. Frankly, since this is the culture war thread, why should I really particularly care about the fact that the guy is not the business Messiah? I don't necessarily disagree with your analysis of Tesla, but I also don't think you are even particularly negative about what he is doing. So Tesla is business as usual. Ok, and? It doesn't have to be the best. I don't think there are that many blind Elon fanboys here.
The interesting issue about Musk is more twitter and his influence. Where he as usually overpromised, underdelivered, compromised with powers that be, but I would say his purchase does count as an overall net positive contribution.
Space X is also a very successful company taking parts of a role that one would expect NASA to take. Do I agree, or disagree about your specific analysis, then? Well, I didn't bother to read their financial statements, so I am not qualified. What I know is that Space X is highly innovative and even the American goverment rely on them in regards to part of what they are doing. Or with technology like Starlink.
Your analysis is more like what a random individual who made some research on the issue would provide when trying to suggest whether we should, or shouldn't buy shares on Elon's companies. I can't really answer adequately whether you are correct, or missing something, but also don't think it is something particularly important. I would probably invest in an index fund instead.
Space X, Tesla are successful endeavors even if I wouldn't tell you to buy Tesla shares. Maybe Tesla is in a bubble, but the market so far has stayed irrational more than doubters expected. Elon has a history of overpromising with whatever he does, but still delivering to an extend. Which is how I see his successful business too. The important thing is the influence of buying twitter, not whether it is profitable for Musk. So to summarize bellow Musk's general contributions:
I would say he made an important positive contribution with SpaceX. Tesla is another success story even if not necessarily in practice better than the biggest manufacturers despite its share price. Most importantly he is bellow what I wanted to see happen with twitter, but still an important net positive contribution over the alternative. I disagree with some of his takes, like supporting legal migration, but he does mostly help counter a left wing monoculture on culture war issues. In addition to allowing dissent, and highlighting some people promoting it, there is a value in high profile people promoting such views themselves. There is also a positive side to being a hypeman, even if he overpromises. He promotes a certain sci fi optimism that is missing from other billionaires, especially on space exploration. But even with his business, he helps push things in the direction of innovation. On most issues he is involved, he has made a positive contribution with all his imperfections.
I agree with your general point but lets also add some more recent culture war material.
Greta Gerwig which wrote the screenplay and directed Barbie is writing a Netflix film adaptation of first two films of Chronicles of Narnia. Considering her other films I suspect it is going to go much further than the older Disney adaptation in subverting the original material as this article persuasively argues. https://religionunplugged.com/news/2023/7/28/how-barbie-shows-greta-gerwig-is-the-wrong-choice-to-direct-narnia
But I would expect even a current Disney adaptation to also go much further.
The article ends with
Lewis and his “Narnia” stories are so beloved because they took the truths of Christianity and found a way to weave them into fiction to remind us how beautiful they are. We need that now more than ever. Hopefully, once Gerwig is done with “Narnia,” someone else will adapt it who understands it better, to help recapture those truths for our society again.
I would really like to see an alternative. Maybe the people who have successfully made some level of youtube career out of condemning hated woke adaptations that disrespect the original material should pool resources together and try to create themselves some faithful adaptations, starting with less ambitious targets. The Critical Drinker who is a writer might be able to do something interesting. There is a real audience out there willing to pay for faithful adaptations, and there is money to be made. Like we have alt social media and video platforms, although it would be much more expensive, it would be nice to see an attempt for an alternative platform for tv shows and films.
If copyright is an issue, there are stories in the public domain like Ivanhoe, and more that will join them.
I am not an expert on the field but it seems that Out of Africa is becoming more controversial over the alternative that humanity evolved in different continents. There is also the idea of multiple waves of immigration out of Africa. As for the multi-regional model, in addition to evolving to different environments, part of this evolution has been also breeding with different hominid species. We simply keep finding hominids and ancient humans in regions outside of Africa that at minimum challenges the certainty of Out of Africa model.
The findings support a multiregional hypothesis, which argues that before our species left Africa for Europe, there was continuous gene flow between at least two different populations.
https://www.sciencealert.com/the-first-humans-out-of-africa-werent-quite-who-we-thought
https://www.quora.com/Was-the-out-of-Africa-theory-debunked
https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=99257&page=1 https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-the-out-of-africa-theory-out/ https://www.livescience.com/ancient-human-vertebra-found-israel https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/evolution-theory-out-of-africa-dali-skull-china-homo-erectus-sapiens-latest-a8064306.html
Defining Greenpeace as part of traditionalism/conservatism, like Hlynkas redefinitions, moves us to a position of less understanding and unnecessary confusion.
I don't think it's a surprise that countries defined by liberalism, specifically France, treats Greenpeace the way they do.
Highly liberal USA doesn't do so. Liberal Britain is following zero carbon targets even under the Torries, who aren't a conservative party. Liberal Germany has strong Green party and anti nuclear policies. So it is false that this is due to liberalism. Rather than blaming conservatism and praising liberalism for what Greenpeace a group that liberals are more sympathetic towards, the reality is that the French are more pro nuclear than many other peoples and they appreciate better that it worked well for them. You could say that the French in general including French liberals are more pro nuclear, and more hostile towards Greenpeace, but you can't praise liberalism and blame conservatism in general.
You don't have an outside view but a biased view is the point. This idea of neutrality is a false one when it comes to any and all of the rationalistic and adjacent space. They have a side, and they take it and it is a sneaky way to suppress and sometimes censor opposing views. And how can neutrality exist if "red tribers" take a neutral position, in a conflict where it would be correct for them to take their own side? Would the result be neutral? You might not be a rationalist but have been infected by a part of their way of thinking that is especially harmful in your case because rationalists as leftists who want a left wing status quo, are being strategic at promoting their perspective as an outside, neutral one as a way of imposing their preferences. As someone who seems to be pro red tribe in other contexts, this framing of both sides escalating isn't helpful to the red tribe, in the way the rationalists way of framing things is helpful for their side, which isn't mistake theorists outside the culture war conflict.
You are fundamentally misunderstanding the dynamics of what is happening. The right is full of strategically inept and people who betray their own side while the left are unreasonably extreme because that is their nature in part due to becoming more like this as the right has behaved in an inept and treasonous manner and let extremists take over and collaborated with the left. While extremism has been covered by terms like moderation and hysterias against the far right. Part of the problem is both right wingers being against right wingers, and other right wingers failing to be sufficiently for their side. So the right divided, and the left more united, has resulted in such ends. Part of this division of the right is because of excess fear of the right and its current and future actions, by the right.
The only point of the justice system is to get the population in general to agree. If it can't do that, it serves no purpose and will not survive. The whole point of the system is to constrain conflict, to get people to accept outcomes they don't like and maybe even hate, outcomes they consider deeply unjust, because it's still the lesser evil. If people stop considering the system to be a lesser evil, they will simply tear it down.
No, it is not. This idea disregards the value of the justice system in solving in a correct (aka just) manner particular conflicts on a level beyond just how it affects broader tribal conflict.
It also forgets the point of the tribal conflict which is also about justice and makes it easier for liberals/far left to win, by not keeping them accountable by how what they support is fundamentally unjust. It also helps the left win, since by having right wingers pretend to be neutral and avoid talking about the merits, the right can be subverted by pretending that leftists are right wingers which has been the number one way the right has been destroyed. The left wing people who became part of the right and have had also identitarian sympathies in such direction, cancelled actual right wingers.
Are you willing to treat as legitimate the right wingers to your right?
Blue vs red partisanship helps the left actually because the content of the right wing establishment is sorely lacking and under threat of shifting further left if not policed. And it also breeds conformism to a very left wing status quo, and helps police outsiders who actually do have at least some reasonable ideas that are kept down because the status quo is left wing and opposes them for that reason.
Do you believe that such arguments are generally productive? Do they tend to lead to consensus across tribal divides, even here? My observation is that the most "productive" outcome is the sort of Blue-Wins-By-Default both-sides-isms that you seem to be complaining about. For me, long-term, good-faith attempts to bridge the divide have resulted in deep cynicism and considerable radicalization. I think it's pretty clear that the tribal gap is currently unbridgeable, and rapidly getting worse. That's why I've written the OP the way I have; because the amoral, outside view of is and not ought is the only avenue for productive conversation across the divide that I can see.
Yes, it is productive because lack of substance and bothsidesism, helps the left by transforming an analysis from "left wing excesses that need to be reined in" towards one of the problem of right wing escalation, or of both sides escalating.
Why is consensus the end be it all? And why isn't it possible even if consensus doesn't exist, to push the envelope more or less in a certain direction, even before winning.
It would be aiding the left by framing right wing moves as escalation, when it might be doing the correct thing and not escalation.
In a particular case there might be a point, because talking about mutual escalation in case like Floyd or Rittenhouse, would be nonsense. Which is why I have a problem with this type of argument, because I do care in fact about justice and see how it can and will be applied in many other issues.
Left wing excesses are a problem because in a genuine way they do promote injustice. If you are unwilling to accept that there is a genuine justice infringed and take the view that we can't say and ascertain that, then you help cover for a real injustice commited.
This postmodern irrationality where we can't assign accurate values because it would be presumptuous, is itself extremely arrogant and presumptuous perspective.
I never claimed it did. In fact, it not working in either direction is my entire premise. Blues will not accept the pardon any more than Reds accepted the conviction, any more than blues accepted the shooting, any more than Reds accepted the rioting, any more than blues accepted the justice system's delivered outcomes. For the purposes of this analysis, it doesn't matter which side is right. Neither side is going to back down. The conflict is self-sustaining and will likely continue to expand until things break which we cannot fix or even patch.
long-term, good-faith attempts to bridge the divide
An attitude that promotes blue vs red partisanry as respectable and necessary is going to maintain that divide while doing things like censoring and keeping down people like Colbert, and similiar characters would change things. Your description doesn't capture the divide accurately because the left is the aggressive side, in ways that are in principle unjust, and the right mostly with a few exceptions, fails to fundamentally oppose them. Even some of those right wingers who do oppose them on some issues might even side with them in others. This framing of escalation can and will help paint such moves as escalation.
As I am using the term here, "Escalation" doesn't mean "bad thing", it means applying additional force to the system in the hopes of changing the outcome. The system can only survive so much force, and past that threshold it fails completely. This threshold has no connection to morality and justice; being right doesn't grant the system additional load capacity. Embracing and facilitating mob violence was an escalation. confronting that mob violence with legal self-defense was an escalation. prosecuting the defenders and protecting the attackers was an escalation. Pardoning the defenders is an escalation. All of these escalations have been employed because people decided that escalating was preferable to accepting a loss. This last escalation will be no different: Blues will not accept it, and will look for an escalation of their own to top it. At some point down the line, the escalation for one side or the other will be unsurvivable to the system as a whole, and it will fail. Again, people counting on the system's survival should be made aware of this.
Escalation does mean a bad thing and the right loses for various reasons but also because it uses harmful language against its own side while not policing the left's use of inappropriate language. You might want to argue that according to your view it isn't bad, but it is possible to offend another side and even fight against them by acting in a manner that isn't escalating the situation. The very language aids the leftists who want to win but present their side's victory as the neutral default against both extremes. It helps marginalize the right and promote a left or even far left uniparty in moderate clothing.
People falsely claiming to be neutrals also fail to support correct language. It seems in this case your perspective does relate to the particulars. I don't think it is part of any big escalation though when considering everything happening and also the timing. Nor do I buy that, not in this specific case but in general, that the right wing moves that counter left wing excesses count as escalation, over trying to put things in a healthier balanced equilibrium even if the left wouldn't like it. Even the left can compromise if pushed enough. And don't forget how we reached the current situation, which was through too much compromise by the right, and cancel culture against right wingers, leading the left to become more arrogant. This is still happening now. If the tittivate against this on the right does increase as there is a little trend, stop cancelling right wingers and try to constrain left wing extremists, the left will not necessarily escalate but might have to compromise. A greater share of people might become non leftists or non leftists get involved in positions of influence. When the right is exercising power, the left loses some of its influence. Some past blue tribers were less extreme and they became more extreme not because the right fought back, but because it didn't. I don't buy your nihilistic perspective.
I also don't see why the system collapses in the way you envision and not more in a South African direction where one side wins but the resulting society is increasingly shittier. Which is a high possibility if the trends continue, and the right fails to become an effective opposing force.
Anyhow, we do disagree about the possibility of compromise arising through strength, and how weakness breeds escalation and submission and then new escalation, etc. If the right was stronger the left would be less arrogant and more moderate. There would also be less leftists, and the nominally left wing party would be less left wing one. Part of the weakness relates to the right being divided due to the existence of impotent and left wing factions. And even outside people who are sufficinelty left wing to count as leftists, there is a problem of buying into harmful left wing perspectives, that make them incapable of being an effective opposition that defeats the left. This isn't to say that the right should be as purity spiraling radical as possible. Actually focusing more on the areas were you have a point, even and especially politically incorrect ones and being persistent is more valuable than losing political capital by being some kind of the boogeman far right stereotype.
I don't object of course to "reasonable" black identity politics, although American society tends to allow too much, since excessive black identity politics will be harmful towards non blacks. Black people are one of the most ethnocentric demographics who rate other races more negatively. So, I do think that zero identity politics allowed would be unfair for them, and is an oppressive demand, but they should be pressured to consider the rights of others more and to compromise more in that direction, at least when it comes to blaming for example white people for black overepresentation in various negative statistics. But I don't think it is wrong for them to have a sense of black people being their ethnic community and care for its well being. In a multiethnic country the historical demographics need to both have identity politics and some level of compromise.
If a reasonable amount of black identity politics are fine because the alternative is them not having a place and genocide, and there isn't a case of black people being protected by a system that doesn't allow a reasonable amount of identity politics for them, then this implies that a reasonable amount of white identity politics has to exist as well. And if that isn't the case, we end up with the same progressive stack and double standards.
In any case, the expectation that the right doesn't do identity politics is simply false. Much of the American establishment right promotes identity politics in its appeal for non white groups, including ones that came mainly in late 19th and 20th and 21st century, while not doing the same for white Americans. For some politician there is an implicit but not open advocacy, to an extend such as Trump who also tried to appeal to black Americans with legislation. Others, go further than that in the progressive direction. Obviously much of the American right promotes Jewish identity politics pretty strongly. Others including people of more moderate perspective and of more edgy ones, are willing to promote white identity politics.
Black Americans have been here longer than the ancestors of most white Americans(who are mostly Ellis Islanders)
Really? Aren't most white Americans made up of non Ellis Islanders still? Such as both Anglos, but also 19th century migrants including a decent share of Germans and others.
I edited my post because arguing about the possibility that one side can be correct and how the pardon might provide justice didn't sit as right with me the more I thought about it, and wanted to remove some pro perry sentiments which in second thought don't fully reflect my views when thinking over the case more. But my view about bothsidesism being convenient and wrong remains. It is just that I don't want on this specific case to take position for the pardon. If it was the Floyd case I would support pardon on the merits of the case.
In general, I just don't think it is healthy to treat the culture war conflict as something where it is both sides equally to blame, and respect that the disagreement between tribes is more important than the merits of the case, and cases in general. We should talk about the facts and then argue whether one, or both tribes are wrong.
There is an implication in your post where moves that offend one side, but could actually be potentially promoting justice are a bad thing.
This idea itself encourages bad behavior, when we ought to be promoting the merits of the case. Additionally, if the pardon was correct, then it would not be an escalation, even if the blue tribe was offended. Appeasement of the blue tribe, on the basis that however they react it is important for them to trust the system, gives them no incentive to argue over principle, when they can get their way through outrage. But I modified some of this because this case is one that they might have a point in thinking him guilty.
I asked you about what you think about the facts of the case because it is directly related about whether one can argue that the pardon could be an escalation. I actually don't think it is much of an escalation, even if Perry deserved harsher punishment than a year, when considering how biased the system has been by the blue tribe. When it comes to whether this encourages, or discourages further escalation, it probably doesn't. The reason is that much of blue tribe excesses aren't stochaistic, but the result of too much appeasement and too many cases of getting away with it, and also related to symbols such as pro BLM, or anti BLM. Some of it relates to current year obsessions that tend to remain as sentiments but become weaker, and replaced by new current year obsessions. BLM being something not as popular today than in the past.
Fundamentally, this idea of appeasement being the road to peace, doesn't work, and the system in various western countries has escalated in authoritarian far left directions due to the right wing failing to constrain the use of power by the left. And even sided with it/acted like it. There is this understanding that the value of democracy is about allowing counterweight to too much influence to one side, and yet there is a sentiment in favor of an impotent right and impotent identity groups of the right, that interprets any moves for them and their rights as inherently dangerous and extreme. This is even more absurd in nation states. But it isn't the case even in multiethnic countries. This sentiment is dangerous and ensures that you are going to get increasing double standards and abuse of regulations, laws.
Good compromise and mutual respect require the right to actually show up.
First, this case is a good demonstration of how the Culture War only rewards escalation, and degrades all pretensions to impartiality. I do not believe that anyone, on either side, is actually looking at this case in isolation and attempting to apply the rules as written as straightforwardly as possible. For both Blues and Reds, narrative trumps any set of particular facts. No significant portion of Blues are ever going to accept Reds killing Blues as legitimate, no matter what the facts are. Whatever portion of Reds might be willing to agree that Reds killing Blues in self-defense might have been illegitimate appears to be trending downward.
If you think the pardon is wrong based on the facts of the case, I would like you to argue for this directly. I changed part of my post since based on the specifics of the case you might be might be motivated by the facts of the case leading you to be skeptical of the pardon.
Second, this does not seem to be an example of the process working as intended. If the goal of our justice system is to settle such issues, it seems to have failed here. Red Tribe did not accept Perry's conviction as legitimate, and Blue Tribe has not accepted his pardon as legitimate. From a rules-based perspective, the pardon and the conviction are equally valid, but the results in terms of perceived legitimacy are indistinguishable from "who, whom". As I've pointed out many times before, rules-based systems require trust that the rules are fair to operate. That trust is evidently gone.
I don't think the goal of the justice system should be to get different political tribes to agree. And if that is the goal, then it might require censorship, blacklisting, ideological selection. It should be ideally for cases to be decided based on their merits. By prioritizing agreement, wouldn't this encourage appeasement, realistically in favor of the blue tribe, even where it would result in people being unfairly prosecuted or not punished when they should? Including people getting punished more severely than they ought to, when there might be facts in the case that could be used to not throw the book at them. Take for example the Rittenhouse case which shouldn't been brought to trial, or the Floyd case.
Additionally, I don't buy that non appeasing the blue tribe, counts as escalation. There are going to be cases where there are two sides fighting and one is clearly in the right, as was the case in the Rittenhouse case. If the merits are there it is better but even in more contentious cases, there is value in pushing the system from being too biased in a left wing direction. If a pardon shouldn't been given it should be based on the merits of the case and not due to caring too much about not offending the blue tribe. If the system is in fact biased in the left wing direction due to the influence of the blue tribe, then the red tribe exercising pardons is not necessarily bringing escalation, but pushing the system in a healthier state. But I do find this particular case to be tricky, but I have also read some news articles that mentioned that he slowed down, instead of rushing the protestors. Most paints an ugly picture but it is mostly left leaning media that paint it.
On another note, there is an element of current year fanaticism, where a greater part of the establishment sided with BLM or hardline covid enforcement. BLM became less popular as did COVID punishments. Hence, we have been seeing people punished on covid getting also pardons, or not prosecuted now. I am not sure how much of a backlash this will cause now.
I do believe there is something of a who/whom division where which groups you favor the most, or not, or how even handed you try to be, does relate with left vs right. Centrism also has connotations and is associated with being moderate and even handed, which is why I have a big problem with what kind of positions and factions are labeled as centrists since they fail to be even handed.
Hlynka was usually attacking people more right wing than him on the issues he had the biggest problem with their views as being progressive in a manner that was rather inaccurate. The guy supported a Christianity that accepted gay marriage and wasn't that greatly conservative, but he probably had some conservative areas but the fight was mainly about issues he was fighting from the left towards those to his right. Well, he also conflicted with actual progressives sometimes, but I am talking about the rightists he characterized as progressive. Or non right wingers who he had a problem with their HBD views that fit more within the right. Beyond just Hlynka and his view, in general that way of defining people as progressive was an attempt to erase non progressive viewpoints by calling them progressive and promote as the only right wing option what was an establishment right that compromised with the left and carries the banner of figures like MLK as the default.
The establishment right does identity politics and has been complicit with leftist identity politics in particular. Especially those famed to be moderates who as in Bush administration promoted some version of affirmative action, and people like Romney supported BLM in 2020. So, this idea that conservatives are somehow people without identity politics is false on both sides. Both those who compromise with leftism, both through action and inaction, which makes their conservative credentials more questionable and others who don't and identify as conservative, and are motivated by their conservative ideology. In practice, even many right wing figures who push against the leftist identity politics in certain ways tend to pander to the main American ethnic groups, and tend to be fine with say black identity politics to a point. See Trump/Tucker Carlson.
Anyway, there is this understanding that being more far right relates to being more extreme in favor of groups like whites or Christians, although this breaks down when examining other societies. It is also used very expansively without consideration if the views labeled as far right are actually correct, measured, consistent, even handed. But there are definitely views like yours which are brazenly "favor mine, screw others" that can fit, provided you choose the correct demographics to favor. So, I would reject this framing that supporting a caste system that is different than the progressive stack is a progressive view.
Where would a white christian straight male, a bisexual black antitheist, bisexual white and non white women, etc be in your own version of the "progressive" stack? What about pro LGBTQ white liberals and then non white liberals?
You haven't given us enough here. It seems, you probably have some both progressive and non progressive ideas and don't fit in either space exactly. Jut putting white men as being a part of the group you favor being higher caste and kicking those bellow them, does cost you important progressive points. So, I wouldn't call you a progressive, right wing progressive, or right wing just yet with only what you have given us.
I do think that being direct about wanting a caste system rather than indirect and not admitting it, does give you some right wing points too. Leftists who want the progressive stack tend to be much more unwilling to state it openly and directly in that manner as a caste system, even if that is what they want and are pushing towards.
We see people who also dissuade actions under much different arguments. You would have noticed people who argue that this isn't a big deal. It can't be the case where on such issues there are enough people who argue inaction because they see it as uncool, or unnecessary, that what is happening isn't a big deal, but also inaction is the best because it is hopeless.
You use the terms waging the culture war which are highly negatively charged here and associated with censorship, insults, bans etc. It could be said that is carries connotations of unfairness and impropriety, at minimum. So you are being somewhat contradictory with your language. You are saying it is hopeless but also your language is carrying some connotation that it is bad independently of that. That it is ethically superior to not take part. Which would have you share ground with those who favor no opposition because they don't think it should be opposed. Which is still taking part because demoralization preached at one side goes further than even an attitude of general disengagement.
I don't think inaction is chosen as the best, because it is the only choice available, but because it is the preference of those promoting it. The woke have been winning because they have been willing to more aggressively push their agenda through. It becomes a self fulfilling prophecy if one's reaction is that there is nothing to be done, while in other issues this fatalism is absent. There is in fact plenty of energy of those who could act and don't. Just like the more extreme progressives started influencing a society that was more hostile to their ideology, it is possible to win over and change the minds of others. Discouragement and demoralization of those who could have opposed it and still can be an opposition is a key aspect to the changes in the progressive intersectionality direction and its victories.
Communism and Catholicism didn't dominate in the way they could have, because there was opposition. And it isn't the Stalin situation yet. It isn't as if you supporting here regulations against the woke would get your life ruined. Of course it is completely impossible to take a genuine stand against woke/progressive intersectionalists and not be hated and vilified by their broader political faction. Or to be disliked by those who sympathize with them and oppose the opposition. There is pressure related to being seen by some as cringe to take stronger positions. But this is a different issue than having no choice. There are also those willing to like and support such opposition.
There are dynamics involved that relate to this idea of the holy left and how it is cringe and symbolically bad and symbolically far right to have a strong position against its excess. These dynamics of underestimating the dangers of far left extremism or the dangers of aligning with it, are part of the reasons that it grew in influence. So I would paint the situation as different than people being afraid of dying as in the case of the Soviet Union. Afraid of being labeled negatively and other things of that nature? Maybe. Some level of sympathy and wrong attitude to have? That too.
History isn't fixed but changes, and moreover it also is the case that even if not all can be won, some of it can be won. So my general point is that demoralized attitude is a self fulfilling prophecy. Just like communists who had remarkable successes found obstacles that stopped their continued victory, the same can apply here. And in the communists, some of their fellow travelers and even some non communists also promoted the idea of the inevitability of their complete victory. The meme of inevitability and hopeless of opposition isn't new but is probably over a century old at this point. If people had this demoralized attitude, the communists would have totally succeeded and those suffering under their boot would be living in dread until that inevitable day. Hope and courage are virtues necessary for positively changing things but are necessary also to give greater meaning with how one engages with such problems in the present.
I will say that even with people who are very busy as is very understandable with other things and don't prioritize this, they still have a choice to have more or less decisive positions on the issue, when they do engage with it. I actually am not some kind of activist, so I certainly could be doing quite more. I am against the nirvana fallacy. I just want to argue that an attitude of superiority of disengagement is the wrong attitude to have and not the morally superior attitude. It is only the perspective that helps the more aggressive party that is successfully changing things to continue escalating.
This is a feature of the culture War I'm seeing more and more. Proxy battles that few people care deeply about but have features that make them better or worse to do battle on. This game seems like favorable terrain from the woke angle and it's tempting to just give them it but I understand the impulse to fight on the terrain anyways.
Not engaging and being critical is a default victory for the minoritarian/woke supporters. Does this means you are obligated to take part in the culture wars? Well, kind of. Like it or not, those who show up are those who win. Disengagement is not a neutral position but helps the aggressive side making moves that doesn't want criticism. It is of course very understandable for someone not to want to debate such issues, but I wouldn't praise disengagement as a good attitude.
In general, a good society only exists and works when people comprising it are sharing good moral values as priors and work together based on that shared ground. And even then, even if the majority has good moral principles organized minorities who have captured sufficient power can infringe on the values of the majority. Maybe part of sufficiently good morals includes controlling such issues without going off the rails.
I am increasingly of the view that we need antiwoke industry regulations to stop such things and force on institutions, including private corporations to have to show some level of sensitivity that goes against the progressive stack. Or making quotas in favor of progressive stack groups downright illegal and if not large fines, perhaps even harsher criminal penalties. Including rnforcing laws in the book that already would stop this agenda. Of course the end point wouldn't be no black guys or women ever, or zero cultural appropriation ever, sorry anyone wishing this, but there should be penalties for excessive cultural appropriation, or trying to stack the deck with progressive stack diversity.
Nor can say Japanese be expected to not have mainly Japanese characters. I would say that it is understandable for nations to promote more of their own culture, but not understandable to have to shoe horn an excess of progressive associated demographics, or protagonists where they shouldn't be under such goals. I don't know exactly where the lines should be put, but I am firmly confident that it would be better if there were such lines against the woke/intersectionalists, provided an attempt of being reasonable about it is made.
On the tally we can add:
Loss of freedom of those who want to push the woke agenda. A sacrifice I am very willing to make.
More freedom for those working in companies, journalism, etc, who want to dissent from this but can't.
Fairer arrangement for actors, including voice actors.
Greater historical accuracy and even respect of mythos that are related to specific people. For example Japanese semi mythological settings, or Lord of the Rings which are related to particular peoples.
Greater quality as checkbox diversity isn't prioritized.
Better options for the people don't like woke content who outnumber those who do.
Enforcing a good general principle and eroding an ideology that is not isolated in media but from double standards there and elsewhere can and will lead to greater discrimination and further slippery slope dangers.
There are other things important than just GDP. But even from that perspective, it is better from a non short-term point of view for women to have children and careers and sacrifice the later to an extend for the first. Society will be richer and not poorer in that case, as there won't be declining number of human capital. This applies especially in some of the richer countries with high human capital level of population. For an individual company of course it doesn't benefit them for their female workers to work less, so there might be a certain tragedy of the commons.
Actually women can live long enough that we can easily get both children and economic productivity from them, even if children are the bigger priority. I don't see what is wrong with mothers spending some more time at home while their children are younger. The cost vs benefit is in favor of sacrificing some career years. There are in fact women who do what I suggest already, just less than they existed, in part due to the relative decline of male wages. A minimum painless thing to be done that wouldn't be sufficient to reverse things but is a start should be to stop any pro female AA policies.
Additionally, it isn't as if other lifestyle aspects aren't eating time spend raising children. Trying to promote childbirth as a current issue, in a hardcore enough manner and focusing on influencing cultural preferences would probably work. And it is better alternative than doing nothing. This is something that is going to result in supporting projects and individuals and groups that are pro-natalist and benefiting them over those opposing it and then selling it as a lifestyle. Not everyone but plenty of people, especially women seem to be able to get onboard with projects promoted aggressively and consistently enough by the goverment and media and various NGOs. Why not use such forces to promote something actually good for a change?
You up the ante in attacking white women in trying to censor negative criticism of black women. You should stop acting as if you are a mod for a reddit sub and trying to enforce left wing ideology on everyone. Unattractive is not equivalent to calling a group disgustingly fat which is more inflammatory. Plus, I won't interpret you choosing that rhetoric as just being a case of providing an example. It seems to me that you are deliberately want to get away with calling white women as disgustingly fat.
It is actually the case that white women are more attractive than black women. Less obese too. So it can't be applied to white women which aren't seen as unattractive.
Black women tend to be rated as less attractive than others.
I think the roots of SJP in the civil rights movement started with relatable, noble goals and had the bad luck to mostly achieve their goals. So they did what any movement would do and picked further goals. Some, like gay rights, were again noble enough. Some, like insisting on equality of outcomes instead of color-blindness were IMHO harmful, some were mostly silly empty symbolism (like Confederate statues -- if you have the majority to blow them up, whatever, but this is not a decisive battle for the future of the US in any case.).
The civil rights movement was after equality of outcome from the start. Most of the things one finds bad about modern black identity politics existed there. If anything, the original movement was more violent against white people.
You could argue that parts of the broader society that helped the movement on some areas might have had more limited goals, or that they had then more so legitimate grievances too, but the reality is the core movement and a figure like MLK would be all in favor of the modern woke types, and he would be insinuating that opposition as he did as the time with contemporary republicans are nazis, racists, etc. It simply wasn't a movement with just limited goals.
Eurovision has always been a mix of political and song enjoyment. It is highly unlikely that politics had nothing to do with this considering how the Israeli-Palestinian war is the current big issue. Ukraine won in 2022, and it makes sense that the war is going to affect a decent share of votes.
If this was a Bush/Romney Republican, this wouldn't have happened. The Republicans haven't gone after Democrat politicians, so that is also something to consider. They also aren't the only ones part of designing it.
And of course under your scenario, the spirit of the law that isn't violated when persecuting gangs is violated when getting Trump over this.
Through loopholes you can create a dictatorship out of any democracy and can abuse any system. And so, when such loopholes are abused, you either blame those who abuse them and oppose it, or promote a theory of leopards eating face, if you support the process of abusing the law to get your opponents. Any justice system to work well, requires respecting the spirit of the law, because you can manage to get a lot of people with technicalities, and by abusing the system. No system is so designed as to be infallible to that. There is always something one can find as an excuse if they support a transformation of the system into that.
Ironically, in addition to tit for tat, ideally towards actual crimes done by dem politicians as a deescalating force, to the extend liberals have such attitudes, it is actually justifiable and not just going after ones opponent to consider if people with such ideology are going to abuse their position as judges, bureaucrats, etc, etc. And even people like journalists, academics, have their own enormous influence that is going to affect everything. For the right, protecting the integrity of the system, and not letting their political opponents dominate it and abuse it then become interchangeable. For liberals, the opposite claim is not actually justifiable. Precisely because the right not only haven't prosecuted liberals over BS, but also have failed to prosecute more clear misconduct. And it is precisely that appeasement and sense of no consequences that has encouraged the liberal side into escalating.
More options
Context Copy link