Tophattingson
No bio...
User ID: 1078
Tophattingson
1yr ago
Winding back a bit to option A, to put things into perspective, what we’re presently doing is pretty much what led to WW2. Chamberlain and the rest of the west were in a stance of appeasement. By not actually fighting evil, we let it grow. Just as appeasement emboldened Hitler to push further, letting Russia keep gains now might signal to Putin—and others—that aggression pays.
I always find it strange that appeasement is compared to the lead-up to WW2, and never to the repeated appeasement given to Communists throughout the Cold War. First in letting Stalin conquer Eastern Europe including betraying Poland, whose independence was the supposed purpose of WW2 in the first place! Then in the Berlin Blockade, in Hungary, in Czechoslovakia, in China, in Korea, in Vietnam, in Angola, and in Finland. In fact, between the Greek Civil War of 1946-49 and the invasion of Grenada in 1983, at no point did the US dare to deploy a decisive amount of force against any Communist opponent, even though from a sheer balance of military force perspective the west could have steamrolled North Korea, North Vietnam, Cuba etc in a total war situation.
The result of all this appeasement... Is that the USSR lost.
Tophattingson
1yr ago
The thing about making hyperbolic, propagandistic statements (abortion is murder!) that are intended to be taken metaphorically
I think most firm opponents of abortion would reject the idea that their claim that abortion is murder is meant to be hyperbolic. You could argue that they don't truly believe it because if they did they'd also treat those seeking abortions as they would someone attempting a murder, but that's just arguing that they're insincere or inconsistent, not hyperbolic.
Radical feminists who proclaimed that "gender is a social construct" helped create the transgender movement that would later turn on them.
Radical Feminists believe that the transgender concept of 'changing gender' reinforces the socially constructed gender norms they seek to destroy. A trans woman, from a rad fem perspective, is a man putting on an overt, almost offensive stereotype of what society believes a woman to be. One does not follow from the other, they are actually incompatible ideas.
Tophattingson
1yr ago
Using a book that was not written by Popper, or referring to anything written by Popper, to figure out what Popper thinks is a bad idea. Adorno is not Popper.
Tophattingson
1yr ago
No, Popper's analysis is centred on critique of Plato and historicism, the idea that history is controlled by historical laws that can be used to predict the future. He links racialism to this as a theory of history that proposes that a certain race is destined to inherit the Earth, but it's not centred on this.
Tophattingson
1yr ago
Popper is pretty much as opposite a Critical Theorist as it's possible to be. He's a frequent source for arguments against Critical Theory, even.
Tophattingson
1yr ago
It's easy to just accuse your opponent of "not being prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument."
It's also easy to say 1+1=3, but this doesn't mean we should throw out all of maths. They are obviously wrong. European governments imprison people for hate speech. They do not imprison people for supporting hate speech laws.
Tophattingson
1yr ago
When Popper says intolerance here, he means intolerance of disagreement, not hate speech. Hence "but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols". This isn't just random padding but Popper is describing what exactly is the difference between what he views as tolerance and intolerance. And it has nothing to do with hate speech. In his view an intolerant philosophy is one that:
- Rejects rational argument
- Rejects all criticism as illegitimate
- Advocates violence against opponents
- Aims to suppress other philosophies
That progressives decide to misconstrue this to make themselves the benefactors of the paradox is their fault, not Popper's. He'd recognise a desire to suppress whatever is deemed to be "hate speech" as intolerant, rather than those accused of hate speech.
Edit: Looks like this was already pointed out below.
Tophattingson
1yr ago
Many of the victims of Progressive "openness" will be quite surprised to hear our current system be described as an "open society" and their negative reaction to being dispossessed by it as "closed".
Yes, I have no idea why the author is trying to bring Popper into this. It does not help the argument being made. Popper would disagree with his theory of history having a "long 20th century". Popper would also reject a zealous anti-fascism crusade. His "paradox of tolerance" would in fact have you tolerate Fascists until they throw the first punch, and not tolerate our current brand of anti-Fascists because of their demand that we're not allowed to hear the argument of Fascists ("they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols"). This isn't some weird reversal of meaning, as much of The Open Society is dedicated to going after Marxists, not Fascists. Marxists that were at the time quite happy to use the language of opposing Fascism to install their regimes across Eastern Europe.
There's no need for these complicated models of who's meant to be "open" or "closed". That just gets you stuck in a doom loop of why "open" institutions seem to love "closed" stuff as long as the closed stuff looks left-wing. The situation is more easily modelled as left-wing institutions being biased in favour of left-wing policies regardless of what those policies are.
Edit: Also how do you mention zealous self-professed anti-Fascism without mentioning that Russia's claimed reason for invading Ukraine is a hysterical accusation of Fascism directed at the Ukrainian government? Then again, this is a weird contradiction that nobody ever wants to notice. Neither those who support the current thing, who have the uncomfortable job of trying to distance themselves from the wrong kind of anti-fascist, or those opposed to the current thing, because it makes Russia look like it suffers from the exact same derangement as the west.
Tophattingson
1yr ago
Applying the department's rules on classified information is a free space, you do it by doing nothing.
Tophattingson
1yr ago
Stalin was definitely worse than the Tsar, but it was a difference in degree not a difference in kind.
I disagree, I think there is a difference in kind between authoritarian and totalitarian governments, because they have different strategies of repression.
The ideal authoritarian regime has an ideal authoritarian citizen. One who is disinterested in politics, disinterested in ideology, disinterested in who rules them, and simply lives a normal, private life as a disengaged citizen. While those close to the regime, such as the military and bureaucracy, need to be kept specifically loyal, the wider public only needs to be kept not actively disloyal. They can even hate the regime if they want, as long as they don't actively threaten it.
The ideal totalitarian regime, however, has a different ideal totalitarian citizen. One who is actively interested in politics, ideology, and who rules them, all aligning with the current regime. It is not enough for you to be disinterested. You need to support the party. You need to actively promote it's beliefs. You need to hang the propaganda posters inside your home. And, eventually, you need to rearrange your entire private life in service to the regime and whatever ideals it believes in.
Probably the closest actual analog for democratic backsliding in the US is ancient Republican Rome,
Republican Rome had very weak democratic institutions because the narrow franchise of the Centuriate had more power than the broader franchises of the Tribune of the Plebs. There is no equivalent to this stratification in the US. It's never going to be a good analogue for the US backsliding because the starting points are so dramatically different.
As for the other examples.
Tsarist Russia was heavily authoritarian, and the Bolsheviks made it totalitarian. It was no longer enough to be a disinterested peasant doing your own thing.
The German Empire was a hybrid regime, authoritarian compared to France or the UK but not as authoritarian as Russia. The Nazis also went totalitarian. So there was democratic backsliding here (or really, more of a yoyo, as it went down during WWI as the country became a de facto military dictatorship, up during the "Golden Twenties", then down again before diving off a cliff).
Japan is also an example worth listing, with the Taisho Democracy being undone mostly by the May 15 incident.
Tophattingson
1yr ago
I obviously didn't sit in on this talk, but when someone says "Universal Human Rights" in reference to the UN, they probably specifically mean the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is a specific document.
To bring it back to "competitive authoritarianism": I am not at all surprised that two social scientists swimming in the liberal-left bubbles of Harvard and U-Toronto would fail to consider how their abstract terms for "competitive authoritarian" techniques instantiate from a conservative perspective. The specific examples you bring up may have not even crossed their path
As always on the topic of authoritarianism, I have to beat my usual drum. It is unlikely for someone to swim in a bubble so enclosed that they wouldn't notice the covid-related authoritarianism. It is exceptionally unlikely if those bubbles are US academia rather than red state small towns or Sweden. More likely is that they agree with that particular kind of authoritarianism.
Tophattingson
1yr ago
Saying that 48% of the US electorate are "radical leftists" is more controversial a statement than saying radical leftists are anti-American.
Saying that groups are conspiring to do the thing that the group would describe themselves as doing is different from accusing them of an unrelated conspiracy. For instance, stating that groups of Jews are plotting to enjoy Passover is, I would hope, uncontroversial. Similarly, stating that groups of Communists are plotting to abolish the private ownership of capital is also uncontroversial. All accusations of conspiracy fall somewhere on this scale but accusing self-identified left-wing people of wanting to do left-wing things (even uncharitably) is definitely different from accusing Jews of wanting to do things unrelated to Judaism.
I assume this is the more detailed reasoning for why one claim is considered inflammatory without sufficient evidence, while the other wouldn't be.
Tophattingson
1yr ago
The failure of the UN and ECHR to enforce hate speech laws does not mean those laws aren't on the book. Starmer could be the one to start enforcing them in the UK, if he wished, but instead he seems very selective about what parts of international law he wants enforced.
Tophattingson
1yr ago
As already explained in the post, Starmer is not a lawcel dispassionately following the letter of the law, because it's possible to find areas of international law he's happy to ignore.
Tophattingson
1yr ago
A consequence of just copying over the original post and not any follow-ups.
Tophattingson
1yr ago
By vague request of interest in the topic, I am copying over a post I made elsewhere to this thread.
The Chagos Islands Deal, or, The Next Westminster Scandal Is Already Here, You Just Haven't Noticed It Yet
The British-owned Chagos Islands, in the Indian Ocean, host a major US military base, Diego Garcia. Our government is now planning to sell the islands to Mauritius, and to pay them for the privilege.
Brief on the background. The Chagos Islands were originally uninhabited until France brought slaves from Africa to work on plantations in the late 18th and early 19th century. The descendants of these workers became known as Chagossians. The islands, along with Mauritius, came under British control in 1814 through the Treaty of Paris, and were administered as a dependency of colonial Mauritius for administrative convenience rather than any historic connection. In 1965, three years before Mauritius gained independence from British colonial rule, the UK separated the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius to create the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT). Then, the UK removed around 2,000 Chagossians from the islands to make way for the Diego Garcia base. Mauritius maintains that the separation of the islands was illegal under international law, and has waged a legal battle to get them. In 2019, the International Court of Justice issued an advisory opinion that the UK's ownership of the Chagos Islands was unlawful. The UN General Assembly subsequently passed non-binding resolutions demanding the UK withdraw.
Alright, onto the actual scandal. Over the last few months, the British Government has been rushing to put together a deal that would hand the Chagos Islands to Mauritius. This rush was likely prompted by fears that the next US administration would oppose the handover, and seemingly because of this rush, the British government has kept giving in to new concessions that Mauritus is demanding to seal the handover. So now the UK will also pay $9bn over 99 years to lease the base. Oh, and it'll be inflation-linked. Oh, and front-loaded. Oh, and maybe it'll actually be $18bn instead. A substantial amount of money for a government that is raising taxes, cutting spending, and claiming there's a £22bn 'black hole' in the finances. In addition to the loss of a strategic military base, There are further concerns that the islands would likely end up hosting the Chinese military at the end of all this, too.
And in return for all this, in return for the territory and all that money, the UK gets... Nothing.
So to justify the seemingly impossible, the government has offered an increasingly bizarre list of reasons to hand over the territory, none of which hold up to scrutiny.
- It is good for the Chagossians, and redresses their grievance for being expelled.
No, it is not. The Chagossians hate Mauritius and reject this deal because it doesn't give them self-determination and ownership of the Chagos Islands. In 2021, Mauritius criminalized "Misrepresenting the sovereignty of Mauritius over any part of its territory" i.e criminalized Chagossians stating they should own the islands themselves.
- It is required by international law.
Nothing that would be binding. And besides, international law and what army? This is a US military base. If we care to hold it, it will be held, and there's no force that can take it from us.
- It will increase Britain's soft power by showing commitment to international law.
No. It will cause other countries with dubious territorial claims on the UK, like Spain and Argentina, to smell blood in the water. Not to mention generally making the government look like gullible idiots.
- As a former human rights lawyer, Keir Starmer can't help but autistically lawmax, so when he hears international law, he is compelled to obey it.
Unfortunately, it is untrue that Keir Starmer monomaniacally follows international law. For example, his support for arresting Britons over speech crimes violates international law. "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." - UN General Assembly, Resolution 217A (III), Universal Declaration of Human Rights, A/RES/217(III) (December 10, 1948)
- The Tories also started negotiating to hand it over so really it's their fault.
In 2022, they agreed to enter negotiations. And then in 2023 they realised how stupid handing the base over would be and pulled out of negotiations. This is also, of course, not an argument in favour of the deal.
- If we don't hand over the islands right now, a Swiss Quango might magically change the laws of physics to create a zone over the islands where the electromagnetic spectrum is shut off, disabiling communications for the military base.
I wish I was joking, but this is actually the argument they're currently using.
- The Islands are next to R'lyeh and we don't want to be holding the ball when Cthulhu wakes up
Okay, I did make that one up.
So what's actually going on here? There's not much that can be said with absolute certainty, but there is certainly some plausible alternative reasons that the government aren't so willing to state. For example, Keir Starmer was well aware of this case before becoming Prime Minister. In fact, Mauritius's chief legal advisor, Philippe Sands KC, is one of Keir Starmer's friends. Sands has seemingly (and maybe illegally) entered the islands in the past. Oh, and that last thing about changing the laws of physics to switch off the electromagnetic spectrum. That's also Philippe Sands. In other words, what's been presented as a national security claim from our own government is, in fact, smuggling a claim made by an adversary instead. There's another figure involved, too. Lord Hermer, who is seemingly involved in negotiations on the UK's side in some capacity, while also harbouring life-long anti-British sympathies. But his involvement seems less obvious here.
Anyway, now we have multiple opposition figures accusing Keir of, effectively, treasonous corruption.
Conservative MP Robert Jenrick:
Keir and his mates are colluding against the British people to surrender the Chagos Islands
The cast of characters involved in this ‘negotiation’ absolutely stink - and they all link back to Starmer 👇
Representing the Mauritian Government as their lead negotiator is Philippe Sands KC. Sands campaigned to elect Starmer as Labour leader and described him as a ‘great friend’. Sands has previously spoken about ‘humiliating’ Britain through his legal work.
Lord Hermer hates our history and our country. His role in the betrayal of our national interest over the Chagos Islands is unforgivable. Starmer should fire him.
When we recapture No10 we’ll then retake Chagos, fuck Starmer’s treacherous sell out using his scum lawyer friends getting rich from betrayal - and investigations into everybody involved in the deal. We can roll that into the investigations into Grieve et al and the need for jail sentences for those who worked with foreign enemies to overturn British democracy…
I am gleefully awaiting the next reason the government presents for why we need to hand the islands over in full expectation that it is even more hilarious than the last.
Tophattingson
1yr ago
I will cut out the middle-man and post my writeup as a top-level comment here.
Tophattingson
1yr ago
At least in the US, Trump has demonstrated that democratic governance is not a myth. You can in fact elect someone to take an axe to everything and they can take an axe to everything.
If you look at a map of the powers involved in WW2, you see the sheer scale of allied ineptitude. How can you possibly struggle for so long and take serious defeats when this is the balance of the powers involved: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_participants_in_World_War_II.svg
At the time when the allies were struggling and taking serious defeats, specifically from 1939 to Barbarossa, the balance of power looked more like this: https://i.imgur.com/XWHKkcI.png. I'm sure there's probably omissions in Africa and the Pacific (of approximately no military value anyway) but this gets the point across that many of the countries painted in green on that map were not fighting against Germany in 1939 and 1940, and one of them was even fighting alongside Germany.
There are also several countries that should really be blue even on the map you posted if it's supposed to represent balance of power rather than strict allegiance. To name one, Iran. Not an axis power, but concurrently invaded by the allies.
Tophattingson
1yr ago
Reagan's invasion of Grenada did not sow the seed for the destruction of the Liberal order. It is probably the single most clear-cut win for the US (and everyone else involved) in it's history.
I think the use of "utility monster" should have instead been "inverse utility monster". A utility monster is someone who receives more utility per unit resource than anyone else, and thus via utilitarian calculation, should receive everything. An "inverse utility monster", for lack of a better term, is someone who receives almost no utility per unit resource, and thus via egalitarian calculation, should receive disproportionate resources to make up for this.
I previously used this to describe a case where local governments in Britain were paying £300k/yr on average, and up to £1m/yr in some cases, per child placed in social care. Insane spending per child, life-changing amounts of money for most. But still producing awful outcomes for the child who all this money is supposed to benefit. The consequence is a rapid collapse of local government's ability to fund anything beyond it's legal obligation to fund social care, shutting highly visible and cost-effective programmes like libraries in a desperate attempt to stave off the inevitable bankruptcy from the cost of comparatively useless social care.
It could also clearly apply to spending disproportionate resources keeping coffin-dodgers alive for another week, or like OP states, social spending on immigrants with barriers like language/culture that make spending on them less effective than spending on existing citizens.
The US was less bad than Europe or Canada in 2020. This is damning it with faint praise, because the US of 2020 was still something that'd have been unthinkable to the liberals of a decade ago. And much of why it was less bad is not because of liberalism, but because of approximately the political trend represented by the new Trump administration. When I say liberalism was murdered I don't just mean it's place in government but also it's place among the public, since "relatively centrist or centre-left but stridently anti-restriction" describes a tiny portion of the population (I should know, I'm stuck in it!). Centrists that were pro-restrictions are not, or ceased to be, liberals by the definition OP is using.
The Korean War had about 1/10th the manpower deployment, 1/10th the expense, no rationing, extremely limited factory conversion, no conversion of civilian vehicle production to military, no massive naval buildup, and two fewer uses of nuclear weapons. Sure, when the US fought in Korea it was a no holds barred fight relative to what would come later, but they were still throwing punches pinky finger first rather than putting the entire industrial weight of the US behind it.
Vietnam has an obvious appeasement moment in the Paris Peace Accords followed by the accord-violating 1975 offensive, where the US pretty much deliberately allowed South Vietnam to fall to invasion. You don't even need to get into the rest of the war effort and whether the US didn't commit enough resources, the 1975 offensive is too obviously appeasement in the face of an ally being invaded.
Of course, this is not an argument for escalating the Korean or Vietnam War. There are plenty of good reasons not to, do not think of this as me saying the US should have turned the Chinese border into a belt of cobalt. But every argument against escalating the Vietnam or Korean war has a
38thparallel in not escalating the Ukraine War, but when you do it there, it's suddenly the Munich Conference.As for nuclear weapons, Russia still has them. If appeasing a nuclear power is Munich in 2025 then it's also Munich in 1965.
More options
Context Copy link