Tuesday November 8, 2022 is Election Day in the United States of America. In addition to Congressional "midterms" at the federal level, many state governors and other more local offices are up for grabs. Given how things shook out over Election Day 2020, things could get a little crazy.
...or, perhaps, not! But here's the Megathread for if they do. Talk about your local concerns, your national predictions, your suspicions re: election fraud and interference, how you plan to vote, anything election related is welcome here. Culture War thread rules apply, with the addition of Small-Scale Questions and election-related "Bare Links" allowed in this thread only (unfortunately, there will not be a subthread repository due to current technical limitations).
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Indeed--every voter is a vassal of the government.
I don't want to say this without couching it very carefully, because it's pretty antagonistic standing on its own in ways I don't want to convey, but my initial reaction to this parenthetical was "well a hearty 'fuck you' to you, too"--followed by some indication that I say it with a smile. I'm not offended, genuinely. But if you think in terms of "libertarians as always excluded" then it's no wonder at all that you failed to take my meaning in the first place. If you think in terms of "libertarians as always excluded," then you have a very slim chance of genuinely understanding anything I write, ever. The community even has a rule about this, come to think of it...
I didn't know this, but it doesn't surprise me. Except that in this case I would say that the side that refused to use this framing was the side engaging in disingenuous rhetoric. It's literally true, and not in a weird edge-case way; every member state of the EU is a vassal of the central organization. Watching the EU force economic medicine on Greece is exceedingly strong evidence that this is so. Saying "but the Greeks participate in the decision-making process" is classic rhetorical bullshit. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner. Doubtless many vassal states in empires across the ages got to "participate in the decision-making process" before they were ultimately given marching orders disregarding their contribution to the conversation.
It may not be neutral, and I accept your contextual explanation in that regard. But it does seem indisputably accurate, once you stop excluding libertarians (as, I would contend, you should). So I feel comfortable continuing to call groomers "groomers," Nazis "Nazis," and vassals "vassals," until such time as I have clearer words for the concomitant groups, behaviors, and/or phenomena.
Just because I missed this earlier. The people you call groomers would not call themselves that, the people the left call Nazis would generally not call themselves that etc.
If I definitively called Trump a Nazi in passing I would expect to be moderated HERE, because Trump does not regard himself as a Nazi. I could if I laid out supporting evidence and argument for why Trump is a Nazi perhaps. Your vassals comment didn't lay out why you believe that was a relevant term, you just dropped it in as if it were a given.
Consider:
The social cost has been substantial, probably, but 2020 did accomplish exactly what it was supposed to: it liberated the USA from being a Nazi state under Donald Trump.)
I am smuggling in controversial arguments there without support 1) That the USA needed to be liberated and 2) That Donald Trump is a Nazi. There are people who actually hold that opinion, but I don't think they should be able to say that in that way here, without getting some pushback.
I don't think this is why. Richard Spencer also does not regard himself that way; would you expect similar pushback?
Here? Yes. Spencer is I think self-describes as a white nationalist, and even Wikipedia calls him a neo-Nazi not a Nazi. If someone wants to make the case he is a NAzi they should be able to. But calling him such in an off hand comment would I think be below our standards.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Since when is self-identificaton the be-all-end-all of standards, particularly in politics? Soviet Satellites, Soviet Union, North Korea, China are all examples of undemocratic states, but which include(d) "Peoples Democratic" in their name. This contraction is so well known that it even became a joke in "Yes, Minister".
In politics it isn't. In the Motte when talking about our outgroups it should definitely be a consideration. There are lots of people who call Trump a Nazi. But they shouldn't be allowed to call him a Nazi without making an argument for it here. Aiming for higher standards is one of the things that makes this place better, I think.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Do you think the people 99% of people would agree are groomers would call themselves that?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Ahh perhaps I was not clear in my meaning here! Mea Culpa if so! I have a hearty level of respect for Libertarians. Most of the truly principled people and even politicians(!) I know are Libertarian or sway that way. But there are in my experience just not that many of you. If most people were Libertarian then I think your point would stand and maybe the world would be better for it. But that world is not as far as I can tell, this one. I exclude Libertarians not because you are wrong or because you don't count but because it is I think a given that a Libertarian would hold that opinion for basically any modern Western polity, so including them in the rebuttal is unnecessary. I really am very sorry if I did not communicate that well.
Having said that, I accept that Libertarians (often? always? mostly?) see themselves as unwilling vassals of our current governments and if that is your view then that makes sense. However there is one difference between you and the UK. The UK government opted itself to join the EU, whereas none of us have a choice as to which polity we are born into and thus bound by. The UK was not a vassal of the EU it was a willing member which traded some responsibilities for some benefits.
If you want to make the Libertarian point that the British people are vassals of their own government and THEREFORE were also vassals of the EU, because the UK government did not have the right to make that trade for them, then that makes sense from a Libertarian perspective. But it is a different thing than the UK as an entity itself being a vassal of the EU and not something that most non-Libertarians are going to agree with. Most people tend to agree that their elected government can take them into and out of various treaties as far as I can tell.
I am not being disingenuous when I say that I certainly did not view the UK as being a vassal of the EU. If for no other reason, that in my view, we were one of the wolves in this scenario, not one of the sheep. (For clarity the wolves would have been France, Germany, the UK and in name but little else, Italy). If you wanted to argue that Greece was a vassal state I think you might be close to being accurate even in my world view.
Sorry again for not being clear about my views on Libertarians and how it pertained here.
No worries. Thanks for being good-natured about the communication breakdown!
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Kind of, yes. And from a libertarian-ish perspective, I think that’s a very good pro-remain argument. Brexit just changes where the asshole that decides your life sits, london or brussels. Is the cheese standardization he will inevitably impose on you, going to be in metric or imperial ? Those are the kind of monumental policy changes that hang in the balance here, justifying all this circus. Who gives a shit? Brexit, and all separatist movements, are a giant waste of time and political energy. Convincing common people to find honor and pride in being ruled by the near idiot instead of the far idiot.
I fail entirely to see anything wasteful about that. The near idiot might be held accountable, at least sometimes. The far idiot, never.
In general it is my goal to not be ruled at all. This is unachievable to the extent that I am often better off insofar as others are ruled, and so I accept the liberal, social contractarian tradeoff of maximizing my own liberty only to the extent that this is compatible with maximizing the liberties of others.
Rule by the far idiot, centralization, has advantages too. Or do you prefer to give all powers to your village elder?
Hard to see and control the far idiot, true, but the other side of the coin is, it is harder for him to see and control you. You might be more free with a more distant ruler. Anyway, my point is, it's not a clear-cut easy case either way, and in light of the costs of a brexit and separatism generally, the status quo should win by default.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link