Politics thread (USA Elections 2016) - Page 190

On January 05 2020 11:01 Stroggoz wrote: centrism has always been wrong in history, you cant be centrist on a moving train. Look at historical progress in politics and morals, radical/minority ideas have constantly come to the forefront and been adopted, once people realized that the centrist ideas were wrong/built on ideology, ect. And no, im not saying political and moral values perfectly progresses in a linear fashion. For centrism to be right today you would basically have to agree with Fukuyama, thinking we are at the end of history and this is as good as it gets.

Sure, lets all turn into communist, fascists, and extreme political ideologues because measured takes into extremely complex systems is bad lol

This just in: those who do work studying complex systems, including climatologists, ought to be centrists who fall for the golden mean fallacy with relation to politics.

Measured centrist take by Baal & co: fighting fascism is worse than fascism itself

I don't understand this debate at all
Wouldn't the right thing to do is just try to individually asses policies one by one without picking a side
And just vote for a specific person (which is how elections work in the US) on an individual basis?

I know the parties en large then vote in blocks
But it's like being vegan or volunteering locally - you are leading by example by doing a little bit less bad stuff and hope others will follow suit to eventually transform people into a better society

And yes I know no instant revolutions would happen if all people were "centrist" like me and had no blind convictions and general allegiance
I am kinda hoping things are good enough to have space for slow change that starts with individuals though

well, since there is confusion people need to define what centrism is. I was pointing out how ridiculous it is to have views in the centre of political opinion in whats discussed in say the US corporate owned media.

Like for example, if you take the entire world, it's a pretty centrist view that america is the biggest threat to world peace, (that's what polls show if taken globally, pakistan is 2nd biggest threat because of the india vote). If you take what american's and west europeans think of centrist, that's a tiny % of the worlds population. whats discussed in the media and what political parties represent is even tinier. Im guessing that's what some people here think of as 'centrism'.

measured approaches are different from political opinion, but yeah i mean i think measured approaches ought to be pretty far from what's considered 'centrist', like i see many economic proposals that are easy to implement, but arnt

Yeah, slow change is what we all need. Let's just moderately tackle the fire problem in Australia just like we moderately tackle the climate problem globally, we wouldn't want to be too radical. Half a billion animal deaths from those bushfires? Meh, not that big of a deal. Dunno why they're so worried about this stuff, they got all the time in the world. Army reservists being sent to help with the evacuation and firefighting efforts there isn't a sign of urgency whatsoever.

Really, who wants to be one of those people with "blind convictions" like "Nazis are dangerous and shouldn't be ignored" or "let's consider doing something about those who are successfully in the process of destroying all life on earth for profit". Caring about stuff is stupid.

I'm going to disagree with you - for the bushfires you do need a radical fast response!
And I'm a little surprised you'd ignore the Nazis with all the books you read?

On January 06 2020 17:50 Stroggoz wrote: well, since there is confusion people need to define what centrism is. I was pointing out how ridiculous it is to have views in the centre of political opinion in whats discussed in say the US corporate owned media. Like for example, if you take the entire world, it's a pretty centrist view that america is the biggest threat to world peace, (that's what polls show if taken globally, pakistan is 2nd biggest threat because of the india vote). If you take what american's and west europeans think of centrist, that's a tiny % of the worlds population. whats discussed in the media and what political parties represent is even tinier. Im guessing that's what some people here think of as 'centrism'. measured approaches are different from political opinion, but yeah i mean i think measured approaches ought to be pretty far from what's considered 'centrist', like i see many economic proposals that are easy to implement, but arnt

Well yeah, measured approach by your definition then.

Problem with people like me and a measured approach is that nothing is ever black and white, no party or movement or system is without major drawbacks and unforeseen consequences once you contemplate the possible impact of policies and their combination. And you never actually have the complete picture and capacity to process it anyways
You need the polarized masses acting emotionally through herding etc. to make movements and radical changes.


Take my country - Prague is beautiful with old town largely untouched, because in our contemplation we were constantly taken over by a foreign power and empires without putting it all on the line and taking a stance with arms hah, measured approach being taken over by one power after another without blindly rising to resist

On January 06 2020 21:42 LemOn[5thF] wrote: Show nested quote + On January 06 2020 17:50 Stroggoz wrote: well, since there is confusion people need to define what centrism is. I was pointing out how ridiculous it is to have views in the centre of political opinion in whats discussed in say the US corporate owned media. Like for example, if you take the entire world, it's a pretty centrist view that america is the biggest threat to world peace, (that's what polls show if taken globally, pakistan is 2nd biggest threat because of the india vote). If you take what american's and west europeans think of centrist, that's a tiny % of the worlds population. whats discussed in the media and what political parties represent is even tinier. Im guessing that's what some people here think of as 'centrism'. measured approaches are different from political opinion, but yeah i mean i think measured approaches ought to be pretty far from what's considered 'centrist', like i see many economic proposals that are easy to implement, but arnt Well yeah, measured approach by your definition then. Problem with people like me and a measured approach is that nothing is ever black and white, no party or movement or system is without major drawbacks and unforeseen consequences once you contemplate the possible impact of policies and their combination. And you never actually have the complete picture and capacity to process it anyways You need the polarized masses acting emotionally through herding etc. to make movements and radical changes. Take my country - Prague is beautiful with old town largely untouched, because in our contemplation we were constantly taken over by a foreign power and empires without putting it all on the line and taking a stance with arms hah, measured approach being taken over by one power after another without blindly rising to resist

we are part of the masses, and i dont see why any of us need to be emotionally herded. Rather than using propaganda i think people should be educated, which is based on rational anaylsis, everyone is subjected to that in high school, and i can see most teenagers know how to understand an interpret an essay on history, for example. i don't see why it should be different for politics given most people have the capacity to understand and see through the distortions and lies. politics isn't rocket science, yes, societies are very complex, and nothing is black and white. Yet there are some simple lies told about our society that can easily be debunked.

As for the current political parties in the world right now, aside from totalitarian governments like russia or china, the elected parties call themselves 'centre right' or 'centre left', most of the time. And this is supposed to make them sane. Firstly, they offer no definition of what it means to be centre, i could just as easily call them extremists and my claim would have the same amount of merit on a rational basis. What about the basis of common sense? Does carrying out policies which destroy the global eco system sound like a 'centre left' position? So yeah, on the basis of common sense these political parties seem like extremists to me.

Yeah, i don't know anything about prague, i'll take your word for it that what you say is a reasonable thing that they did.

On January 06 2020 21:33 LemOn[5thF] wrote: I'm going to disagree with you - for the bushfires you do need a radical fast response! And I'm a little surprised you'd ignore the Nazis with all the books you read?

Not sure if serious, but I was being sarcastic. Nazism is a social cancer and just like a biological cancer it can't be wished away and ignoring it in the early stages hoping it will go away is a bad idea. I brought it up because big brained centrists think that's what you should do until they have the full power of a modern state to commit genocide and unspeakable torture on those they deem undesirables.

We've known for decades that catastrophes like those bushfires would happen more frequently and intensely, so if you are for a radical response when it happens, you should also be for preventing them to the best of our ability. Do you think it's wise to wait to lose your bankroll until you care to learn bankroll management? Why would you take that approach when it comes to ecological matters? A centrist's policies guarantees "business as usual" which guarantees that it's not going to get better, only worse, and we don't need to wait another decade to act on it, we've already waited for far too long.

Net time someone tells you that Australian bushfires are caused by Climate Change show them this

NeXT TiMe YoU ThiNk CliMaTe ChanGe iS ReaL LiStEn tO tHiS RoGuE EcoNoMist WiTh A BaCheLoR's DeGrEe aNd DoN't ForGeT tO BuY HiS GoLd AnD SiLvEr tO pRePaRe foR ArMaGeDDOn

Do you really go into so much detail with your local politicians and parties Strog?
And vote every single time locally?

I am no authority to speak on any of thIs I realize, watch so many news outlets because they are entertaining without doing due diligence and voting in the jurisdiction I can vote in because it's not fun nor convenient and you're always choosing a lesser evil

On January 07 2020 13:15 LemOn[5thF] wrote: Do you really go into so much detail with your local politicians and parties Strog? And vote every single time locally? I am no authority to speak on any of thIs I realize, watch so many news outlets because they are entertaining without doing due diligence and voting in the jurisdiction I can vote in because it's not fun nor convenient and you're always choosing a lesser evil

No i don't go into huge detail, i've missed some local elections actually, but voted every national election. I used to be very apathetic like many young people are.

It doesn't take long to find some positions on the political parties, most of what they say is PR but they still give some policies here and there. Yes, elections are voting for a lesser evil. In places like the US the amount of choice is easily justified in voting. Apathy towards elections is, imo, one side-effect of the extreme cynicism that has resulted from those that wish to emotionally herd the public with the use of public relations.

I don't follow europe that much, but from what i've heard elections hardly change anything in Europe, to become active in politics means doing things between elections. There was an interesting interview with yanis varoufakis about a year ago that kind've revealed how things really get done in europe, ill copy paste the relevant parts:

+ Show Spoiler +

I mean it doesn't matter if it doesn't change much or not - it's about taking responsibility for changing what you can and hope other people will as well.

I do feel the absurdity of consuming so much US politics entertainment without doing AT LEAST equal amount of research in local constituencies.

I mean you don't vote there
you discuss that stuff here where it changes nothing
If I'd use that same time to actually be active in LOCAL politics personally it'd be way more logical.

Big changes were hardly done by people like me who need information, try to weight everything with consequences, they were done by people with conviction that take action, often blindly.

I mean this leads to some oopsies like the Nazi party or soviet communism, but also lead to democracy so good for people with blind conviction, we need them

Btw global warming - what exactly are your solutions Loco?
The big issue are developing countries and basically any country with GDP per capita lower than the top nations

But what can possibly the US or Western Europe tell them from a moral standpoint - halt your industry and growth for the sake of the planet in the long run, where we've built our growth exactly on that?
It's like I see my friends APPALLED at government sanctioned or even tolerated burning of the Amazon, people being shocked at how can anyone do that
When the same countries burned down their forrest in agricultural revolution etc. and their economy has been built on them.


Basically the rich countries would not only need to go inward and go green, invest in technology, but also be willing to forgo their economic dominance to let other countries catch up faster by economic incentives. China is already 2x worse when it comes to pollution than the US (in absolute numbers)

On January 07 2020 12:56 Loco wrote: NeXT TiMe YoU ThiNk CliMaTe ChanGe iS ReaL LiStEn tO tHiS RoGuE EcoNoMist WiTh A BaCheLoR's DeGrEe aNd DoN't ForGeT tO BuY HiS GoLd AnD SiLvEr tO pRePaRe foR ArMaGeDDOn

you obviously didnt watch the video, there are multiple experts have been warning of this for like last 20-30 years

Maybe you should say what "this" is, instead of being so vague. I'm not going to watch a 34 minutes video from two random schmucks who have something to sell me, especially when you preface it with some conspiracy theory line about how this is completely disconnected from climate change.

If your argument is that bad decisions made by people in power made this crisis worse than it could have been, that is not mutually exclusive from global warming making these bushfires more intense and frequent and more difficult to prevent, it's a part of it. If you think it's "deflecting" to "blame it all on climate change", that's nonsensical; climate change isn't a person, it's the sum total of all of the bad, short-sighted and self-interested decisions made by people in power everywhere in the world (and less importantly the consumers). The responsibility for such crises is diffuse as a result. Blaming a couple people and saying these events can be prevented without a radical overhaul of society along ecological lines is ridiculous fantasy talk.