Agreed. But 3rd parties are rarely what I would call effective at winning. I think this is a problem and at least partially due to suppression from the two major parties, but it's the reality we've been dealt. I was big into Bernie in 2016, and we saw how that went, and he wasn't even technically a 3rd party candidate.

I disagree. While admittedly it's unlikely that EVERY politician is irrdeemably evil, I actually find it freeing, as the constant moral litigation of upper echelon politicians is largely a distraction from the actual issues, I find. (Local politics are much more likely to have decent people, for instance). Instead of picking the lesser of two evils, I get to pick the more effective of two evils. Either way you pick evil, but I'm interested in end result over moral purity.

Fair, I am open to discussion, I just find the constant back and forth moral litigation of politicians to be a waste of time when I believe that being a politician is itself a likely indicator of moral rot.

This is the same discussion reframed. If it is not already obvious to you why high level politicians inherently tend towards being bad people, I am not interested in explaining it.



I gave some examples of my goals in my original post: robust social programs, social cohesion, UBI and pro-labor. It would be difficult and frankly unbelievable for a KKK member to espouse those things.

A politician that furthered my goals perfectly would not do those things. If you will not change your approach, I will not respond further. To throw you a bone, I do find it very likely Trump is racist to some degree, just probably not any more so than most other politicians or citizens his age, which makes the issue a moral wash and therefore uncompelling.

Again, I will not do this with you. I think most if not all politicians are morally reprehensible people, so this line of thought is profoundly uncompelling to me. I vote for which monster I think will further my goals. If you are under the assumption this is not the case, I don't think this will be a productive discussion.

Just seems bad faith to conflate the two, when the very quote you used had him referring to multiple different races of illegal immigrant. I have a hard time believing a man who spent much of his life as a NY Democrat is some virulent racist. Trump does enough inflammatory stuff, and misrepresenting him like that only makes people less likely to believe the actual bad things he does.

Is illegal immigrant a race now?

I just said I don't find this kind of back and forth helpful. It exists and we both know it; I refuse to get in to a quote slinging contest with you. I am past the point of pearl clutching on this kind of thing.

He should be fired then, but again, I'm sure I could find deplorable people in every administration. Politicians tend to be bad people, in my experience.

I think people in every administration have said and done racist things. It is an unfortunate reality that there will probably always be racists, and some of them will get into positions of power. Obviously his statement is racist and wrong, but I don't find throwing back and forth quotes of politicians saying unhinged things particularly helpful in discussion.

I think our current moment is unprecedented. Not, 'all history is unprecedented', but rather, a once in a millenia epochal change? — Jeremy Murray

No, I agree, the internal rabbit holing and propaganda on this wide a scale is a uniquely modern problem. The first part was referring to politics always being stories.

Thank you. To be honest, I'm not sure it's correct either, but it seemed like a worthwhile point to consider.

The vast majority of protestors are peaceful. — prothero


Clear horseshit. These are views of entire blocks and full stretches of highway - multiple cities, multiple neighbourhoods. This is just having blinkers on, at this stage. — AmadeusD

In the sake of fairness, I wonder if this is a semantic issue at heart. I've lived in both big cities and small towns; 5 blocks in a big city can be nothing, but 5 blocks in a small town can be half the town. I think the most fair way to compare would be to previous riots/protests of similar size, and whether the amount of peaceful demonstration to destruction is above or below the median.

I have never heard this term before (admittedly, I am out of touch). It immediately resonated. — Jeremy Murray

Tbf it's not a common term. I'm an old sci-fi nerd, lol.

His premise, if you haven't read it, was that the era of 'mass entertainment' was fundamentally different from the 'typographic' era that preceded it. As a student of McLuhan, he drew on his thinking to tackle the medium of television - which lead to the message of dislocation. — Jeremy Murray

I would probably agree, but further posit we are post-mass media to a degree, as the internet has allowed people to sink further and further into soloed entertainment. On some level, I think part of the general unrest in America and possibly worldwide is *because* we are losing mass media to increasingly fractured interests. We no longer have a common story to tell or share, so everyone else seems increasingly alien outside your specific circle.

How do you see this playing out? — Jeremy Murray

Unclear. I think in a way the Republicans may be becoming the new big tent party temporarily while the Democrats become the new "moral majority." I think how that shakes out will largely depend on who wins the power struggle after Trump dies/leaves office and if that results in a party fracture or not.

Neither party seems to actually believe in anything. Both land on 'stories' that resonate with their base. — Jeremy Murray

I would say that's what it's always been, to a degree. As I said above, I think the larger problem is that our increasing levels of internal navel gazing is making it difficult to see differing ideas as something to entertain. If everyone you know always agrees with you, why would you ever want to talk to someone that didn't?

When Trump and Hegsmeth really start to order American troops to teargas demonstrators, then let’s see what kind of loyalty they really command. — Wayfarer

Aren't there numerous examples of things like that happening in our history already?

If Trump is using these protests/riots as an excuse to crack down and extend his authority, it seems like the No Kings protests might just give him more of that. By attempting to establish his actions in LA as "law and order" against non-citizens via the media, then the natural next step would be to create a similar situation that "justified" doing the same to Americans, and then using anyone swept up in that with a particularly salacious record to further justify it in the media. Kind of feels like playing in to his hands.

Oh the two party system is absolutely a big part of it, and it's especially weird right now, because I suspect we are in the midst of another party realignment but few want to admit it. In meatspace it's still pretty easy to find people with fairly normal or apathetic political opinions, but as more of the social landscape moves online and things become increasingly politicized, the internet has made it difficult to maintain neutral positions. I'm a registered Independent who has never voted for Trump, but I find myself increasingly alone politically as I don't fully agree with either side, despite previously leaning more left. Neither party seems interested in much aside from getting re-elected by telling you how bad the other party is.

If the deportations are racially motivated, why is that not already happening?

My understanding is that the South African immigrants were brought here legally, whether or not you agree with the government's reasoning for doing so.

I'm going to be honest. As someone who is very anti-illegal immigration for the purposes of robust social programs, job security in the face of automation/AI, social cohesion and UBI, I have found that there seems to be literally no "good optics" when it comes to enforcing immigration aside from rolling over and letting it happen. I've seen fairly milquetoast and reasonable stances shouted down as bigoted and racist time and again over my lifetime. I'm sad to say, at this point it's made me fairly authoritarian on this particular issue, as even normal enforcement seems to get people's knickers twisted. As long as the problem is fixed, I am willing to allow a lot. People really underestimate how bad things are going to get if we don't get our population under control before the jobs start going away.

Does that make me reactionary? Maybe. But if someone complains every time you try to fix a problem, eventually you stop caring about their complaints.

Tbh, that is a question I think philosophy has still never answered in a satisfying way.

I would argue violence often has an implicit message, it's just usually a destructive or restrictive one. Violence is often a physical "No." And again gesturing to martial arts, they create martial forms that blend the beauty and skill of art with usually violent physicality.

I would argue in the case of martial arts, the "art" usually comes in the mastery of form, technique, understanding and body/mind alignment. Iirc, "Kung fu" does not specifically refer to martial arts per se, but denotes mastery of a skill. Violence can be a skill, and a skill can become an art in the hands of a master.

I don't think art and science are comparable in that way, tbh. Science concerns itself with proven and repeatable things in a way that art does not. My point is that if there was a science to art that resulted in proven, repeatable "good art," then any artist that doesn't do that would be a fool doomed to failure. However, we frequently see art that "breaks the rules" change how we think about art and what makes it "good." I think that volatility of opinion and inherent subjectivity means that there cannot be a wide, objective standard of art beyond insular taste groups. Though perhaps I am misunderstanding you. It seems like you may agree that art is on some level subjective, but I got a little lost as to what your point was tbh.

What I mean is that even things that seems still are still moving on a sub-atomic level. Degenerating into baser elements, electrons moving in the body, etc., We see these changes happening in our reality and use time as a socially constructed metric for comparing what we perceive as the "original state" to the "current state."

If everything in the universe were to suddenly and completely stop moving down to the sub-atomic level, all of reality would grind to a halt, and time as we know it would cease to exist. Not only would we be unable to tell that time is passing, there would be no state change to indicate time has passed at all. And a world where time cannot be measured is arguably a world without time. Ere go, time is a way to measure change.

That's my stance, more or less.

But that goes back to my original point, that it depends on how you define objective vs subjective. I think the answer changes depending on what scale you look at, but that on the largest universal scale, there is no objective standard of art. The point I am trying to make is that on small scales (small communities or specific art movements), objective standards might be possible for art, but that in the larger scale they are not. I feel like that's not coming across based on the responses I'm getting.

Butting in here, but isn't you responding to FO proving their point to a degree? They post, you respond. Obviously as adults we are responsible to how we react to things, but it is also clearly possible to say things that will get people to react in semi-predictable ways. I believe this means there can be some gray areas. An example that comes to mind is how "fighting words" are not legal, as they encourage other people to fight.

I think we may be talking past each other, tbh. I'm not necessarily saying that popularity = objective quality. I'm saying that if there was an objective standard of "good art" then it would be impossible to make good art that does not follow that standard. The fact that this is not the case implies there is no objective standard, imo. If there was a known way to make art good every time, artists would just do that.

An example that comes to mind is how art of the past sometimes becomes subject to "Seinfeld is unfunny" syndrome, where when it first came out it was considered groundbreaking and amazing. However, over time other art emulated it to the point that it robs the original of all the things that made it new and interesting, making it seem bland in hindsight. Over enough time, this cycle can start over with the changing of culture, and those things can become new and fresh again.

I mostly agree, which is why I lean towards more free speech than not. I just think that, in an environment with totally unrestricted free speech, the end result can end up being similar to a restricted speech environment. And to that end, self-censorship imposed by majority pressure is arguably harder to break than externally imposed censorship from the government, as external censorship is more likely to create direct resistance.

I'm not sure I agree, if I understand you correctly. I would think it would be the opposite: that there could be no arguing with objective truths because they are, by their nature, objectively self-evident. It is difficult to argue that the sky is not blue, for instance, but people can argue all day long about how the color blue makes them feel. Though as I said in my original comment, I think the difference between objective and subjective is partially a matter of where you approach the question from. In minimalism, less is better. In maximalism, more is better. Within their own genre there are "objectively correct" approaches, but within the larger field of art there is not.

In a perfect world, yes. But I think the realities of life mean that the majority will always try to impose its will on the minority, and that bad actors will use unrestricted free speech in ways that are actively harmful. Imo, a majority often operates like a single creature that reacts very negatively to things that threaten its power/worldview. As I said, I lean towards free speech more than not, but I also recognize that at a certain point any power that is free to everyone will eventually become concentrated in increasingly small groups through consolidation (intended or otherwise).

I think of the story of the Emperor with No Clothes. Technically everyone is free to point out the king is naked, but the majority disagrees and pressures everyone into silence/agreement.

I'm not sure I understand your point. My argument is that if artist A and B have conflicting opinions about what makes art good (say, maximalist vs minimalism), then that implies there isn't an objective correct answer.

Personally I believe free will is actually very limited, and that most of the choices we make are done by subconscious algorithmic thought processes that mean the thing we choose we likely always going to be the thing chosen in that particular instance. I believe only in the rare cases where the mental algorithm comes back with equal percentages does free will truly exist.

Voted "other."

I think free speech is a double edge sword no matter how you cut it. Full free speech will end up with the majority shouting down the minority. Restricted free speech gives the government power to decide who gets to speak and create false ideological majorities. Frankly I don't think there is a good answer either way, though I lean more towards free speech than not.

Interesting you bring that up, as I'm working on a poetry book right now that's sort of the opposite. I think poetry, by its nature, lends itself to talking about metaphysics better than prose does.

I think it depends on what you mean by "objective." Within certain cultures or even human culture at large, I think there are some "objective" art standards that tend to appeal to how our brains are wired. However, I think what we see as objective truths are just subjective truths that are broadly applicable to our lived experiences, and are not based on true external universalities. If nothing else, there have been so many conflicting theories of art and what makes it good that it seems impossible for there to be a single "standard" for what makes objectively good art.

I think in pictures instead of words, and am a very anxious person. However, I wonder if that's because of neurodivergence more than anything. Personally I think being anxious is just a natural byproduct of being self-aware in modern society.

Tangentially related question: do you dream in 1st or 3rd person typically?

Yes, all moral systems are doomed to subversion, ideological coups or general degeneration. Most systems are resistant to change by their nature, but moral questions are constantly shifting and changing with time, material factors and social expectations.