No much of an argument to respond to here. I think it's pretty uncontroversial that socialism was instrumental in tearing down existing societal structures... like say religious institutions. — ChatteringMonkey

So's capitalism, for that matter. Capitalism is also responsible for far more deaths, if that's how we want to measure things. But that's not really the point.

The point you are making (one which I agree with to be clear) has implication, not mere eventualities or risks... and I'm not sure people realise this and/or are willing to accept those implications. — ChatteringMonkey

I really don't see the difference in the words, as they're all effects of choices and actions, but fine -- yes, there are also "implications." There are also "implications" in deciding whether to take the bus to work or not. There are implications for voting, for protesting, for living alone in the woods. I don't understand why you choose to point out truisms here.

The point is that we've been brainwashed, for 40 years, to believe that an ideal of life is to be an individual consumer and to disassociate from others, whether it be from unions or political involvement or community organizing. Which is exactly what the plutocratic class wants and has encouraged. No conspiracy, just an obvious reflection of the ideology of the powerful.

I agree with you point, and I was looking to take it bit further... but it's fine, we can leave it at this. — ChatteringMonkey

If you want to take it a bit further, I don't see how pointing out that there are "implications" involved in shifting the focus away from rugged individualism, of which we've internalized over the last 40 years, and towards collective action, solidarity, unionization, organization, etc., is doing so. But perhaps I'm missing something.

You see my problem? The Thatcher position is much easier to articulate and is elegant to read and hear. Yours is jagged and defensive. 'Complete BS' is not an argument.

Can you write a paragraph of simple elegance to rival hers, from a communitarian perspective?

As someone who has advised governments and fought neoliberal excesses here, I have tried for years and have found it difficult. — Tom Storm

That's different. If you want slogans and propaganda, there are all kinds out there. Plenty to rival Thatchers. "Things are better together" -- simple, easy. Strength in numbers. "We are the 99%". Resist "divide and conquer." "Come together" (to quote the Beatles). Whatever you like.

If you can't find that stuff, you're not looking hard enough. And frankly, I don't think Thatchers paragraph is very "elegant" at all. Not just grammatically but also in content. But to each his own.

Yes. First, it’s creating a problem that didn’t exist. Much like welfare queens, it’s a myth created to justify shifting power from the public to the private sphere. If all Thatcher sees is people wanting government to solve all their problems, that’s her own delusions. People should demand their government do more to help them.

Secondly, this nonsense about “there is no society” is laughable. Of course societies consist of individuals, just as forests consist of trees. So what? Doesn’t mean there’s no forests or societies. Any more than saying “there aren’t any individuals, because individuals consist only of cells.”

All she’s doing is creating a false picture as a pretext to shift responsibility away from collective action and the public sphere, to individuals and private ownership. Hence the policies against unions and the rhetoric about “government is the problem.”

It’s complete BS. Always has been.

I know others have, correctly in my view, said that neoliberalism cannot possibly account for everything. True. But it does account for a large part of our current global problems. They've been organizing for more than 80 years.

The left does not have that... — Manuel

True. If you really want a big-picture view, the development of neoliberalism emerging in the late 70s was simply one expression of a reaction against the 1960s, which were themselves a result of the New Deal. So when you say "80 years," you're right. The wealthy never liked the New Deal, and they've been fighting a gradual and sophisticated fight on all fronts to dismantle it ever since.

Lead by intellectuals like Milton Friedman (and to a lesser extend Ayn Rand), the underlying beliefs and justifications were provided. By the 80s, they were becoming policies. We've been living with the effects of said policies.

This to me seems to be a classic statement of what is generally more an American frame of society versus individualism. I imagine it would have wide support. — Tom Storm

Probably. But it's also complete BS.

It's not just neo-liberal ideology that is to blame though, that's only part of the story I'd say and a bit short-sighted. Socialism historically has been instrumental in breaking down any societal story that connects communities, be it religion, nationalism, ethnic traditions etc... . Granted a lot of those stories are suspect in that they also serve to justify certain power structures and all inequalities and injustices that come with that. But still, what have ideologies on the left been other than 'critical', i.e. aimed at tearing down something rather than building up a community around shared ideas. — ChatteringMonkey

Then your notion of "socialism" is strange indeed, and scope of history limited.

my intention is not to bash the left here, just to say that neo-liberalism is far from the only cause, — ChatteringMonkey

No one said it's the only cause.

So beware what you wish for. "Valuing what we do together", building communities usually implies values and stories build around common goods and goals, and those usually end up not being very sensitive to particular individuals. Or do we really think we can have our cake and eat it too? — ChatteringMonkey

I'm really not sure what you're talking about here. There's risk in anything -- whether we join together or not. There is far greater risk, in my view, of clinging to this dogma of rugged individualism, and so keeping ourselves isolated and trying to "go it alone" on everything. There is far greater power in numbers, working as a team, collaboration, networking, solidarity, education, etc. This is the only point. It has been systematically beaten out of people's heads for decades.

You appear to be overthinking it.

The lack of organization comes from the fact that both political parties are inconsistent and hypocritical. They adopt opposing view points. The left asserts that they are all about "choice" in one domain, but then deny choice in other domains. This is because both parties have both liberal and authoritarian tendencies. What about a party that has only liberal tendencies? Well, that would be the Libertarian party. — Harry Hindu

Not even close. To be "Libertarian" today is to be essentially a corporatist. The term is almost the opposite of what it once meant -- as is true for most political terminology in the United States.

"Government should leave us alone" and "support free markets." That's at the core of neoliberalism through and through. Translation: Big Government is bad, so reduce it. It's no solution, it's the problem. What IS the solution? Private business -- privatize everything, take it out of the public ("Big Government") sphere and put it into the hands of private power, which is unaccountable to the public.

No honest business person believes in free markets. It's a fantasy. They value socialism and big government more than anyone -- they simply believe the government should serve them. Subsidies, bailouts, tax cuts, deregulation, etc.

Capitalism cannot survive without state intervention. Never has in any developed country.

Even the term ceasefire (which the U.S. blocked the UN Security Council resolution for the third time) is kind of a capitulation to Israel's framing, because Hamas isn't even a state actor and Israel much more people in the past week than Hamas did over the past decade. We need to urge Bill HR 2590 that's supported by 25 House Progressives. It is simply indefensible to send Military Aid to Israel who are using our tax payer money to kill children and unarmed demonstrators. — Saphsin

Very good point indeed.

Still, even accepting this framework, this is a simple choice Israel can make to stop the murdering of innocent people and help itself in the meantime as well. If Israel wants to become even more of an international pariah, then they should continue their war crimes. This appears to be what they're choosing.

"Easy way"? How about sparing the lives of innocent people -- all the while making things harder for Israel by creating more sympathy for Hamas and creating more misery and desire for revenge to the Palestinians -- by using the enormous resources Israel has, militarily and otherwise, with US support, to deal with this problem?
— Xtrix

So what is your suggestion? We're both on the same page here - we want to minimize casualties but do you just want to use a different type of ammunition? Give me concrete suggestion. — BitconnectCarlos

Sure, I'll give you one simple and immediate one: accept a ceasefire.

I assume you want the leaders of Hamas "out of office," as well? Or more specifically out of leadership roles? If you don't want Bibi "destroyed," surely you don't want Hamas' leaders destroyed either. Correct?
— Xtrix

I'd actually like the leaders of Hamas dead, but out of office would be a victory as well. Ideally, Hamas as both an organization and a belief system would be no more - leaders dead, we can can spare the lesser members. If you are consciously and deliberately leading this movement I consider you an enemy of humanity. — BitconnectCarlos

In that case, we should consider Bibi an enemy of humanity and should "like" him dead, too.

it's like it is in the United States if Canada were to declare war on us and bomb a border town and then claim something like "well there might have been a General or soldier living there who knows." It just doesn't fly. — BitconnectCarlos

Which is exactly what Israel is doing to Gaza.

The fact that you take the pretext seriously when coming from Bibi and not from Canada is your own blind spot, nothing more.

I know. I was just questioning your reasoning earlier; you were upset that the kill count was so imbalanced and (and if I understood you correctly) due to that you were sympathetic to the Palestinians. If more Israelis died would you more sympathetic to Israel? — BitconnectCarlos

I didn't once say that. I'm "sympathetic" to any innocent person murdered by terrorists -- whether it's Hamas terrorists or Israeli terrorists. The latter terrorists happen to be the stronger force, with backing from the United States. They're also the occupiers and the aggressors.

The Palestinains are not only far weaker militarily, but have been living in a hellhole for decades due to right-wing Israeli policy, with numerous violations of international law. There is no parity here.

If Israel wants to stop this, they can. They have the power to help the Palestinian people overthrow the sadistic Hamas regime and live dignified lives. That's a choice Israel has, has rejected for decades, and continues to reject. They want to continue blaming their victims.

Just read this, by Anand Giridharadas, which also sums up nicely what I was driving at before:

The only solutions to our biggest shared challenges are solutions that have the following four characteristics: they're public, institutional, democratic, and universal. In other words, they solve the problem at the root, for everyone.

Anybody trying to sell you the notion that they have some quick-win, low-hanging-fruit, fill-the-gap thing that happens to be funded by the people causing the problem is trying to sell you a bill of goods.

What we have to do is reclaim the story that what we do together is more interesting, more compelling, more powerful, more valuable, than what we do alone.

The religion of the neoliberal era, the spiritual tradition of the neoliberal era, has been the notion that what we do alone is better and more beautiful than what we do together.

That was a massive propaganda push. It's incredibly counterintuitive. It goes in defiance of most traditions in the world, so it took a lot of work, but they did it. They pulled it off.

Margaret Thatcher literally saying, "There's no such thing as society” — which of your ancestors in any community around the world would have understood the notion that there's no such thing as society, only individual men and women?

That is a profoundly modern idea, a bullshit idea, a ridiculous idea, that none of our ancestors would have recognized, because all of our ancestors, wherever they came from, understood that they live in societies and would have felt dead to not live in societies of people with whom they had interdependence.

Over the last 40 years, we got sold this fraudulent religion, which only benefits those at the top, that what we do alone is great — and what we do together is corrupt, is tyrannical, is evil. It's false. It has hurt untold numbers of people. It's come crashing and burning down with Covid, which is the ultimate expression of a phenomenon where being left alone is literally death.

It's time to reclaim the story and venerate the tradition of valuing what we do together. — Giridharadas

I agree wholeheartedly.

And if you cared about the Irsaeli people, you'd want Netanyahu's government destroyed.
— Xtrix

I might want Netanyahu out of office, but I wouldn't say "destroyed." That's something completely different. I don't want the Israeli state destroyed. — BitconnectCarlos

I'm glad you can take a nuanced for of this. You're right. But notice I didn't say Israeli state, I said Netanyahu's government. By your standards, I assume you want the leaders of Hamas "out of office," as well? Or more specifically out of leadership roles? If you don't want Bibi "destroyed," surely you don't want Hamas' leaders destroyed either. Correct?

The answer, however, is to deal with Hamas, not to kill innocent Palestinians.
— Xtrix

Hamas has built military infrastructure intertwined with civilian infrastructure. You tell me how to properly attack them with zero civilian casualties, General. — BitconnectCarlos

There are all kinds of ways, that don't involved killing innocent people. With the resources that Israel has, it's kind of a joke to say this is their only recourse.

What if the roles were reversed, and Hamas made the same claims -- that bombing Israel was unavoidable because the leaders are "intertwined" with civilians? After all, political and military leaders don't simply live in government buildings. You accept this logic?

How many innocent people -- including children -- have been killed by Hamas? That's reprehensible. How many innocent people -- including children -- have been killed by Israel? I'll wait for you to look up the numbers...now that's also reprehensible, but also far greater in magnitude.
— Xtrix

Israel has a missile defense system which stops 90% of the rockets. Hamas would kill many more Israelis if they could, they're just attempting to and failing and you're holding that low casualty number against Israel. — BitconnectCarlos

You keep repeating this over and over again. No one is defending Hamas. No one. Least of all me. You're basically pointing out that Israel has far greater defense mechanisms and military might than Hamas -- far more advanced, far better funded, far more sophisticated, etc. Yes, no kidding. That's exactly the point here.

So yes, I'm absolutely holding it against Israel that they're clearly the stronger force. All the more reason not to succumb to behavior which we condemn the other side for doing -- namely, killing innocent people.

If it's wrong for Hamas to "intend" it, it's wrong for Israel to actually do it.

If you cared about Israel and the citizens of Israel, you wouldn't be supporting this behavior.
— Xtrix

If there was an easy way to go after Hamas without killing civilians I'd be all for it. But there's not. We can get Bibi out of office though, I wouldn't be opposed to that. — BitconnectCarlos

"Easy way"? How about sparing the lives of innocent people -- all the while making things harder for Israel by creating more sympathy for Hamas and creating more misery and desire for revenge to the Palestinians -- by using the enormous resources Israel has, militarily and otherwise, with US support, to deal with this problem?

Not as "easy," perhaps, but not impossible. I'd say that's worth doing in spite of being "harder" rather than killing innocent children.

(Accepting a ceasefire is an “easy” first step btw.)

It's cliché, but it's true: you can't kill an idea. Or even an ideology. You can only change moods and expectations by changing the circumstances that led the people in Gaza to choose Hamas in the first place. — Manuel

Exactly right. Same with Israel and the people they elect. But it's just pure confusion to equate the two, when one is a gigantic bully, funded and backed (economically and diplomatically) by the world's superpower (the United States), who have lead a vicious occupation for decades, with the people being occupied and oppressed, with little resources and no military or economic backing by the US.

Bitconnect and others want to ignore this imbalance (and history), as if it's irrelevant. It's essentially blaming the victim. When there is finally a reaction, the reaction is used as an excuse to decimate them even further, all under the guise of "self-defense."

If you truly cared about the suffering of the Palestinian people you'd want Hamas destroyed. — BitconnectCarlos

And if you cared about the Irsaeli people, you'd want Netanyahu's government destroyed. Both are carrying out terroristic acts against innocent people. The difference: Netanyahu has killed far more people, including children. You can't seem to get your mind around this, and so have to focus solely on Hamas while ignoring Israel.

Let me try to make it clearer: no one is saying that Hamas sending rockets into Israel is a good thing. The answer, however, is to deal with Hamas, not to kill innocent Palestinians. And not to pretend that every bombing is an "accident" or that it was aimed at Hamas (ask yourself if this pretext was used by Hamas -- would you buy it?).

We're either in favor of terrorism and the killing of innocent citizens or we're not. Condemning Hamas for killing innocent human beings is absolutely correct; now simply swapping "Hamas" for "Israel's government" and including Palestinians in the "human being" category, and we're in total agreement. That's the first step, and really shouldn't be hard if we have the slightest bit of empathy or morality as a people.

The second step is the ability to count. How many innocent people -- including children -- have been killed by Hamas? That's reprehensible. How many innocent people -- including children -- have been killed by Israel? I'll wait for you to look up the numbers...now that's also reprehensible, but also far greater in magnitude. No false equivalency here -- the power inequality is obvious. If you can't recognize that, you're deluding yourself.

Taking out media buildings is also a war crime.

If you cared about Israel and the citizens of Israel, you wouldn't be supporting this behavior.

Let’s briefly recap:

Netanyahu, to save himself politically, deliberately provokes the Palestinians during the end of Ramadan by storming Al-Aqsa. Knowing full well there would be a reaction, when it came it was used as an excuse for terrorism. (All in the name of self defense against Hamas terrorism, of course.)

214 Palestinians killed so far, including 58 children.

10 Israelis killed, 1 child.

181 dead, 52 children.
— StreetlightX

52 kids who won't grow up to be Palestinian terrorists. — fishfry

What a truly disgusting remark.

Almost unbelievable, until I realized you’re the same truther imbecile from another thread.

Now imagine that the parents of family B, outraged at this behaviour, decide to throw spears at the innocent members of family A. — Bartricks

:lol:

Such a shallow understanding of reality on display here really did have me laughing. How are you not embarrassed?

In any case, there is nowhere near any proportionality in the violence committed. It's a total massacre. — Manuel

Yes -- to say nothing of the decades-long brutal occupation. Apologists for Israel are incapable of seeing the reality. Anything Israel does is defensive, there's no power imbalance (and if there is it is somehow irrelevant), it's all about the "right to exist," etc. No sense in wasting time trying to convince them otherwise.

Israel is definitely defending itself, it's just defending itself so well that people like Baden have no idea that it's defending itself. — BitconnectCarlos

You've clearly identified with one "side" and so are possibly incapable of looking at this conflict objectively, but take a few moments to consider again what you've said and see if you can at least play Devil's advocate to your own remarks.

(If you can't, there's no need in going any further -- defend Israel to the end; I'm not interested.) — Xtrix

The reason Israel suffers so many less casualties is because they have a missile defense system that intercepts the vast majority of rockets which saves countless lives. Would you support Israel more if more Israelis died and the casualty count was 50/50? — BitconnectCarlos

Is this meant as a joke, or do you sincerely not see how fatuous this statement is?

You've clearly identified with one "side" and so are possibly incapable of looking at this conflict objectively, but take a few moments to consider again what you've said and see if you can at least play Devil's advocate to your own remarks.

(If you can't, there's no need in going any further -- defend Israel to the end; I'm not interested.)

Right. Which should provoke some basic questions: why does the US so strongly side with Israel? Why do we vote in lockstep with them? Why do we send billions of military aid and technology to them?

Questions a child would have, but which reveal some very interesting facts. I hope threads like these at least encourage people to look into it a little deeper.

99% of the killing is done by Israel. 99% of the children murdered are murdered by Israel. The idea that's just defending themselves from the vastly inferior power they are violently occupying is where the parody comes in. — Baden

Indeed.

Notice the rhetoric. If our team does it, it’s self defense. If the other team does it, it’s terrorism.

Completely ignoring the power imbalance, and hence reality.

That's the crux of it. Everything else is peripheral. This has been going on since ancient times. Plenty of posters here - Streetlight, 180, among others refuse to accept Israel's right to exist. — BitconnectCarlos

No, this is simply nonsense. This is a claim used over and over again to justify a brutal occupation. Israel has rejected the international consensus for years, the power balance isn't anywhere close to equal, and it's had the backing of the United States for decades.

Come to the bargaining table with us and we'll talk. We've withdrawn settlements and forces in the past and we'll do it again, just be civil. — BitconnectCarlos

Could have ended with Sadat in '71. What happened then? Or in Taba? Were they not asked politely enough?

That's all it's about: Accepting our right to exist. — BitconnectCarlos

That's simply nonsense.

You just admitted here that Palestinians are genocidal, so given that you've already accepted that, why should the Jews be willing to negotiate with a group who wants them dead? — BitconnectCarlos

That's like saying Native Americans were genocidal -- so why should the colonists negotiate with them?

I suspect you're willfully ignoring both history and current reality.

Of course Israel deserves condemnation when condemnation is due, and we can entertain a variety of approaches towards how to improve the state of Israel and make it more moral. — BitconnectCarlos

One way is by stopping their brutal decades-long occupation and agreeing to a two-state solution, as most of the world wants.

So yes, plenty of evidence, much of it in Hebrew. Won't be long before we get stuff in English. — Manuel

I can't read Hebrew, so I'll have to wait. I also haven't yet heard anything directly from Finkelstein, but I look forward to it.

This is absolutely party politics being played out at the expense of Palestinian lives — StreetlightX

Yeah, and yet we get front-page articles like this:

One week earlier, Mr. Netanyahu’s opponents were poised to unseat him and form a new government, potentially ending the rule of the country’s longest-serving leader as he faces corruption charges. He denies wrongdoing.

But the past six days of national turmoil have offered the Israeli prime minister a political lifeline. When Arab parties and a right-wing politician pulled out of talks this week to join or back a rival coalition, the threat to unseat Mr. Netanyahu appeared to collapse.

“Netanyahu has always thrived in environments of uncertainty, of chaos and crisis,” said Mitchell Barak, an Israeli pollster and director of Keevoon Global Research, who worked as an aide to Mr. Netanyahu in the 1990s. “He basically goes from crisis to crisis.” —

https://www.wsj.com/articles/israels-turmoil-hands-political-lifeline-to-embattled-prime-minister-netanyahu-11621092285?mod=hp_lead_pos2

As if to say "What luck for Netanyahu!" Most read newspaper in the states.

Haven't read the entire thread, but I truly wonder about the timing of all this. Seems to be a nice distraction for Bibi. I wonder if anyone else has read anything about this and whether it's supported by any evidence. I wouldn't be shocked in the least.

Divide and conquer is a piece of it, but probably a small one. The ruling class has other, very robust tools:

Misinformation; relative and absolute poverty; the law (which is more on the side of the rich than it is on the side of the poor); the police (and if need be, armed forced); the obedience training programs of secondary education; the mass media; and so on and so forth. — Bitter Crank

I think misinformation is spread through the indoctrination centers (schools) and various media -- that's a huge weapon, yes -- perhaps bigger than lack of organizing. But on the other hand, as Chomsky points out often enough and which I see in my life (and is reflected in polling), people tend to see the real issues -- they just don't necessarily articulate them.

So if the numbers are there, and the information is (basically) there, what short of coming together is stopping us? The Occupy Movement and the Sanders' campaign are proof enough that it can happen. Both made inequality (a class issue) a focal point. That struck a nerve after 40 years of neoliberalism.

Rugged Individualism is a ruling class friend. By all means! Encourage the masses to be individualists, rugged or not. Individuals should definitely pursue their unique set of interests. The ruling class, or the rich, have class consciousness. Let's not let the masses get infected by the kind of thinking that shows them that they are all in the same sinking boat! — Bitter Crank

Yeah, exactly.

A fish stinks from the head.

The American political system is, in most states, based on the motto "winner takes all". As long as this is in place, in law and in popular culture, there's just no reason to place much value on working together with others. — baker

Agreed.

I think the whole idea of there being Red and Blue states within one country is insane. It's a miracle the US has any semblance of functionality at all, given the political principles by which it is governed.

And then this whole notion of the president being a member of a political party! How could things not go wrong?! — baker

I think that certainly adds to it, and it's exactly what the plutocrats want -- since they own both parties (this is slightly changing now, however, with Trump and Sanders). But it leads to a larger point: the lack of awareness of alternatives, whether it be how other countries function politically and economically, or a completely different view of what a human being is (and thus what an ideal society can be imagined to cultivate it).

Perhaps Americans should get out more.

True. I just don't know what pulling out all the stops would look like if you don't have the Senate in the bag. — James Riley

I imagine there must be some, even though I don't have concrete examples. But it won't be easy.

Biden is still in the honeymoon that Obama and most POTUSs get. — James Riley

Maybe. If they can somehow get some of these policies passed, I think he’ll continue being popular and even gain some voters. But the likelihood is low with Mr. West Virginia in there. Plus I don’t know how hard Biden is willing to fight for these things. Very easy to propose (although I credit his administration for doing so), much harder to make a reality unless you really pull out the stops.

Once again: What you choose to do and not do affects others. It is because of this that you cannot be left alone. The only way what you do would not affect others is if you lived in isolation. To be left alone you must be alone. And even then there would be an impact on others. — Fooloso4

Well said.

Concern for others, common welfare, the common good, the simple fact that what we do (or don’t do) has real consequences on the world (including people) around us, etc, has been so thoroughly beaten out of people’s heads that they come to admire Ebenezer Scrooge.

We know where this dangerous nonsense comes from, and why it continues: it comes from the mouths of Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, and other (perhaps unwitting) apologists for the plutocrats — and it persists because it’s useful to said plutocrats. Plain and simple.

It’s a truly sick mentality, and leads to sick outcomes.

Notwithstanding what the right says about the left being sheeple, the simple fact is, they are cats. You can't herd cats. The right, however, loves a strong leader who tells them what they want to hear, and they will fall in goosestep behind him (or, her, if she's hot). — James Riley

I don't think that's fair, actually. The "Left" (if they can be called that) fell right in line with Obama. At first it was borderline cultish, and it dissipated. The people who worship Trump didn't seem to get as disillusioned, but there were very different circumstances that accounts for that (social media and education levels come to mind).

Regardless, I think your point demonstrates how we separate ourselves from others and keep divisions going. I do this as well -- it's very difficult not to, when it looks as though one side is becoming a death cult. I wonder how I would have reacted to the rise of the National Socialist Party in the 30s if I were a German citizen, for example...what would have been the proper response (pre-Holocaust?)...given that Trumpism is even more dangerous, I don't think a Kumbaya attitude is appropriate. In that case, it's very hard to want to find any common ground with these people.

On the other hand, they're also deluded, mainly by outside factors (like media) coming from above that targets and exploits them -- their fears of changing demographics, their working class conditions, their latent racism, their lack of education, and the fears and values that have been instilled in them for the last 30 years (from "they're coming for our guns" to "keep government out of my social security").

Although you didn't ask, I personally tend more and more to want to talk with those who are already "there" mentally, or are at least reasonable. I'm not too interested in the die-hard Trump crowd -- they're a spectacle, and can't be ignored, but since they've shown they're immune to reason the only way to deal with them is to overpower them with a greater force -- a bigger army, so to speak (and of not just voters).

As a side note, I saw so many working class people who refused to avail themselves of any government services (that they had paid for with their tax dollars) because they "didn't want to be no welfare queen!" They end up physically broke down in a hovel somewhere and dying early. Oh well. — James Riley

That's interesting. Or look at the Republican states denying medicaid expansion or federal unemployment funding. It's truly insane. But that's where we are.

I don't know that any of the questions concerning the natural world (the domain of science) were ever philosophical in nature. — forrest-sounds

Science is natural philosophy, and used to be called as such, right through the 19th century.

The conception of nature as res extensa, as matter, or as the "physical" (as in the science of physics, a word derived from the Greek phusis, which is also often translated as "nature" [natura, in Latin]), comes from the beginning of what we call modern science, in Galileo and Descartes. Of course, their idea of "body" (and hence material) was based in the mechanical philosophy of the time: the idea of contact action. That is, that the world was like a machine, not unlike the complicated clocks and automata of the 17th century. Eventually this was abandoned, of course, for a view that takes into account the "forces" of nature -- but you see the point, I think.

But the very ontology behind science is a naturalistic one -- basically materialism or, perhaps better, mathematical and measurable. "Reality is only what is measurable," as supposedly Max Plank once said. This ontology is not itself scientific.

My sister, in Maine, said Collins was pushed over the top by some last minute outdoor T.V. personality that everyone loves. — James Riley

Hmm— do you recall the name?

So my question is this: Isn't it incumbent upon "liberals" to go into the lions den, troll if they have to, rock boats, stir pots? — James Riley

Don't we need a counter-insurgency program, specifically designed to upset stupidity? — James Riley

Regardless, I ask myself, how best to turn the craziness when the truth will not suffice? When facts will not suffice? Maybe the craziness should not be turned? — James Riley

I think these questions are in the right direction. My own view is to resist the temptation to engage with the opposition, especially on the Internet (and even more especially on social media platforms), and instead to focus on gathering and organizing people who share the same values/goals -- or those who can be swayed (of which there are many).

Why? Because I'm sorry to say that there's a chunk of the electorate that's just immovable, mentally. They're sinking further into a vortex of pure chaos, an alternative reality of "alternative facts" that far exceeds any kind of craziness on the left -- and is much more dangerous. The "Q" phenomenon is a prime example, but also the Big Lie ("election was stolen") and the sacking of the Capitol. There's really no reasoning with them anymore, and there's no time -- especially not online, which is where a lot of this banter takes place. If it's gonna happen, maybe it'll happen in real time between real people (neighbors, friends, pastors, priests, doctors, community leaders).

We can learn some lessons from history. We beat them in 2020 by 7 million votes during a high turnout year. Given the electoral college, that's still not good enough in my view -- especially against such an awful incumbent. On the other hand, incumbents historically win, and Biden voters were far less enthusiast than Trump voters in 2016 or Obama voters in 2020. Given the Republican gains in Congress and the state legislatures, however, it only shows how unpopular Trump was (e.g., Trump lost Maine but Susan Collins won re-election handily). Is this level of participation good enough? Not at all.

We need to do more, not only bringing more and more people away from the right and the center, but away from apathy and non-voting (the largest "voting" bloc there is by far). Our job, besides voting, is to organize these people.

I think the focus should shift away from national issues and towards local issues -- the state legislatures, local elections, councilmen elections, etc. Creating groups in person or online of like-minded people around your community. Otherwise all this news-consumption and yelling into the social media ether (Tweeting, re-tweeting, sharing memes, hitting a "like" button, writing long political posts, etc) and endless complaining amounts to is political hobbyism. (I should know -- I've fallen into that trap too. I see it all around me -- and there's good reasons for it; it's not just laziness.)

As far as national issues -- we should try pushing this administration and the Democratic party as a whole towards what we feel are the right issues. Here I am in Noam Chomsky's camp. Bernie Sanders has already done that in his own way, and it's showing in Biden's administration. I'm not at all fooled by the media's portrayal of this, making him out to be the "next FDR," but I simply don't see him going as big as he is without having to kiss the ass of the large number of Bernie voters and the vocalness of AOC et al. One reason to push, apart from the fact that they're simply better policies, is that if these measures pass they will have real, noticeable effects on people's lives and, once they get a taste of it, it'll be very hard to reverse -- and will lead to greater turnout. (I think Obamacare demonstrates the former point -- and I'm not a big fan of it, but it is far more popular now in it was 10 years ago.)

So, on the federal level: push them in whatever way you can to implement policies that will help the majority of Americans, and this will (arguably) lead to higher approval and turnout. More importantly, on the local level, start getting involved. This necessitates the things you mentioned: talking to others, trying different strategies, discovering better methods of organizing, etc. That itself takes group collaboration. So if there's any mantra here, it's that we've got to be more social.

Those on the Right know it, and they're better at it -- they're far more organized than the Left. They're also desperate, have a coalition that are becoming more and more unhinged (which are turning off a lot of corporate America despite their party being far more likely to give them everything they want), and increasingly rely on structural factors (electoral college, Senate representation) and cheating (gerrymandering, voter suppression) to maintain power.

We don't share the same problems. We already have the numbers, and we have the policies (large majority support for most of them). But we're simply not as organized. You can't run on demonizing the other side forever, and running simply on "I'm not as bad as that guy," even if it's true. Eventually you have to do something. I think handing out stimulus checks was a good start, and some of the proposals (child care, universal Pre-K, taxing the rich) are decent, but it's got to continue.

I live in NH -- close to Maine, where Collins won. I can't help but think if I did more to assist her opponents campaign that the Democrats would not have to be held hostage by the likes of Joe Manchin. So there's a little connection for you. (Not to say I have that much influence, of course.)

I think Trump will be highly competitive in 2024 and the odds on favorite to win if a recession hits by then, which seems highly likely given record high corporate debt levels today. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Are corporate debt levels very predictive of recessions? What data are you looking at, and can you pass along please? Thanks.

In general, I'd expect Far-Right political parties to continue their string of victories until developed nations figure out a solution for the issue of immigration. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I don't think people really care much about immigration if there isn't a "crisis" or the media isn't whipping them up in a frenzy. Notice the hysteria about the border from last month has completely subsided. This shows up in polling, too. It's there, but other things like healthcare, political corruption, the economy, etc., consistently poll higher in importance.

I doubt that very much.
— Xtrix

To the extent that this counts as a post, you're right. — fishfry

Yes -- you're fairly predictable.

To summarize this odd discussion: you're yet another deluded 9/11 truther desperately pretending to not be a 9/11 truther -- exactly like most 9/11 truthers. "I'm one of the REASONABLE conspiracy theorists!"

It's simply terrible, terrible judgment. On par with flat earth theory -- many proponents of which are probably nice people as well, but likewise deluded.

It was fun embarrassing you -- have a good time with your unanswered "questions."

That all changed the day I saw a [url=]video of the collapse of building 7. You can't unsee it. It's a controlled demolition. — fishfry

It remains unexplained. — fishfry

Lots of things go unexplained. All kinds of strange things happen during disasters. There's nothing about that video -- or logic generally -- that suggests a demolition. The building fell for structural reasons due to the impact of the WTC collapse. It can't be sketched out exactly how, perhaps, but neither can how we evolved from primates. Must mean "God did it." Or maybe aliens. Or maybe a demolition by a corrupt government.

If you can't see the absurdity, and where your reasoning is going wrong, then, again, you're caught in the rabbit hole and there's no pulling you out. And I'm not interested in trying to.

How did three steel-framed buildings collapse, the first, last, and only such collapses of steel-framed buildings in history?
— fishfry

:roll: Ask a civil engineer.
— Xtrix

Like these guys? — fishfry

Oh you mean the conspiracy theory-peddling "non-profit" group of quacks known as the "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth"? Funny that's who you offer up. In that case, there's a group of "scientists" who you'll be interested in who deny climate change. There were lots of scientists paraded around by tobacco companies who denied any link to cancer. There are all kinds of scientists -- with degrees! -- who meet annually to discuss new findings for "creationist research" -- that Noah's flood was responsible for the Grand Canyon, etc.

I know what you're thinking: "How am I to know who to listen to?" But you've already made your choice. You've thrown in with the small minority of cranks. I throw in with the vast majority of credible scientists. I advise you to take a break from truther websites and have a conversation with them instead.

https://web.archive.org/web/20070809030224/http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf

And you seem remarkably uncurious about the world. — fishfry

Not at all. I'm just not interested in whether Santa Claus likes chocolate chips or macaroons. Nor am I "curious" about Jewish space lasers, Bigfoot, Creationist theories, climate "skepticism," and moon landing conspiracies. Like I've said before -- you're welcome to your delusions. Have fun with that.

I don't consider 9/11 "questions" to be legitimate ones
— Xtrix

Why not? — fishfry

For the same reasons you (I would hope?) think "questions" about whether Reagan was really replaced by a robot after his assassination aren't legitimate. Some things are so stupid you just can't bother with them. If you don't recognize that 9/11 truther claims are of the exact same cloth, then your judgment is simply terrible. And, like I said, it won't matter what I say about it. Nor can I convince you or teach you. You simply possess terrible judgment.

No -- that's just an excuse you tell yourself. The real reason -- and obvious to anyone with any historical or psychological sense -- is that Reagan didn't die. Had he died, it would have been another JFK moment, and people like you would be defending bogus theories about Hinckley being a CIA operative or something.
— Xtrix

I don't see that at all. — fishfry

I don't recall anything out of the ordinary or questionable about that case. — fishfry

:rofl: Exactly.

How did this guy get so close to the President? Did you know there were warning signs that were ignored by the FBI? Full documentation is still classified. Reagan's stint in the hospital was odd -- no reporters, no pictures. Many people think that he really died but a look-alike was put in his place from then on -- plenty of video evidence that suggests this. Etc.
— Xtrix

LOL. Good stuff! There was nothing remarkable about the case at the time. You seem to think people make up conspiracies, rather than simply notice anomalies in the official explanation and look for answers. — fishfry

Was I not just noticing anomalies in the official explanation? Can you prove me wrong? Why do you hate questioning? How can you dismiss all the people who want answers to these questions?

I'm not saying any of it is true -- but how can you not question? Don't you want to find out the truth? If you want to sit and idly believe the standard narrative, that's on you. Why are you so conforming?
— Xtrix

You honestly don't seem to be able to distinguish between people making things up, and people noting actual, substantive anomalies. — fishfry

You continually missing the point here is very telling indeed. I'll leave it for anyone following this sad discussion to judge for themselves, but it's an interesting teaching tool.

All deluded people think they have "substance" and "evidence," including flat earthers. That doesn't make them all equally ridiculous, but the commonality is still there. You simply aren't capable of seeing how ridiculous your theories about controlled demolitions are, and how similar they are to creationist and flat earth theories. So be it -- that's no surprise.

People question the official stories of the JFK assassination and 9/11 precisely because the official explanation are so full of holes. Not because they are psychologically disposed to see things that aren't there. And this explains your Hinkley example. There really weren't any mysteries about that case. That I know of. And if there were, as you enumerated, they didn't resonate with enough people. — fishfry

No -- it's precisely because they are psychologically disposed. Which is why JFK's assassination has numerous theories, because it was a shocking event, and Reagan's doesn't -- because it turned out OK. If it hadn't turned out OK, you'd be hearing plenty of "mysteries" (some of which I already made up as examples) and would probably be arguing about how closed-minded I am for not taking them seriously. Your last sentence proves the point: it didn't resonate with people. Yes, and JFK theories do -- as do 9/11 theories (but not the WTC bombing in 1993). Why? For exactly the reasons mentioned.

Ad hominems are all you've got. No facts, no evidence, no logic. — fishfry

You're embarrassing yourself. — fishfry

You fail to see that you're embarrassing yourself. Also no surprise.

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Someone with your level of judgment lecturing anyone about "logic" is itself pretty embarrassing. But again, nothing I haven't encountered before -- Creationists say the exact same things. :roll:

You have as little curiosity about 9/11 as you do about flat earth theory. I just find this a stunning admission. — fishfry

Shocking! How can I be so closed minded and incurious! How can I be so awful to those poor 9/11 widows! I don't know how I live with myself.

Yes. You have poor judgment and I don't. That's the difference.
— Xtrix

I would say the same about you. — fishfry

No kidding? I suspect Ken Ham would as well. I'll lose as much sleep over either.

What am I deluded about? — fishfry

What are Creationists "deluded" about? They're just asking questions too.

To say it one more time: the very fact that you care about this, and have judged (poorly) that this is something worth pursuing, and that it's all a "mystery" worth solving, etc., is on par with any other conspiracy theory of your choice.

It's the same argument used with Creationists ("God of the gaps"), in that there will always be questions and holes and mysteries and problems with any historical event, if one cares to delve deep enough into it. The very reason there is this level of controversy about 9/11 and not the 1993 bombing, or the JFK assassination and not the Reagan assassination, is well known by psychologists, and is rather predictable. You see it all around the world, in fact.

There's nothing wrong with questioning things. But what you choose to question, and why, matters. What you choose to do with your time, energy, and attention matters. It's a judgment call.

It's precisely judgment that you lack. Regarding "delusion": you're deluded if you believe building 7 was "demolished," for example. Which you said. So there's a specific example for you.

You can have the last word. — fishfry

I doubt that very much.

A history of stupid choices and stupid judgments comes to mind. But generally it's not something easy to explain.

But there's level of crazy. JFK seems to me to be less crazy than 9/11 which is less crazy than Q, etc. And I'll go further, I think you're allowed to have one or two such ideas, as long as it doesn't cloud everything in your vision. It's a fine line. — Manuel

Yes. Reminds me of Nietzsche:

"There are horrible people who, instead of solving a problem, tangle it up and make it harder to solve for anyone who wants to deal with it. Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all."

That's how I feel about people with awful judgment "weighing in" on anything -- whether it's physics, the election, the coronavirus, vaccines, 9/11, or anything else.

What really set me off was you bringing Donald Trump into it. I have friends whom I like, respect, and trust who voted for him. — T Clark

So do I, including family members. So what? It's still terrible, terrible judgment.

Which is not to say that one can't be skeptical of certain claims made by such people. but one should be careful. — Manuel

Indeed. Much more careful than most people are, in fact. It's very tempting to have opinions about everything, rather than constantly saying "I really don't know enough to have a real opinion about that," so I get the urge. In today's landscape especially, where everyone thinks they're experts about whatever their media tells them is an "issue" -- masks, vaccines, epidemiology, medicine -- it's an almost unavoidable pitfall.

A portion of it is simply probability, as is "what is more likely to be true" an inside job or what happened? — Manuel

I tend to agree, but it's like playing poker: there's incomplete information, so you have to use your judgment about probabilities (is the likelihood that this person's range beats me here greater than my hand's strength?) -- but determining that probability is "subjective," dependent on how the person gathers information and assesses the situation.

Like poker, like life. Some are winners; most are losers. But the losers attribute their losses to bad luck, never improve, and never learn exactly where they go wrong. So it goes with conspiracy theorists as well: they're convinced they're doing God's work, that they're of Galileo's cloth. Yet their conclusions are so absurd it's almost shocking. What I love the most is when they make predictions based on their beliefs. Then it becomes as apparent as poker: they're always wrong. Look no further than the Q-anon people. It's such stupid nonsense that they actually make predictions -- smarter charlatans never do that, for good reason.

Watching the day come and go when Trump was supposed to re-take office and watching them scramble for explanations was hilarious. As hilarious as the "end of the world" people. The date comes and goes and nothing happens -- of course.

So the idea that people with terrible judgment also are more likely to make armchair claims about physics being “bad” is “baloney” to you? Seems almost like a truism to me.

(Notice this says nothing whatever about debate within physics.)