I didn't say they had a stellar track record. Is it better than climate change denial? Yes.

Wonderful. It worked well last time, didn't it?
— Xtrix

Yes, much like how the mobilization of hunderds and thousands of people worked so well to gain Bernie the nomination hey? — StreetlightX

You're too stupid to understand, but mobilizing hundreds of thousands of people is exactly what has changed the DNC, regardless of their robbing Bernie from the nomination. But since understanding this requires details and more than a Twitter-length response, I'll just skip it.

Anyone else interested, let me know.

We're talking about actually voting, not rolling over to the DNC.
— Xtrix

Ah yes, not rolling over to the DNC by ... doing exactly what the DNC wants. — StreetlightX

Okay bud, you're right. Your expert adolescent analysis is too overwhelming. Let's teach those DNC guys a lesson they'll never forget and elect TRUMP again! That's the ticket! Worked wonders in 2016 after all. Eventually they'll understand and change. Fingers crossed!

See, the problem is you think this is a difference of persons. It's not. I already explained the power in the USA is held by the respective parties. — Benkei

Everyone knows both parties are beholden to corporate interests. That goes without saying. What you continually ignore is the reality of differences between the two factions of the business party ( Democrats and Republicans), differences which actually do matter. I mentioned an important one: climate change policy. One party denies it's happening, the other wants to take baby steps forward (but not enough). Forget which is more dangerous -- just acknowledge the difference. Then ask who'd be more willing to implement better policies (Trump wants to gut CO2 and methane emisssion regulations remember).

The details matter. It's very easy to just say "It's all the same" -- and maybe allows you to feel satisfied in your superior knowledge of politics -- but doing a little work helps come out of this simplistic Nickelodeon analysis.

It's not meaningful to say "they're both corrupt but he's destroying the environment". So you'll save the environment by losing your privacy. What kind of choice is that? — Benkei

This is exactly what I mean. So assuming that's true (which I don't) -- losing our privacy is equally as important as our species dying off? Fine, then you still vote for Biden -- why? Because Trump will both destroy the environment AND we lose our privacy.

That actually happened, in no small degree thanks to those who sat out or voted third party
— Xtrix

Electoral gaslighting - "look what you made me do". DNC lackey. — StreetlightX

Lol.

It's just a fact, actually: voting third party or sitting out helped elect Trump. That's not "gaslighting," and quite apart from blaming people. I understand their frustrations. I mentioned Bernie supporters voting for Trump in 2016 (roughly 1 in 10, I believe) -- that helped as well.

If you're too dense not to acknowledge these simple facts, that's your business.

Electing Trump isn't holding them accountable.
— Xtrix

Actually that's exactly what it is and no amount of double-speak will change that fact. — StreetlightX

Wonderful. It worked well last time, didn't it?

This is true only for those who believe pushing a button every four years it the most important thing we can do. It isn't. This unfortunate choice should take us a few minutes -- you vote against the worst, case closed. Then you continue pushing for progressive policies, which is the only way things change. Electing Trump makes any chance of these policies happening impossible.

But it makes some of us believe we're really doing something, I guess. I have the unfortunate experience of living in the real world, though. But continue with your super-smart, dime-a-dozen analyses from a different country.

I tell you what's not a hard choice, not bending the knee now when you've got nothing. At the very least, withdraw your support and act like you want something. — Baden

Sure. Who's saying otherwise? We're talking about actually voting, not rolling over to the DNC.

Yes, and in 2016 the Dems didn't listen because they were sure Hillary would win. They ain't so sure now, I can tell you. — Baden

No, electing Trump was tried in 2016. That actually happened, in no small degree thanks to those who sat out or voted third party (or even for Trump, in roughly 8% of Sanders supporters). So what was the outcome? Three years of Trump's destructive policies, and no effect on the DNC.

And you want to try it again.

And: Never ever give something away for free that could be used as leverage to get something in return. — Baden

Electing Biden is by no means "free." It will come at a very major cost indeed.

Or we help elect Trump and have to spend the next four years defending the policies that he hasn't yet destroyed, while losing the courts to a generation of conservative judges.

Not a hard choice.

I'm advocating for progressives to say this to the Dems:

"Give us what we want or fuck off." — Baden

I would love to do that more than anyone. There's no proof that that works, and it was tried in 2016. We simply can't afford to do it again, because it really does matter who's in office. It doesn't mean letting the DNC off the hook for what they've done -- far from it.

It's clear, simple, and the only thing that has a hope of getting the weasels in the DNC to take on significant progressive policies. — Baden

OK, I just disagree with this I guess. Where is the evidence this is true? What happened in 2016 changed very little -- what changed was the continued fight of Bernie Sanders supporters and the offshoots of that campaign, in advocating for $15 minimum wage, Medicare for All, a Green New Deal, etc. etc. at the local and state level. Which is where all progress happens, in reality.

Bernie understands all of this too. It's not because he's a "sell out," it's because he understands the urgency of removing Trump, given this time in history.

As far as the OP -- I'm glad to see very few voting for Trump. But those voting third party or not voting, depending on the logic (safe state or not), is a bit higher than I expected.

Yes.

From the Netherlands the only meaningful differences between Republicans and Democrats are gay marriage, abortion and a somewhat tougher stance on immigration. — Benkei

You leave out the most important: climate change.

It would be nice to have a planet in the future, I think. So yes, I value any chance of making that happen over protests votes that don't do anything and guarantee disaster. Call me crazy.

Only because you make it so. You're caught in the circular logic of saying you need to do what makes it necessary for you to do what you did. — Baden

No, he's being realistic. That's the unfortunate choice -- it'll be Biden or Trump. That's A or B. What requires delusion is voting for Donald Trump again, which is what you're advocating. Third party and no vote is a vote for Trump. That's simple arithmetic.

If you cared more about the real world and getting real progressive policies through, you wouldn't be advocating for revenge, as if the DNC will hear you loud and clear. People were saying exactly the same thing in 2016. I'm sure the last 3 years has been great for you, but those of us who care about the future would have preferred an administration we could actually pressure for more and more sensible policies rather than have to spend time fighting to keep the measly ones we still have.

The difference between Trump and Biden is marginal from any perspective but the US perspective. — Benkei

In many ways, both those "marginal differences" in the most powerful country on Earth actually do make a difference. Although in this case, it's not always so marginal. Again I come back to climate change: check out the approaches and decide who's more damaging. One wants to take small steps towards renewable energy (not nearly enough); one says it's a Chinese hoax and wants to prop up the coal industry.

Still "marginal"?

Yes, as I've said before, nobody pays for a free hamburger.
— Baden

But if you OrGaNiZe and be an AcTiVisT they will name a National Burger Day (after a woman chef) and Trump wouldn't do that! — StreetlightX

Right, so let's throw votes away and re-elect Trump. Because THAT'S what changed the DNC in 2016, of course -- not this silly "organizing and activism" (ridiculed like a teenager on Twitter), which is a waste of time.

What a buffoon. Like I have said repeatedly to you: you'll fit in better with Twitter.

Now the names Gorsuch and Kavanaugh come to mind. So do the 200 federal judges confirmed so far. — Frank Apisa

Or the environmental regulations being destroyed, the Paris Accords being scrapped, the climate change denial of the former oil lobbyists now running the EPA, etc.

At a time when scientists are telling us we have very little time to waste in tacking climate change, we're here having to argue not to throw votes away? And after 2016, too -- in which their "strategy" succeeded. (So much for the DNC learning the error of their ways.)

It's mind-blowing.

1) Dems come to their senses and change their policies.
2) Dems lose and realize they're going to have to come to their senses and change their policies if they ever want to get their guy elected again.

Alternative: They win and never come to their senses and change their policies. — Baden

This is your reasoning?

Or 3: progressives elect Biden and continue to hold his feet to the flame -- something which is totally impossible with a Trump administration. This is the option that matters, not throwing a vote away which the DNC could just as easily interpret as they wish (like they did in 2016). The real work is in activism every day, not in playing games every four years.

Let them impeach Biden if it becomes clear he's guilty of rape or going senile. Who cares. It's not about the person, it's about the real world and the real chances of effecting change.

With Trump, there's zero chance -- none.

But you have to be delusional to think that this is what Biden will enable. — StreetlightX

He's already made concessions. I mentioned some already. Is it more or less "delusional" than believing Trump will be swayed by pressure?

If you're not willing to hold them accountable now, exactly when? — StreetlightX

Electing Trump isn't holding them accountable. You hold them accountable as you've always have -- not simply by throwing a vote away every four years because it makes you feel better, but by the hard work of organizing and pressuring administrative leadership every day, week after week. That's the only hope.

Ask yourself how the democratic party has changed so far. Was it by electing Trump in 2016? No. It was Bernie Sanders and his campaign, which organized millions of people and resulted in the creation of progressive programs (like the Green New Deal) and which continued fighting for the last four years.

You also completely underestimate how dire the straits are right now for the environment, and the impact Trump will have with his band of oil executives running the EPA. This is no time to play games because we're angry Bernie lost.

Just give the DNC carte blanche and acquiesce in the obsolescence of what minimal democracy you have. — StreetlightX

Let me make it as simple as I can for you:

It's precisely that we want to have an administration we can influence (we progressives), thus being the exact OPPOSITE of "carte blanche." We want to either destroy or take over the DNC, as Bernie has started to do.

Thus we need to push for the election of this senile neoliberal (alleged) rapist. It's a terrible choice, but that's the system -- what's the alternative? The alternative is Trump, where we have 0 say -- nothing. No chance of any policies being adopted, and will in fact have to fight to not have the polices we like completely gutted. We watch on as he appoints more judges to the appellate courts and the Supreme Court (for lifetime tenor).

If you and Baden still refuse to acknowledge this point, there's no sense pretending to be rational. Let's just behave like it's Twitter.

It's you and Frank Apisa who are helping to reelect Trump by hurling abuse at anyone who feels like they should vote for someone who actually represents them. — Baden

OK, this is actually a valid point. I would hardly say I'm "hurling abuse" though.

What you should be doing is calmly outlining what it is that Biden offers progressives apart from not being Trump. — Baden

All right -- yet one can hardly blame someone for getting frustrated when one repeatedly does so and gets ignored. At that point, is there any sense to rational discussion?

Yeah just a few "hot spots of American life" like incarcerating blacks at record rates and supporting illegal, region-runing wars. Usual American stuff. — StreetlightX

Biden is a terrible candidate? Amazing -- you've figured this all out already. Tell us more.

Forget who will or won't vote for him. Can anyone tell me what he offers progressives? — Baden

He's already agreed to a $15 minimum wage, thanks to trying to court Bernie voters. He's much more open to progressive environmental policies than Trump, which is crucial. He's also rather empty as a candidate and thus, as I mentioned before (and which people like you always ignore), he will be much more easily pressured than a Trump presidency, who will continue to take us backward.

That's the choice progressives have. No one is saying they like Biden, no one is saying they condone rape, no one is saying the Democrats are wonderful, etc etc.

If you understand the imperative underside of the kind of "democracy" we have, then you understand that not voting, or casting a vote for someone who cannot win, thus possibly in effect voting for the worse candidate, is a statement of ignorance about our system. — tim wood

Yes.

New Dem campaign slogan "Some things are more important than rape. Vote Biden". — Baden

We don't know if he raped her or not. But if he did, no one is saying that's right. He should be tried and convicted.

There's also a thing called the real world, which you ignore for false equivalence and delusions about taking a righteous stand by throwing away your vote (which is a vote for Trump, by the way).

Maybe. It's not just about rape though. It's about things like climate change, which is more important. — bert1

This is a very good point indeed, and the most important. It's completely ignored by the likes of "Baden" and others, who are determined to help Trump get re-elected -- all so that they feel better.

So you vote third party or you don't vote. Very simple. — Baden

Yes, very simple: help re-elect Trump, clearly the most evil and most damaging. And why? Because a) it'll make you feel better about yourself, b) Biden is just as bad, or c) Biden is the lesser of the two evils but we don't care about that.

Yes, by voting your conscience like you logically pure humanists. So admirable. Get Trump elected -- but that's beside the point. Biden is just as "evil."

Yeah, you and "Big Money Hustla" make strong points.

Why Twitter? I can play with halfwits right here! — StreetlightX

You'll fit right in. Better match for you.

But of real political organizing and activism
— Xtrix

Last time I checked, 'being held electorally hostage' was not in the activist playbook, but I suppose Americans do things weird. — StreetlightX

More brilliance.

Try Twitter.

"Won't adopt any of your ideas."

Yeah, to political hobbyists like you, who do nothing except give your very deep political analysis (and thankful we all are for it) every four years, it's a foregone conclusion that no ideas will be adopted. (Hint: because you do nothing.)

Your conclusion: let's make sure we convince enough people to vote third party, or just sit out, and thus help Trump secure another 4 years.

Such brilliant logic.

It really comes down to this: those who say that not voting for Biden are voting for Trump miss the fact that it was very policies and politics championed by Biden and his ilk which got you Trump in the first place. — StreetlightX

That point has hardly been "missed."

A vote for Biden is a vote for the next Trump, and the one after that. — StreetlightX

No, it isn't. A vote for Biden is a vote to get Trump out of office. Then the work continues: not the analysis of armchair philosophers and political hobbyists, but of real political organizing and activism which will continue to pressure the administration into incorporating progressive policies.

That's how change is done, not by simply voting every four years and especially not voting for the the worst president in history (or contributing to his re-election with a sanctimonious "vote of conscience.")

American electoral politics has been a ratchet mechanism for the last two generations, with each click of the wheel forestalled only by a momentary holding pattern before plunging straight back into reactionary hell again. — StreetlightX

Riveting analysis. Now run along and help Trump get re-elected.

Such righteous people, determined to vote their "conscience" yet again. Such pure convictions.

Sure, Trump will be re-elected and continue destroying both the planet and the economy for four years, appointing another 2 Supreme Court justices for a lifetime, etc. -- but at least we'll feel better.

It seems to me that scientific practice rarely requires meditation upon the fundamental nature of nature; it's contextualised and regionalised. So in that regard, any conception of nature as its own thing (in toto or in itself) does not seem to be a requirement of doing science. — fdrake

I agree -- but no one is arguing that.

I guess that leaves questions of transcendental priority; can someone conceive of any particular predictive understanding of nature without using something like phusis? If it's a ground for science, it's not going to be a ground of scientific practice, it'll be a ground in terms of conceptual/logical priority. — fdrake

Maybe. But perhaps not even that. It's not that scientists have to even understanding their sense of "being" (as nature) or even question it, it's that it permeates everything they do as a background premise. How do we know it's a background premise? Because whenever they speak of the "universe," or the "physical," of laws of nature, forces of nature, "matter" (atoms and molecules), etc., there is embedded a very definite understanding of being in general (nature), of human being (the rational animal, or in current formulation the "primate with language"), of subjects and objects, of "bodies" and "objects" (beings), of "mind and matter," and so on. Whether they're Christian or Muslim or Hindu or atheist or part of "scientism," scientists are human beings who have to operate with some kind of picture of the world. No person is without philosophy or religion, in this sense. So it doesn't matter if they can articulate it, question it, or even know it -- just as many "Christians" walk around never questioning their specific meaning of "God." But it does seem that one they do articulate it, or are questioned about it, "nature" or the "physical" is usually what vocalized at some point.

Thus it's worth asking about this word and its origin (in phusis).

So it seems to me if the analysis of phusis takes a central place in science, it only does so as a transcendental ground, and needs only behave that way given the stipulations of interpreting it that way. Maybe Deleuzians would put difference at the center, maybe Schopenhaurians would put will there. — fdrake

I don't know what the last examples have to do with. Put "difference" and "will" at the center of what? Phusis?

Regardless, I wasn't advocating putting phusis as the "central place in science," I'm saying it is a basis for science if and only if it bears some connection to the current ontology of science (which I contend is a naturalism or physicalism). Just the uncontroversial etymology of the words "nature" and "physics" will immediately show you there is.

So then we ask, "What was phusis to the Greeks?" Turns out, something very different than what we mean. In Heidegger, the emphasis has become more and more about "substance," about presence. Science turns out to be one iteration of the metaphysics of presence since the Greek inception of philosophy.

By saying things like this, you are guaranteed to alienate progressives and independents, who you need to win. — Baden

I campaigned for Bernie, so I guess that makes me "progressive." I was and still am livid at the DNC's shenanigans (for the second time).

I'm not alienated in the least. Trump isn't Hitler, but those so repulsed by Biden will help him get re-elected if they don't vote or vote third party. That's both inexcusable and infinitely stupid. If this were the 90s, maybe I'd understand. But the stakes are too high now for protest votes and pouting at home.

You're both just fine with this?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/24/joe-biden-sexual-assault-claim-tara-reade-deserves-to-be-heard-katie-halper — Baden

I won't expect you to understand, since it's nuanced, but no I'm not. I don't like Biden at all, nor am I a "self-righteous Dem" -- I'm pointing out a simple choice: Trump or Biden. Biden's an old, senile establishment Democrat of the Clinton-Obama machine. It doesn't take genius to see that. What requires another 30 seconds of thought, which you apparently fail to do, is to compare him to Trump and see which will cause the country (and the world) more damage in the next four years. Then you hold your nose and vote against the worst choice, especially in a swing state. This is not an endorsement for Biden or the Democratic party. It's not "selling out." It's a simple choice.

If still unconvinced, ask yourself another question: Who can be pressured more to adopt progressive policies, like the policies Sanders was advocating -- Trump or Biden? That's another important consideration, quite apart from policy differences (like that of climate change).

So no, the point isn't a matter of "being fine" with the candidate the DNC has deemed worthy of the nomination. I can't stand him, but I will vote for him -- as I did for Hillary in 2016, which was the correct thing to do given the assumption that we would like the best chances to go on as a species. We have the same unfortunate choice in 2020. And yet many people, including you apparently, still struggle with it. Should take 3 minutes to decide what to do here.

Easily demonstrated by the following question: What "party line" are you talking about, exactly? — Xtrix

Oh tell me more of what Heidegger-daddy said! — StreetlightX

Exactly. Like I said: try Twitter.

What I’m interested in is not lengthy quotations which have nothing to do with the OP, but insights into the Greek meaning of being as phusis.
— Xtrix

No you're not. You're interested in elaborations on the Heideggarian party line. — StreetlightX

No, as I've demonstrated over and over again -- from the OP onwards -- that the issue for analysis and discussion is phusis.

"Elaborations on the Heideggarian party line" is gibberish. You're not fooling me or anyone else into believing you have read Heidegger. (And no, scrolling over PDFs you've found on the Internet to find something you think supports one of your pretentious, superficial "opinions" is not the reading I mean.)

Easily demonstrated by the following question: What "party line" are you talking about, exactly?

I won't hold my breath for an answer.

Feel free to try Twitter next time.

Heidegger contradicts de Beistegui in a number of ways.
— Xtrix

Trying to figure out why you think this. — StreetlightX

Which I explained. Take one example: the supposed opposition of Parmenides and Heraclitus. Heidegger rejects this.

There was also no metaphysics in Aristotle.

In any case if I knew you only wanted to read things that agreed with your preconceptions then I ought not to have posted anything. — StreetlightX

Then go pout somewhere else about it, by all means.

What I’m interested in is not lengthy quotations which have nothing to do with the OP, but insights into the Greek meaning of being as phusis.

Here here.