Comments

  • 'This Moment is Medieval'...
    Mill, like much of the Enlightenment, was no doubt influenced by the loosening of the Christian religious stranglehold over European thought and the examples brought back from the New World of native philosophies and societies that functioned* immeasurably better than the European ones at that time. In pre-civilized communities, every member has to contribute as much as they are able for the well-being of the whole. They simply could not afford to waste half the tribe's intelligence and skill. Nor would a father
    tolerate the abuse of his close cherished girl-child. The experience and memory of elders, both male and female were essential and respected and wise elders do not countenance waste or internal strife.
    *They're making quite respectable progress toward regaining those ancient values. But, though the official discrimination eased up - at least in Canada, for the moment - many lands and other rights are still in dispute; the natives are a long way from self-determination. John Ralston Saul's book has some wise commentary on the subject, though it's a little out of date.

    Everything changed with the ownership - not the cultivation - of land and the ascendance of warrior and priestly castes. Thereafter, social value was linked to dominance rather than contribution; both property and status were competed-for and jealously guarded; it was then that genetic provenance became important to men for their heritage and succession. It was then, too, that more and more new soldiers were required from the baby-dispensers to bulk up the unproductive and very expensive standing armies. So the hierarchical societies, which relied on conquest to increase their wealth, built reproductive bondage into their religious doctrines.
  • European or Global Crisis?
    We should defend our values, but stop trying to impose them on others... if we keep making geo-politics about morality we won't get anywhere. — ChatteringMonkey
    The present US government wouldn't recognize morality if it was rotting chained upside-down in its dungeon. None of this BS is about morality.

    Poor little Russia was not shaking in its boots at the prospect of NATO, whicyh has never waged a war of aggression, getting one more member - that had been next door all along. But the countries were under Russian occupation not so long ago, especially Ukraine where Stalin perpetrated his greatest atrocity, have plenty to fear from Russia. Putin didn't attack Ukraine out of fear: he wants the grain and the minerals, as well as the territory.
    All the oligarchs are out to eat as much of the world's wealth as possible before closing time.
  • 'This Moment is Medieval'...
    How many of us are frustrated in our lack of power, our vulnerability to imposed, dramatic change? — Amity
    An increasing number, apparently. And the arch-apologist broadcaster spins it as a 'far left' conspiracy, 'far left', in his case, meaning any organization that promotes liberty, democracy and equality - you know, those radical American ideals they tried to enshrine in a constitution and its 27 amendments.
    How many will turn to the 'certainties' and 'strength' of a male, dictator? — Amity
    The one good thing about the Trump regime is its rush into madness. They could have snuck up on people, as clever dictators do, incrementally but Chubby-T is neither clever nor patient. Single best thing he's done to bring down his own administration: appointing Musk Slasher-in-chief. They can do an enormous amount of damage and hurt an awful lot of people before any change can take place.... but....
    It should provide a warning to other populations leaning hard right.

    OTOH,
    the main drivers of the rightward shift are not going away just because we oppose the methods of their representatives. Automation proceeds headlong to deprive people of jobs they need in order to live in a home and be properly nourished. Price-gauging in food distribution, housing and transportation continues to make life harder for working people and untenable for the unemployed. Arable and habitable land is shrinking; inter- and intra-national conflicts turn large populations into migrants and refugees. As hardship increases, so does discontent and when discontent grows, so does the need for scapegoats.
    Women in the workforce have been an irritant to some portion of male population since the end on WWI; the more women are educated and well-paid for executive and technical positions that men used to consider their exclusive domain, the greater the resentment from men who don't like to compete: the ones who don't perform well in school, are less meticulous, lack discipline would like much better to rule by force of brawn. The mainstream religions did nothing to set them straight, not just because they themselves are patriarchal in organization, but because women do the unpaid church-related charity work and each denomination is jealous of its parishioner numbers: depend on the reproduction of the faithful.

    It's much easier for the exploiting classes to point at bogus causes for the people's anxiety, to goad the resentful into hatred and backlash against progress than to create conditions wherein people can co-exist with a minimum of discomfort.
    For example, automation could always have been appropriately supervised and taxed, working hours reduced accordingly; quality day-care and primary education provided at work-places; good public housing, sanitation, education, health-care and elder-care provided by the government; a living wage for migrant workers and non-discriminatory housing and banking regulation and genuine equal treatment of citizens under the law and in the work-force.

    All of these measures could have been implemented from the onset of the Industrial Revolution, when is social upheavals were first observed. A few progressive industrialists made sincere efforts on behalf of their workers and neighbours, but by 1914, social conscience had pretty much been drained out of capitalism. The robber barons would rather buy corrupt politicians than sound policies.
  • The Empathy Chip
    I don't think I have anything left to say on this subject, except to repeat: No, an empathy chip won't work.
  • The Empathy Chip
    But morality is fluid, changing between cultures and through time. How can you have a standard with such a fluid foundation? — Christoffer
    All societies do have standards and norms, moral precepts and laws, at any given time, for whatever length of time. This was never a mystery. It's not a 'fluid foundation'; it's social evolution, which is more rapid than biological evolution, but takes a similar pattern of punctuated equilibrium: centuries-long stasis, interspersed with years- or decades-long bursts of change after major upheavals.
    Culture, world-views and society change massively over time. It isn't static. — Christoffer
    That's why you have to take your standard from where you happen to be in geography and history, rather than demand a constant universal one.
    How can you find a stable moral ground while society is changing without careful evaluation and dissection of the moral values that are changing? — Christoffer
    By being the philosopher, revolutionary, inventor or prophet who causes the change. Everybody else just goes along, willingly or not, with the status quo of their time and place.
    A problem with democracies has been that crime and punishment becomes voting issues, and so we have outsourced an academically sound topic to that of the mob screaming for solutions and politicians promising solutions that are satisfying for the crowd/mob, not those that are effective in preventing crime. — Christoffer
    Outsourced? From what previous condition? Prelates and kings. They were not able to prevent crime, either, they just dealt with it more harshly. Who, exactly, are those who have effectively prevented crime?
    Isn't it then true that since morality constantly change and this morality is informing the societal norms and standards, that in order for it to change in a rational and thoughtful way, people need to carefully evaluate societal morals in order for them to change over time in a thoughtful and responsible way? — Christoffer
    Which people need to carefully evaluate societal morals in order for them to change over time in a thoughtful and responsible way? If not the democratic mob, then - the self-appointed emperor, the military dictator, the high priest or the omnipotent professor? All but the last have been in charge, without affecting any real change in the human condition. How do you propose to elevate the academic to philosopher-king?
    It [outside] is abstract because you refer to it as some standard within a system that is constantly changing. — Christoffer
    No, I didn't. I said people can't see inside of other people's minds to know what the other is thinking or feeling. We may guess at their motivations and intentions, may sympathize with their situation, but we judge them, according to the norms of our society, by their words and actions.
    A person within this system might adhere to the norms and standards around them, but a citizen in Nazi Germany did so too. — Christoffer
    Exactly. From the perspective of our own culture, we can disapprove of the norms of other cultures, just as they can disapprove of ours. Your own social environment is what's available to teach you a primary mode of thought, which you may modify later in life, but most people don't. That's what makes it so hard for immigrants to adjust to a different culture, and for that culture to adjust to them.
    Only through empathic understanding can we truly evaluate and arrive at good moral standards that consist through time rather than change by doctrines. — Christoffer
    I support your effort to do so.
    Why not go back and re-phrase the issue as ‘ I cannot identity with people whose motives and thinking are alien to me’. That will open up alternatives to the conclusion that they are objectively ‘pathologically destructive.’ — Joshs
    Because an alien mode of thought is one thing to consider - been there, done that - a lot. A trail of broken bodies in shallow graves is quite another, and I will not attempt any kind of connection with the mind that took pleasure in their pain.
    But that is a personal bridge which I refuse to build. I asked a quite different question here:
    "And if normal people cannot identify with pathologically destructive people? I doubt pathologically or calculatedly destructive people identify with their victims either."
    That was not about me, it was about the behaviour of the majority of law-abiding, generally honest, generally compassionate people viz-a-viz home-invaders, rapists and terrorists. I myself, might begin to fathom the actions of those people, but their victims probably can't, any more than a hazardous waste dumper can empathize with the people who well get cancer from the water. I don't get to define all psychological terrains; I can only describe the ones I've seen.
  • The Empathy Chip
    Empathy is used to understand information. Evaluation can only be done out of information. You can't evaluate without anything to evaluate and draw conclusions from and you can't evaluate if you don't understand the information. — Christoffer
    I see that evaluation - whatever you mean that in regard to human behaviour - is very important to you. I don't quite understand why.
    How do you arrive at moral behavior? For yourself and society? You keep returning to some "standard" or "norm", but how are these defined? — Christoffer
    In order to 'evaluate' anything, you first need a standard against which to measure it and some unit of measurement. How such standards and norms are defined is according to the precepts and world-view of the culture: what a society expects, accepts and tolerates from its members. Moral and legal systems differ, as do human attitudes from one historical period to another. That is why I find your demand to evaluate behaviours and their motives so perplexing.
    And how do we figure out how to deal with destructive ones without fully understanding their emotions? — Christoffer
    We don't. Every society sets up a system of laws to regulate its members' behaviour, and every society fails to prevent crime, interpersonal conflict, injustice and abuse.
    You're referring to this abstract "outside" which informs our morality, but what is this "outside" but the thing we formed by our empathic understanding of the human condition? — Christoffer
    Inside and outside are hardly abstract concepts. (and I didn't say appearances inform our moralities; that's far more complicated than everyday assessment of another person's actions). We see what other people look like, what they do, hear what they say and judge them accordingly. We can imagine how they feel if it's similar to how we might feel in their place.
    In general, human do not treat one another as if all that understanding and bridge-making were very effective.

    Anyway, whatever empathy is, you won't find it in a computer chip.
  • The Empathy Chip
    ↪Joshs

    And if normal people cannot identify with pathologically destructive people? I doubt pathologically or calculatedly destructive people identify with their victims either. Some bridges cannot be built.
  • The Empathy Chip
    It depends on what the surgeon’s goals are, doesn’t it? — Joshs
    Cut it open, take out the bad bits, stitch it up, bandage it and collect a fee. Many doctors are naturally empathic - which is a factor in their choice of career - and in modern times, most are trained to consider the patients' mental state. But if I had to choose between one who knows the technical aspects of the of the indicated treatment and doesn't care about me personally and one who is deeply caring but not so competent, I know which I'd prefer.
    The psychotherapist may not ‘identity’ with the glee of a serial killer in the sense of being tempted to become a serial killer themselves, but if the therapist cannot see not only how the glee is morally justified from the serial killer’s perspective, but build a bridge between that perspective and that of the therapist, then they will not be of much help to the client. — Joshs
    The one who actually treat that killer - assuming he's eligible for therapy rather than the needle - may have to identify (very likely at some risk to his own mental health). The ones who study the etiology of the illness - if indeed, it's considered an illness rather than evildoing or heroism in the particular society, who study, describe and classify the behaviour need no more emotional bridges with their subject than those who study, describe and classify the pathogens that cause epidemics.
  • The Empathy Chip
    That comparison is not valid as not having an insight into the experience of emotion means you cannot evaluate the emotions that led to a certain behavior. — Christoffer
    Evaluation is intellectual - where it's applicable at all. What's the standard against which you evaluate another person's behaviour? Your own, or the norm accepted by society. Emotions may cause him to act a certain way, but he's not evaluated by society on his feelings, only on his actions. Behaviour, is judged on legal considerations of prevention, correction or punishment. No empathy required.
    You're basically asking humans that do scientific research on humans to evaluate emotional driving forces behind behavior, without an understanding of what those emotions really are. — Christoffer
    Not to evaluate. Only to understand and figure out how to deal with the destructive ones.
    How do you discern an immoral act without examining the emotions that informed that act? — Christoffer
    That judgment is made from the outside: What did the person do? Does our collective moral framework condone that act? (Morality is not a given; it varies by culture, circumstance and time.) Should we allow him to keep doing it? If not, how do we stop him? (More often by incarceration than fellow feeling.)
    We can study an animal and conclude their pain-centra to fire when we do something to it, but to study complex moral actions by examining the reasoning and emotional complexity that caused it is not quantifiable in the same way. — Christoffer
    Who says it needs to be quantifiable? Humans do torture one another as well as other animals and not necessarily for their own pleasure: sometimes it's just business.
    I do not believe that every executioner feels the fear of his charges, that every pain researcher shares the distress of his lab specimens, that the members of a lynch-mob identify with their victims. Conversely, I don't believe that it is necessary for a surgeon to experience the suffering of his patients or a psychotherapist to identify with the glee of a serial killer.

    We clearly have very different definitions of empathy.
  • The Empathy Chip
    The ability to feel as another does not mean to agree with their actions out of those emotions. — Christoffer
    No, it doesn't. You might have an idea how they could achieve their need by more effective or socially approved methods. Agreement is intellectual; it can be granted or withheld; fellow feeling is unconditional and automatic. Understanding in a clinical sense leaves you aloof; feeling does not.
    How do you academically evaluate a murderers psychological state of mind without the empathic ability to recognize that psychological state of mind? — Christoffer
    By having studied similar cases and followed similar behaviours back through their history. Like understanding the malfunction of a car engine without feeling like a car engine.
    Can you not emphasize with sexual attraction, pleasure etc.? — Christoffer
    The normal kind, yes. I can empathize with a woman who has been jilted, a man whose partner has been unfaithful, a young person with a hopeless crush or two star-crossed lovers who are kept apart by forces beyond their control. I cannot empathize with, feel for or comprehend the drive to hurt and kill the object of desire.
    Empathically understand a sexual predator is absolutely possible, but sympathizing with them is immoral. — Christoffer
    Understanding is possible - beyond me, but professionals seem to manage it - some degree of compassion is possible - beyond me, but some religious seem to manage it - sharing the feelings is possible only for those with similar desires or experience (hence copycat killers and sadistic entertainments). Morality is irrelevant; emotions are not ruled by moral precepts.

    Without the ability to empathically understand, we are unable to discern and investigate motive of an immoral act. — Christoffer
    I disagree. People study and understand all kinds of things from virology to cosmology without any sort of identification with the objects they are observing.
    And I'd say this is a key area to which society often fails when trying to fight crime, the inability, or the rejection of empathic thinking around a crime leads to societal actions that goes against what researchers tell society is the effective path towards reducing said crimes. — Christoffer
    This is far to vast a blanket! There are crimes of so many different kinds, committed by so many different people for so many different reasons, nobody on earth can empathize with all of the perpetrators. But even without empathy, we can look objectively at the statistics, case histories, demographics, social environments, circumstances and make reasoned assumptions regarding their motivation and how to reduce the motivating factors.
  • The Empathy Chip
    Our empathy typically occurs more naturally towards those most like us. We are kind to our kind. Who our kind are is easily identifiable. They have our skin type, our facial features, and they speak in our accent, to name a few. It's not hard to figure out who the strange stranger is. — Hanover
    That goes no way toward explaining the white civil rights activists or any of the outreach programs and social volunteering, or animal rescue and protection programs.
    We are kind to our kind. — Hanover
    Not so far as I can see. At least, civil war, drug trafficking, price-gauging and domestic violence don't indicate that. Some people are kind selectively; some are kind generally, some are kind universally. Some are unkind in the same way.

    There was plenty of contention and some violent clashes between tribes of very similar people; primitives didn't usually travel far enough to encounter other races - that came much later, with nation-states that had entrenched religions and social orders. Many of these nations went to war against very similar neighbours, for the same reason prehistoric humans did - for territory, water and other resources - and sometimes for the self-aggrandizement of an aggressive leader. Even so, both in prehistoric times, and ever since, tribes and nations have also made treaties and trade agreements with others near, far, similar and different. Marco Polo did very well in China; Europeans were, at first, welcome in the New World.
    Why was the evolutionary fence of tribalism erected and what truly happens when it is removed? — Hanover
    It wasn't erected by evolution or some god. People lived in more or less isolated communities in small blood-related numbers. They did trade, negotiate for water rights and safe passage, meet at trade fairs that became festivals and intermarry with other tribes. Nor is that fence removed by some kind of decree. Strangers become acquaintances, neighbours, business associates, classmates, lovers - in the normal course of human interaction, gradual assimilation is inevitable. That's what happened to the lost tribes of Biblical Israel.
    Some elites and privileged factions (political and religious) attempt to prevent this by keeping their community from the mainstream - separate schools, anti-miscegenation laws, housing and employment discrimination, enforced segregation, selective law-enforcement, etc. Yet some part of that population always find a way around or under that societal fence to associate with one another.
  • The Empathy Chip
    That sympathy is emotionally and intellectually agreeing with something, while empathy is emotional understanding of someone or some people. — Christoffer
    I'm not sure about that distinction. One can understand things from a purely academic or clinical position, that requires no empathy. Once you recognize yourself in the other, you share their emotional state, 'feel' their pain, fear, hunger, anger; they are reacting as you would react in a similar situation.
    Basically, I can empathize with the emotions that drove a murderer to commit murder, but I don't sympathize with any of it. — Christoffer
    I doubt you can empathize with all murderers. The one who does it for sexual pleasure? A psychologist or criminologist may be able to understand that intellectually, and I may believe them, intellectually, but I sure can't feel it emotionally. Or one who kills for financial gain. I can understand the motivation, but neither share nor condone the mind-set. One who is driven in desperation to kill an attacker or abuser, I can understand, feel their emotions and share their state of mind to some extent, and also sympathize.

    Empathy actually goes beyond sympathy. Sympathy is merely compassion for another, however alien they and they and situation are; empathy is putting oneself in their situation.
    If you have it, it extends far beyond people just like yourself; it includes all living things.
    However, in real life, this trait is associated with a certain kind of intelligence, the ability to observe closely and interpret, retention of memory from one's own experience, sensitivity and benevolence. It's all integrated withing the personality; cannot be inserted by an artificial device.

    What we can do is nurture and reward those impulses in our children; support their empathetic side, at the same time discouraging selfish and aggressive behaviours. Unfortunately, if a society is dominated by the negative side of the human psyche, neither parents nor robotics can do very much to change it.
  • The Empathy Chip
    Empathy is, essentially, sharing: the ability to recognize oneself in another and thus to understand and sympathize with their feelings, their attitudes, their condition.
    It goes a long way toward promoting compassionate and benevolent behaviour. But the single trait - let alone a computer chip that is unconnected to the personality - would not be enough to prevent destructive action toward entities that one does not encounter directly.
  • How to Live a Fulfilling Life
    Due to all the suffering, unfairness and deaths in the world. I long to make all living things forever happy but I can't. — Truth Seeker

    So, you preach to the choir, much as some of us write poems, novels and letters. Good enough.
  • How to Live a Fulfilling Life
    What about veganism? — Truth Seeker

    It seems not to suit everyone. Including myself: I don't eat meat, but I cook with eggs (they come from the free-range hens next door) and some cheese. So did Epicurus. I don't think strict veganism is necessary for a healthy diet, but I do take care cause as little pain as possible, within the confines of modern industrial life. Many people would feel utterly unfulfilled without their steak, bacon and fried chicken, so I'm not sure what dietary choices that do not contribute to ill humour or health are doing here.

    So... why are you so keen to teach us how to live, anyway?
  • How to Live a Fulfilling Life
    Epicurus nailed it 2400 years ago, much more succinctly. Be healthy in body, occupy your your mind, limit your desires, live modestly; have meaningful work and good friends.
    No problem at all, in a nicer kind of world that doesn't have so many miserables.
  • Corporatism and syndicalism, which one is true?
    Yet, by the way things govern themselves in the US, China, and Europe, it would seem that the emerging groups of capitalism would prefer or instill a socioeconomic theory of corporate syndicalism among the managers of society. — Shawn
    First: things do not govern themselves; they are governed, forced or neglected by human agencies.
    Second: what the hell is corporate syndicalism? I have the definition of syndicalism as trade-union oriented and one of national syndicalism as something similar, organized by central control. I have no idea how the second one works.
    In any case, the basic idea of co-operation and participation cannot be 'top-down' or bottom-up; it can only work on a single level: equality. Capitalism does not promote equality. The two concepts are incompatible.
  • European or Global Crisis?
    Media outlets are still available. Bernie Sanders seems to have mastered the art.
    Use of YouTube     — Amity
    Yes, there is a lot of good, progressive stuff on You Tube. Robert Reich, a brilliant economist, The Meidas Touch network, Democracy Now some good series on law and social affairs. And tyhe public broadcast media are still operating.
    These people have been speaking up, explaining, attempting to educate the public - for years. But they failed to mobilize, persuade, convince and consolidate a large enough voting bloc. And they cannot reach the right, the religious, the disaffected and the indifferent, who simply don't tune in - and the right has more, louder and better funded platforms. There, too, it's a contest of reason vs rage-stoking.
    They should not be 'undergound' in hiding. It shows weakness. — Amity
    Sure, but who would endanger his or her family to make themselved look strong. They lost the stage for now: the media are focused on Trump's depredations and that's what the masses are paying attention to. No point in individual grandstanding, anyway; they need to work out a strategy and send out a single, coherent message. Bernie's different: he's always spoken as he does, is familiar to the viewers and too old to have anything to lose.
    “Trump spent the past four years blasting Biden and Democrats, particularly on the economy,” he says.
    He had the leisure to do nothing but gripe and snipe. Indeed, he never stopped campaigning and propagandizing the whole time he was president and did nothing remotely presidential, leaving a shambles to clean up. When Biden was in office, the Dems were getting the job done, in the mistaken belief that the record would speak for them. The system is so badly skewed toward the splashy and shocking and against the sensible and positive, it's hard to be heard on commercial media unless you're screaming. However, the things he's doing now are getting the same attention as his screaming did, so the public has to realize what dangerous criminals the Joker, Mr. Moneybags and the Kennedy Mutant are. That should go a long way toward the necessary change.
    And I'm extremely suspicious of courting what has become 'the middle' - what used to be the right only a couple of decades ago. Even the lamentable Shrub didn't try to tear down the country. Their concerns are: "The Hispanics are taking my job and my inheritance."; "The women are taking my power."; "The progressives are sidelining my Gawd." and "Make the prices and rents go down without regulating capitalists." The proper way to 'address' those concerns would be: "Stop whining, do your chores and share your toys!" but they don't want tough love, only tough hate.
  • European or Global Crisis?
    Why is the Criminal so intent on seeking the honour of the Norwegian Nobel Peace Prize? — Amity
    Because he never got over Obama getting one. I think he wants two, by whatever means, just to one-up Obama.

    This is part of the European Crisis. A tipping point.
    It is linked to religion. I posted something earlier.     — Amity
    And here's more of it, coming to a province near me. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/csis-antisemitism-violent-extremists-1.7463398?utm_source=firefox-newtab-en-us

    I am talking about NOW.
    Where is the messaging, where is the attempt to fight back or even to tell it like it is?
    How are they helping?     — Amity
    The messages are being suppressed by the Trump mafia. Facebook and Twitter have gone over to the dark side; the broadcast media are shaking in their boots, and the opposition is increasingly threatened with violence. Soon, they will also be persecuted by the trumpized legal and financial agencies.
    They're underground, gathering resources for the next showdown.* The protests and outrage against the Trufia's more extreme actions have begun; even church groups are turning openly against them.
    *That's a guess, not something I know.
    Not enough momentum yet, but the mid-term elections should be interesting. Trump may try to steal them, or there may be armed confrontations at the polling stations - anything can happen, including a strong Democratic majority.... but more likely a civil war.

    According to some pundits, they can only do this by shifting farther right. To me, it seems that would just slow the decline until a more competent and less insane spokesman takes the extremist lead.
    The least we can do is be aware and vigilant. To defend and protect the vulnerable against the abusers. To speak out when we can. To be together in humanity. To forget small differences and join forces. Educate, inform and encourage to vote. — Amity

    Sounds good. How?
  • From the fascist playbook
    Perhaps this crisis of democracy is really part of a larger crisis, a crisis of "critical awareness." — Pantagruel

    I'm not sure that's a larger or even separate crisis. Lack of critical awareness has ever been with us: witness the crusades, the hundred years' war or the the Spanish Empire. People have always fallen for idiotic scapegoating and hollow promises. They have always allowed megalomaniacs to delude them into giving up autonomy and life. Critical awareness has never been our long suit.
  • European or Global Crisis?
    Well, before the 1990's they were behind the Iron Curtain and basically it would be WW3 to mingle with them. The Iron Curtain was also in the minds of the Western alliance. — ssu
    Yes, and as soon as that curtain came down, all the vultures who had been waiting for a chance to exploit those countries came flapping in. They bought up government properties cheap, took over industries, agriculture and resource extraction before appropriate taxes or regulations could be put into effect by the weak, divided and broke new government. And there were plenty of opportunists inside, waiting for the opportunity to sell out their country. They've been trying, clumsily, half-heartedly, to clean up the damage ever since, but couldn't, which is why so many disenchanted people and reactionaries put Victor Orban in power. (idiots!!)
  • European or Global Crisis?
    Hungary had it's uprising in 1956 crushed by the Russian boot, yet Orban is now pro-Russian seems a bit puzzling. Putin is quite the similar Russian as the Soviets were in 1956, only doesn't have the intact Empire that Soviet Union had. — ssu
    Orban's stance is not so puzzling when you realize that he, too, is a populist dictator wannabe (Hungarians have been calling him Victator for years), without the power of a Putin or Trump, so he can only hang onto their coattails. Secondly, if he turned against Putin, he knows Hungary would be next after Ukraine - there's usable bauxite and fruit, but also, geographically, it's a nice buffer between the east and west. Putin wants the big USSR back, with no interference from the west. Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia were never of much interest or value to the West, until the 199'0's, when they were opened up to capitalist predation.
  • European or Global Crisis?
    hink our education system still provides for political literacy in the curriculum but not sure of all the details. I found this but there has to be more: — Amity
    Ours, too, though it's under a lot financial pressure. The US one suffers greatly from state governments that have been dressing right forver. There were a few reforms after the world wars and a few more due to the civil rights movement, but all the old prejudice is still there. Now, they've added science denial to the list of falsehoods they teach children.

    We need to see the faces. We need to hear the words. Of positivity. Not fear or hatred. — Amity

    That's what the Harris campaign attempted, and I fully approved of their approach. They simply underestimated the racism, sexism, xenophobia and paranoia that had seized so much of their population. And they didn't phrase their positive message in slogans of five words or less; they hammered on the one that least concerned men. They should have hit their contribution to wages and unions a lot harder and abortion, not nearly as hard.
    It's difficult for candidates to find just the right tone to reach the most voters. If they try to gather in one demographic, another feels left slighted.

    In Germany, a major issue seems to be that of migrants. Apparently, according to the fascistic far-right, we need less of them and more of their own kind of babies. — Amity
    This is a perennial theme with them: racial and/or cultural purity. It resonates with all those people who were weaned on patriotic songs and stories. That national identity I mentioned earlier is a very, very strong motivator. And for a great many men, young ones in particular, the idea of dependent, subservient women is very, very appealing. It gets worse: we now have a generation of young people who were never socialized at all; they've grown up digital, with 'social' media, sports, violent films and games and pornography. They don't know how to talk to real people face to face; they're more alienated and dissatisfied - hungry, they know not what for - than ever, and totally superfluous in an automated world.

    I've always loved Bernie. He should have been elected president in 2016.
  • European or Global Crisis?
    And, for heaven's sake, listen to public television and radio! Their whole purpose is to educate the public about issues that affect the public. Support them while you still have them.
    I'm pretty sure Trump will shut down PBS and NPR, as soon as he finds out they exist.

    ↪ssu

    We left Hungary in in 1956, November. I was old enough to understand quite a lot of what the adults said in murmurs around the card table. My mother went out to watch the night they pulled Stalin's statue down and smashed it with hammers. We spent some days in the cellar and stood in line for bread and milk on the quiet days. A couple of young boys from our building had rifles; one was killed. Finally, we had to leave because the Russians were winning and my father didn't always speak in murmurs; he had too much of a temper - but was such a good fellow that the policeman down the hall gave him a warning.

    The funny thing is, I was a pretty good little communist then - it sounded right, the way the ideals were presented - and I'm a marginal communist now. The government wasn't. They persuade the well-meaning with lies. Fascists persuade the angry and aggrieved with the promise of power and revenge.
  • European or Global Crisis?
    I cannot overstate the effect of what it means to really have a small discussion about political issues as we have here with members of parliament. They usually are quite sane and far more intelligent and aware than you get from the media. — ssu

    That sounds wonderful. How does that work in practice?

    I don't know that people even know who their MP is. Never mind, their contact number.
    The MPs have difficulties of their own re increasing levels of threat     — Amity
    Part of it is their indifference - some of which comes from past disappointment. Part of it is that representatives are not readily accessible in person. But the incumbents do - in my riding, anyway - send around periodic newsletters with their contact information at the constituency office as well as the one in Ottawa or Toronto. The losing candidates don't have money for that, and they're busy with their regular life; don't know if they'll even run again. However, there is nothing stopping them from maintaining a website, or at least a presence on the party association website. This is not a superb production, though better than the NDP's. I do wish asking for money were not the banner headline, but, well, there is an election coming up. Not a hope in hell for my God & cattle conservative riding... I vote anyway. And I've attended small group meetings with candidates, as well as informal discussions with the local oh-so-righteous Humanist chapter. (The mean well, really.) The Ontario public tv network has a program called The Agenda, where they discuss issues with experts as well as politicians, and they film some of these in college auditoriums where the guest takes questions from the audience.
    Also, if you're upset or concerned about something, you can always write to their office, express your views on social media. I'm sure they would be even happier to hear from constituents who approve of something they did.
    What they're really not good at is listening to suggestions from the voters.
  • European or Global Crisis?
    No. I didn't realise the importance of politics until late in life. I found it boring.
    I only knew that Tories were bad! I didn't have that education that is sorely needed. — Amity

    I think this is absolutely crucial for the whole system of democracy to work. It's not boring and above all, it's crucial that people actually do have a link to the actual political system. I don't think people especially at the communal level are weasels or are trying to make a career out of it. It's many times that these people have more of a duty.     — ssu
    Right on, Brother Bear! The news makes the running of our national and provincial affairs sound boring - in good times. In good times, too, when we have no crises to be alarmed about and no outrage to shake our puny little fists at, we find entertainment elsewhere. Most people can tell you more about the Star Wars franchise, or their football club's performance, than the doings of the people we entrust with making our laws and spending our tax money. As long as government does a good job, we tend to ignore it. We don't notice corruption creeping in, foreign, special interest and financial influence guiding government decisions. We don't notice until we're well on the way to frog soup.
    That's the first thing that happen in real authoritarian regimes: nobody talks politics. It's far too dangerous — ssu
    Joke from the old 'communist' Russia: Two men are standing on the corner, waiting for a streetcar. A Mercedes goes by, shortly followed by a Lada. One man turns to the other, "Tell me, comrade, which is the better car?" The other answers without hesitation, "The Lada, of course." "If you think that," asys the first man, "you don't know cars." "Oh, I know cars. But I don't know you,"
  • European or Global Crisis?
    The Democrats need to get their act together all year round. The time and energy of electioneering activists harnessed not just in door-to-door and phone calls. I don't really know how it works or what really goes on to help people at ground level. Just giving my impressions of out-of-touch leaders and politicians. — Amity
    Actually, the Biden administration [url]http://accomplished quite a lot for the people.* Remember, they came in after a disastrous Trump-administered pandemic and civil unrest and still made so much progress. (It's a longish article, and will probably disappear as soon as one of the trumpets learns of it.)

    But, while Trump was out rabble-rousing and chest-thumping for those three years (he basically never stopped campaigning since 2008.), they just got on with the job, and the big broadcast networks kept it all very quiet. They really do need to speak up, celebrate their successes and stay in touch with the grass roots between elections.
  • European or Global Crisis?
    So, now the Tory message is 'Canada First'. This will appeal to voters. To put Canadians first.
    Cue increased patriotism and nationalism.
    And the questions, I suppose, of who is considered 'Canadian'?
    Will this be a Trumpian MCGA? It sounds very much like it. McGa?     — Amity
    Put Canada first - not Canadians. Yup, MAGA Jr. It means whatever he says it does. Tax cuts for the rich owner class, which in practice means curtailing social services for the poor. Invest in domestic industry, which actually means rapid automation, lower wages and union-busting. Support construction, which usually means high-end condos in residential districts, pushing out the residents and the 'development' of agricultural land and green spaces for the upper middle class. More spending on the military, which means less on health and education. And, of course, the eternal cry of "Drill, baby, drill!"
    Economic self-sufficiency is a good idea. The way capitalists go about it does not benefit the people.

    Education - how people can be manipulated. Education of the importance of words.
    Education about emotions and anger. Educate to enable good questioning.     — Amity
    And when the right wing is in charge, who sets the curriculum? Rampaging Trump wants to squash public schools and replace them with them education-for-profit and religious indoctrination. Given what previous conservative governments have done to education, no doubt a Polievre administration would follow a similar route. So.... where is all this improved electorate through education supposed to come from?
    Not commercial mass media! And the public broadcasters will soon lose their funding, if not their licenses.
    What caught my interest was when the presenter introduced an AfD policy, preferring to have larger families than more immigrants. (01:04 - 01:080).

    This is a recurring theme of the hard-right. And is in line with Trumpian politics.     — Amity
    Sound's familiar. Keep the wimmin barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, for the greater glory of the Fatherland. Or Stalin's slogan to the effect that childbearing is the duty of married women and a laudable public service from unmarried ones. That'll load 'em down with responsibility and fear; keep them out of politics.
  • European or Global Crisis?
    All this right-wing upsurge will certainly make it difficult for Europe to muster international solidarity... or get its act together in any sense.
    I think the point has been passed; we're in for the bumpiest ride in human history.
  • European or Global Crisis?
    But they also have to take a broader view and team up with pro-democratic factions in Asia, Africa and South America. — Vera Mont
    How do you envisage this happening?     — Amity
    With a great deal of perspicacity, tact and healthy by-pass-the-US commerce.
    Who are these factions? — Amity
    The governments of Cape Verde, Seychelles, and South Africa; Taiwan, Japan and South Korea; Costa Rica, Argentina, Chile, Uruguay and Jamaica, plus, of course Mexico, with whom Canada does a lot of trade already and who should be fairly disgruntled with Trumpism by now. Besides making pacts with established governments, the anti-Trump confederacy should also support democratic opposition in non-democratic counrties, as well as aid to agencies that promote health, justice and education. Oh, and as many micro-loans as possible.
    Democracy itself does not guarantee human rights, fairness or justice. As clearly seen in USA and elsewhere. But, yes, it is better than the alternatives. — Amity
    The one advantage it does have is the periodic user-review: the people are able to remove bad governments by legal, orderly means and opt for something they perceive as better. Even if it's not, they can still turn back next election. Once a dictatorship is entrenched, builds fortresses and removes all access points where the people could influence decisions and arms itself against all opposition.
    What can be done to prevent the swing to an extreme right, once the Tories are in power? — Amity
    Nothing short of organized resistance - which is costly.
    Or what can be done to improve the chances of progressive parties in the election? — Amity
    Tighter organization. Identification of pressure-points - both positive and negative*. Simple direct communication with the voters, addressing their immediate concerns.
    (*The single biggest misstep in the Harris campaign was that ad by Julia Roberts, and the Handmaid one; more generally, the loud harping on reproductive freedom. The Dems totally failed to understand the prevailing misogyny, especially among the non-white, working class and young voters.)
  • European or Global Crisis?
    ↪jorndoe

    So has Vance.... It's easy to say no when your self-interest is not at stake.
  • European or Global Crisis?
    I'm guessing things would have to keep up pace with Trumpistan, though, at least in some respects. — jorndoe
    Not have to, and I wish we could all see that resistance is imperative. But some of the elements have been here for some time already. There is a better than even chance that the next government will be conservative. How close to the extreme right they'll go is still an open question. I admit to not sleeping well these nights.
  • What you can control
    Your Attitude and Perspective — Truth Seeker
    Not really. You may be able to adjust it, given a favourable environment.
    2. Your Actions and Behaviours — Truth Seeker
    To a large extent, yes.
    3. Your Reactions — Truth Seeker
    See 1. It's the same thing.
    4. Your Habits — Truth Seeker
    Circumstances permitting. Not everyone is free to set their own schedule and follow a routine of their own choosing.
    5. Your Values and Principles — Truth Seeker
    You do that once, early in life, partly according to your own preference. Whether you are able to adhere to them for the rest of your life depends on more than your will.
    6. How You Spend Your Time — Truth Seeker
    That should be 'how you spend your free time', which depends on how much of it you have and how tired you are when the obligatory activities are finished.
    7. Your Learning and Growth — Truth Seeker
    Mostly yes, with possible limitations imposed by conditions beyond your control.
    8. Setting Boundaries — Truth Seeker
    Within the tight circle you can reach. Can't affect law enforcement, landlords and employers.
    9. How You Treat Yourself — Truth Seeker
    Except that last one. You may not have sufficient time to rest or adequate health care.
    10. Effort Toward Positive Change — Truth Seeker
    So long as it doesn't get you into trouble with superior fire-power.

    Good advice for middle-class, reasonably well educated, reasonably comfortable people who suffer from self-doubt and self-imposed stress.
  • European or Global Crisis?
    It's the time of our awakening: do we continue supporting Ukraine when raging Trump stops all aid to Ukraine? Do we let Ukraine fall? — ssu
    Raging Trump is also stopping aid to other countries that will soon be up for grabs, including several that will also expand as bases for anti-American - and very probably anti-European - terrorism.
    I genuinely hope that Europe really awakes and does support freedom from tyranny and imperialism. — ssu
    So do I. But they also have to take a broader view and team up with pro-democratic factions in Asia, Africa and South America.
    PS - Earlier, I forgot to mention Panama among his imperialist targets. Right after the national parks are opened to drilling and mining.
  • European or Global Crisis?
    Maybe you should all band together and try to produce something resembling an argument — Tzeentch
  • European or Global Crisis?
    ↪Amity

    Peace at the price of sacrificing a Ukraine. Sure: he won't miss Ukrainian independence. Then Poland? Sure, why not? Romania? Slovakia? Who needs them anyway? Hungary might be spared, so long as its government capitulates absolutely, rather than just the present lip-service. By then, Putin may be dead, but who knows what the next emperor has his eye on?
  • European or Global Crisis?
    So you're against peace. — Tzeentch

    Thus you have been harping.
    Death is peaceful.
    What do you suggest? Letting the Ukrainians fight and die until they are defeated totally? Starting World War 3? I presume you are volunteering to be the first to enter the trenches? — Tzeentch
    Are you sure those are the only options? Where is your proof?
  • European or Global Crisis?
    How true is that? Who said it? Is it just a good soundbite used by Bush/Obama? — Amity
    I said it on behalf of my country, to Trump. In semi-jocular response to jorndoe's suggestion that we vote in their elections. Which, as a single state, would only give us 50 seats in Congress - 20-30 of them likely conservative - and two in the Senate. Not much of a bargain in return for our human rights, legal system, foreign policy, health care, oil, bauxite, water and lumber.

    Appeasing Putin is not the end of it. — Amity
    What proof do you have of that?     — Tzeentch
    Historical precedent is fairly persuasive. Not just Hitler: Alexander, Napoleon, Trajan, Victoria, Stalin, etc. Now Putin, spending his nation's resources and people to secure an insane legacy. Imperialists don't stop wanting more. For that matter, do you have any reason to think that Trump, who wanted Greenland, and now also wants Canada and Palestine, will stop if everybody gives in to him?
  • European or Global Crisis?
    We do not negotiate with terrorists.
  • European or Global Crisis?
    There are always possibilities, until the clamp down of prison, torture and death for those who protest.
    Being criminalised for protest happens even in a so-called democracy like the UK.     — Amity
    Protests in the US can grow quite heated and Americans, unlike most civilian populations, are heavily armed. Violent clashes are inevitable; the regime has not yet had time (if they're even competent to do it) to organize an effective enforcement agency. Civil war may yet be averted, but if they get frightened enough, the Trumpites will surely call for martial law. Then it will depend on which side the federal, state and municipal armed forces take. (My guess is, half and half, which ensures a long and costly civil war, like the last one.)

    Will that be enough to galvanize the still-sensible nations? I hope so.... I'm still feeding all those things with feathers outside my window.
Home » Vera Mont
×
We use cookies and similar methods to recognize visitors and remember their preferences.