Will the left and right wings ever attempt to reconcile?

[DogOfDanger]

The USA is a very divided country... and so is the world, really.
The left and right wings talk about progress, but what we have is gridlock and dysfunction. Increasingly the USA and other nations are becoming authoritarian. The sides blame one another... but I see neither make hardly any effort at finding middle ground. Meanwhile, humanity ever making any progress relies on these people working together toward some shared goal.
At one point in time... about 60 years ago, this did occur. Democrats and Republicans got along. But now all we have are toddlers that cannot pull their heads out of their own asses.

When I think about it the two sides are not so different in a few key ways:

-both are very concerned with the broader social welfare (overly concerned)
-both are very prone to tribalism
-both see themselves as leaders
-both believe the ends justify the means
-anything else?

So here is a thread dedicated to the idea that you, as people affiliating yourselves with politics, must learn to cooperate with those that have opposing views.
How do you even behave in such a thread...? Probably, for many of you, you've never done this in your lives, or even attempted to.

1) Post something in this thread you agree with the party you do not most identify with about
2) Post a criticism of your preferred party. Point out their dysfunctional, asinine behavior
3) Name something you think the two sides could actually cooperate on and accomplish

I wonder how many people here will respond... I wonder which party will most respond?

[DogOfDanger]

So here's my contribution-
I sympathize more with republicans, though in recent years I became an independent and probably will remain that way, since it has a stronger philosophical basis. Still, I think temperamentally I lean in that direction, I also still see them as more rational.

1) the republicans have been utterly retarded about the covid vaccine, the democrats were at least willing to protect the elderly and vulnerable
2) the republican party is way too willing to decimate middle eastern nations (Ted Cruz wanted to carpet bomb Syria)
3) the republican party talks at length about cutting spending and then spends 600 billion per year on the military, then when a war breaks out, the first war for a seemingly noble cause in decades, lectures everyone at length about the need to remain uninvolved. The democrat party was at least willing to aid the innocent people in ukraine.
4) While we can afford 600 billion on the military we can't afford to publicize higher education or paid maternity leave which would cost a small fraction of the military spending, the democrat party at least uses money we don't have on more worthwhile causes
5) the republican party denies manmade global warming despite it being pretty much indisputable that this is happening, the democrat party does not (though they just have bad ideas on what to do about it)
6) the republicans claim immigrants are taking jobs while we actually have a shortage of workers, people in this country are actually unwilling to work the available jobs

Things we could possibly work together toward... I don't know

[ouronis]

We used to say compromise was a grand American ideal.. now we just have a bought government.

[ApeironStella]

Evergreen comic

[ouronis]

Evergreen comic

Eh, we've managed it before, with a war.

[DogOfDanger]

To be clear I'm not interested in cartoonish characterizations of the opposing party, I have very little respect for you partisan clowns

[ApeironStella]

Eh, we've managed it before, with a war.

By instead establishing a new system that definitely did not have a race related agenda to put black people in prisons, for often little to no concrete reason (or for things a white person would get slap on the wrist for, especially with bribery/social connections) with prison labor not being modern day slavery at this point, as far as it seems to go in the US, at least.

And that's kinda the point- things like that are bound to boil into a war, when one side is against allowing a group their basic human rights, concessions can last only so long.

[ApeironStella]

To be clear I'm not interested in cartoonish characterizations of the opposing party, I have very little respect for you partisan clowns

I mean feel free to see it that way, but I genuinely do not care about any two party system's main parties to white knight for either, as both tends to be same with slightly different fonts, at least where I live (which is not US lol)

My point is that, asking for compromise in current antisemitic, homophobic, transphobic climate where people were having neo-nazi rallies with a far-right extremist leader coming to power during that (with as you say, a lot of other countries including the one I live in having far-right figures at lead at the moment/in America's case still recently shifting to someone only slightly left of straight up fascist) is futile best, and asking for people to compromise on their human rights because you'd like to believe they can just put their differences aside when one group wants them dead, or at least be unable to live their lives with full human rights, just because you'd like to believe things that don't affect you should be things others should be able to put aside.

At best it would include essentially winning people over to one side and at worst asserting change by force, and I genuinely do not mean this as in democrat vs republican as I think we are way past simple slightly to the left and slightly to the right politics all over the world at this point for it to be anything useful in discussion to frame things as, at least unless political climate calms down with whether things swinging more left as a response to increasing right wing in power, or said dictator wannabes succeeding further.

[ouronis]

By instead establishing a new system that definitely did not have a race related agenda to put black people in prisons, for often little to no concrete reason (or for things a white person would get slap on the wrist for, especially with bribery/social connections) with prison labor not being modern day slavery at this point, as far as it seems to go in the US, at least.

And that's kinda the point- things like that are bound to boil into a war, when one side is against allowing a group their basic human rights, concessions can last only so long.

Yes

[DogOfDanger]

I mean feel free to see it that way, but I genuinely do not care about any two party system's main parties to white knight for either, as both tends to be same with slightly different fonts, at least where I live (which is not US lol)

My point is that, asking for compromise in current antisemitic, homophobic, transphobic climate where people were having neo-nazi rallies with a far-right extremist leader coming to power during that (with as you say, a lot of other countries including the one I live in having far-right figures at lead at the moment/in America's case still recently shifting to someone only slightly left of straight up fascist) is futile best, and asking for people to compromise on their human rights because you'd like to believe they can just put their differences aside when one group wants them dead, or at least be unable to live their lives with full human rights, just because you'd like to believe things that don't affect you should be things others should be able to put aside.

At best it would include essentially winning people over to one side and at worst asserting change by force, and I genuinely do not mean this as in democrat vs republican as I think we are way past simple slightly to the left and slightly to the right politics all over the world at this point for it to be anything useful in discussion to frame things as, at least unless political climate calms down with whether things swinging more left as a response to increasing right wing in power, or said dictator wannabes succeeding further.

The compromise would first require abandoning your asinine ideas. You claim no affinity for a political wing but then you regurgitate line for line all the talking points I've heard from left wing partisan hacks a thousand times. Sorry, I'm not buying it.
Granted you might not be willing to abandon them, but statistically your opinions here are actually quite unpopular in the general public, there is still quite a large segment of society that I think is able / willing - it isn't hard to identify the bad ideas, most of them are pretty self-evident (though perhaps on this forum of mentally ill, mostly worthless autistic rejects this won't be as easy).

I have no more patience or interest in arguing specific political issues with you moral posturing, flag-waving self-absorbed lemmings... It is too much, there's nothing I can say or do that can penetrate. You will just ignore what I say and repeat the same things endlessly, I know that because it has been done before many times.

So what I'm doing instead is encouraging people to distinguish between the partisan hacks and those still capable of independent thought. That's the appropriate way to combat hackery. Part of this means raising the awareness that brainlessness can and does occur in either isle.

You can do this in other threads, that is not what this thread is about or for, get lost.

[End]

Here's a pertinent video if we want to give the OP the respect he/she is due:



This dude is likely a Delta but damned shared valuation is a hell of a drug... Dude gets it IMO.

[ApeironStella]

The compromise would first require abandoning your asinine ideas. You claim no affinity for a political wing but then you regurgitate line for line all the talking points I've heard from left wing partisan hacks a thousand times. Sorry, I'm not buying it.
Granted you might not be willing to abandon them, but statistically your opinions here are actually quite unpopular in the general public, there is still quite a large segment of society that I think is able / willing - it isn't hard to identify the bad ideas, most of them are pretty self-evident (though perhaps on this forum of mentally ill, mostly worthless autistic rejects this won't be as easy).

I have no more patience or interest in arguing specific political issues with you moral posturing, flag-waving self-absorbed lemmings... It is too much, there's nothing I can say or do that can penetrate. You will just ignore what I say and repeat the same things endlessly, I know that because it has been done before many times.
You can do this in other threads, that is not what this thread is about or for, get lost.

I have yet to see you pointing at any facts contradicting anything I was saying, beyond name calling and asserting that it's moral posturing and I'd be the one closed off to hearing other sides, which is very funny coming from the person insisting that I definitely side with any major political party, especially one from a country I'm not even from to discard anything I was saying lol

But hey, if just pointing out that a lot of issues seen as dividing points in politics being about human rights of minority groups gets you that bothered, I hope you have jolly good time jerking off to thinking how by trying to find the middle of the road on issues way past simply being resolved just by talking you're the one being rational and sensible one here <3

[DogOfDanger]

I have yet to see you pointing at any facts contradicting anything I was saying,

You're right, that's because...
a) I have seen this before, there is no getting through to you and I know that
b) your arguments are just a bunch of slogans I have heard a thousand times, I don't even believe you have an original thought
c) you start off the conversation by being disingenuous in claiming you aren't party affiliated - while simultaneously repeating left wing slogans and targeting right wing fascism
d) the premises of your beliefs reject the concept of a shared, objective reality, thus there is actually no point in mentioning facts

I hope you have jolly good time jerking off

Is that what you do all day? Sit around on your family's computer and jerk off while complaining about your oppression?

Carry onward!

[xerx]

Something that I've always wanted to get off my chest: personality traits don't fit neatly into political categories.

I have a strong work ethic but don't see myself as conservative. I believe that people actually enjoy being productive (mostly) and that socialist policies, especially towards education, give people the tools to take personal initiative. UBI could, at least in theory, boost that even more.

Also, liberals can be hasty in declaring some things to be entirely socially constructed. I think that it's important to be cautious in that respect, but I also believe that diversity is fundamentally harmless, and I believe that people shouldn't be ostracized or disrespected for being different.

[Metamorph]

The idea that the left and the right wing should get along is a slave morality that should clearly be sent back to the Indus Valley with Zarathustra. People like sports, people like war, and it cannot even be said that sports are war without the killing because many sports are extremely violent and people die, even without us officially having gladiator games anymore sadly. The Ancient Greeks may have invented the idea of a republic and aristocracy, but the only government that is fitting for the Cimmerian race is pure tribalism, and the Ancient Greeks were already contaminated at this point from miscegenating with the Aryans, which is why the main places you see the famous polymaths are Ancient Greece and the Middle Eastern area with only a few around there and none at all in say, Mesoamerica. The first Aryan horse person who should be sent back to the Indus Valley is clearly @Coeruleum Blue, the biggest corrupter of the youth since Socrates. Then, instead of having to have high-fallutin' civilized elections, the Democrats and Republicans can have wars with spears the way humans in nature are supposed to.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

why did u sympathize more with a Republicunt? That's just stupid. It's common these days I guess to sympathize with the villain, but it gets old.

both sides can be horrible, that's just the nature of politics - but wrong-wing Republicunts will always be worse. People who say things like they are 'equally bad' tend to be more right-leaning it seems. Nothing in nature is that balanced, yeah a demon rat can be bad but a Republicunt is always scum of the earth and the Pharisees in the Bible Jesus warned us about.

we won't get along because values are too different. Republicunts value morality (in a cruel and astrigent way) and Democrats tend to value compassion. If a person wants me to respect their morality and Republicuntism- they first would have to be genuinely compassionate and the term 'compassionate conservatism' sounds like the very joke that it is.

[DogOfDanger]

Well I don't want to give you the impression I'm a republican - I'm not being disingenuous about this, I've abandoned politics for about 5 years now, I think it is a giant projection and abdication of responsibility. And the list of criticisms I posted for the republican party are things I seriously mean, I'm not just saying these things. And I have gotten into long arguments with republicans on a variety of these issues.

why did u sympathize more with a Republicunt? That's just stupid. It's common these days I guess to sympathize with the villain, but it gets old. both sides can be horrible, that's just the nature of politics - but wrong-wing Republicunts will always be worse.

TBH I am always open to / waiting for something of substance to come out of the left wingers mouths, but these sort of empty moral platitudes and mindless combativeness are pretty much all I ever get out of you people. It's almost like... you people are open to ideas, but not open to seriously thinking about those ideas. I sympathize more with the republicans because at least when I engage them in a discussion they are able to articulate why they believe what they do. It might be wrong, it might be dogmatic - but if I make a well-reasoned case they respond, or at least they'll shut up when they're proven wrong. But with you left wing people the conversation usually reduces to proclamations of what a good person you are, how evil your opposition is, and then you name drop a bunch of minority groups and other oppressed groups, rinse and repeat. There's also the very casual malevolence you people have towards others. It's a social strategy, it's a drive toward self-empowerment. I don't even believe you people care about the compassionate causes you harp on about, because compassionate people generally do not act the way you people act. And besides, having a compassionate opinion is quite easy, it's just a word and a thought - but if you want to seriously measure your compassion then measure it in your own action.

People who say things like they are 'equally bad' tend to be more right-leaning it seems.

I do think republicans are more willing to compromise - that probably is a product of the current culture, republicans are a minority. As much as liberals talk about the oppressed they're actually in the dominant positions in society. Right wingers tend be more open to modifying and critiquing their viewpoints, because they have been forced to evolve them that way. And they're generally less militant, and more willing to engage in rational discussion. This may be purely a product of their lesser position in society, but it nonetheless is much preferred.
A submissive tribe of broken lemmings is much preferred to an unrestrained domineering mob of infants crusading for their own advancement and calling for the heads of the opposing tribe.

Nothing in nature is that balanced, yeah a demon rat can be bad but a Republicunt is always scum of the earth and the Pharisees in the Bible Jesus warned us about. we won't get along because values are too different. Republicunts value morality (in a cruel and astrigent way) and Democrats tend to value compassion. If a person wants me to respect their morality and Republicuntism- they first would have to be genuinely compassionate and the term 'compassionate conservatism' sounds like the very joke that it is.

It's impossible for me to take you seriously when you talk about compassion in this manner. You talk a good talk but your actions always seem to contradict these acclaimed values. I just don't take you people seriously.

[DogOfDanger]

The idea that the left and the right wing should get along is a slave morality that should clearly be sent back to the Indus Valley with Zarathustra. People like sports, people like war, and it cannot even be said that sports are war without the killing because many sports are extremely violent and people die, even without us officially having gladiator games anymore sadly. The Ancient Greeks may have invented the idea of a republic and aristocracy, but the only government that is fitting for the Cimmerian race is pure tribalism, and the Ancient Greeks were already contaminated at this point from miscegenating with the Aryans, which is why the main places you see the famous polymaths are Ancient Greece and the Middle Eastern area with only a few around there and none at all in say, Mesoamerica. The first Aryan horse person who should be sent back to the Indus Valley is clearly @Coeruleum Blue, the biggest corrupter of the youth since Socrates. Then, instead of having to have high-fallutin' civilized elections, the Democrats and Republicans can have wars with spears the way humans in nature are supposed to.

It could be thought of as a slave morality within the system you're operating in, given your assumptions-
a) there is no possible way that people can get along, you will only ever be taken advantage of if you try
b) that the only game to be played, or worth playing, is the political game you're playing. And you cannot go play your own game.

These things may be true in politics, but I decided a few years ago to stop following politics. Fuck it all. Granted here I am thinking about it ... but this is rare, and at least here it's from an outsiders perspective. The outsider perspective is ultimately the correct perspective to take on these things.
You see, my future is just entirely within my own grasp, it's not dependent on this political game - which is nothing but a giant projection of status and responsibility onto authority figures. The same is true for the broader society... if we (humanity) were self-determined we could transform the economy and the world through our purchases alone, we wouldn't even need government intervention. The power is in the individual and in the people. The slave morality is the very idea that you should be playing politics - that's what keeps you thinking that the way to make progress is through your political opposition, leading you to constant gridlock; progress through voicing your opinion of what some groups of others are and should be doing, as if you have contributed something in the process... and that by affiliating yourself with these groups you will somehow gain the upper hand. Meanwhile... all your thought and effort could have been focused on your own life, the "noble causes" would have instead been noble action that you took. This is the most liberating attitude but you say it is nothing but a slave morality - you don't really understand what you argue about, you're just a rhetorician, tbh.

[Metamorph]

It could be thought of as a slave morality within the system you're operating in, given your assumptions-
a) there is no possible way that people can get along, you will only ever be taken advantage of if you try
b) that the only game to be played, or worth playing, is the political game you're playing. And you cannot go play your own game.

These things may be true in politics, but I decided a few years ago to stop following politics. Fuck it all. Granted here I am thinking about it ... but this is rare, and at least here it's from an outsiders perspective. The outsider perspective is ultimately the correct perspective to take on these things.
You see, my future is just entirely within my own grasp, it's not dependent on this political game - which is nothing but a giant projection of status and responsibility onto authority figures. The same is true for the broader society... if we (humanity) were self-determined we could transform the economy and the world through our purchases alone, we wouldn't even need government intervention. The power is in the individual and in the people. The slave morality is the very idea that you should be playing politics - that's what keeps you thinking that the way to make progress is through your political opposition, leading you to constant gridlock; progress through voicing your opinion of what some groups of others are and should be doing, as if you have contributed something in the process... and that by affiliating yourself with these groups you will somehow gain the upper hand. Meanwhile... all your thought and effort could have been focused on your own life, the "noble causes" would have instead been noble action that you took. This is the most liberating attitude but you say it is nothing but a slave morality - you don't really understand what you argue about, you're just a rhetorician, tbh.

Did you miss the part where I called myself a corrupter spreading the slave morality? Reread my post. Yes, my humor is both extremely ironic and so dark that often even I don't really want to read it, but sometimes you have to do the hard things so I still write it and reread it. I understand people just skipping over some posts that explicitly reference things they don't know about, though, like the Chomsky vs. Everett linguistics debate. That is obscure but also feels like the heart of the worldview conflict I was satirizing so I referenced it anyways and explained it. Doesn't mean that my inclusion of it won't turn people off itself, though.

That being said we probably need politics, just not in the form of tribal warfare. Why do you think we should bury our heads in the sand? Just because our politicians are corrupt does not mean we should be cynical about the idea of the public. Maybe all the politicians are in the Illuminati and will be for our entire lifetimes. Is this proof we don't need politics at all? I don't think so. I also don't think they'll all be in the Illuminati for our entire lifetimes, but even if they were that wouldn't prove anything about the fundamental nature of politics.

I understand not liking my post though since I completely skipped your three points for satire. What is this though, a homework assignment? "I like the Democrats!" "No I like the Republicans!" Well I like neither, but not because I want people to poke each other with spears. To be honest, that's what they might as well be doing as it is, sadly.

[DogOfDanger]

Did you miss the part where I called myself a corrupter spreading the slave morality? Reread my post. Yes, my humor is both extremely ironic and so dark that often even I don't really want to read it, but sometimes you have to do the hard things so I still write it and reread it. I understand people just skipping over some posts that explicitly reference things they don't know about, though, like the Chomsky vs. Everett linguistics debate. That is obscure but also feels like the heart of the worldview conflict I was satirizing so I referenced it anyways and explained it. Doesn't mean that my inclusion of it won't turn people off itself, though.

If you're just being completely ironic and obscure that's fine, but you should remember that words over the internet do not have tonality, and inane (and often incoherent or self-contradictory) opinions are a dime a dozen, so don't be surprised if your irony is lost on most people.

That being said we probably need politics, just not in the form of tribal warfare.

But that's all we have and all we'll ever have.

Why do you think we should bury our heads in the sand?

I don't, I actually think we should take individual responsibility for changing society, and that we have an enormous amount of untapped power. For example, the democrats recently passed a bill ti spur the adoption of clean energy vehicles... but the people could spur all that demand and much more, no stimulus required whatsoever, just through their own purchasing choices. Take the war in Ukraine... people blame Putin for this war. I blame the Russian soldiers though... if someone orders you to kill innocent civilians "I'm following orders" is not a justification. And they're promised all kinds of rewards when they get back. Without soldiers willing to follow orders and murder random people there is no war in Ukraine... but they do it out of self interest. I also think we just kind of automatically assume we need soldiers, and we think "well that's what soldiers do", like we're still mentally stuck in the 1400s waging war on the seas or something. And why do we shower soldiers with such praise, why do we buy into this glamorization? Alot of them sign up to be idolized by women. And they receive it...

Just because our politicians are corrupt does not mean we should be cynical about the idea of the public.

I do recognize the people have the power, but I'm still cynical - because I know that the general public is stupid and easily misled. They have been misled beyond anything I would imagine possible and only continue to be. There is no reason to think they will ever change, either. So yes, I am still cynical unfortunately.
So I would really rather bring it down to the individual level, at least there exists some hope.

Maybe all the politicians are in the Illuminati and will be for our entire lifetimes. Is this proof we don't need politics at all? I don't think so. I also don't think they'll all be in the Illuminati for our entire lifetimes, but even if they were that wouldn't prove anything about the fundamental nature of politics.

In some pie-in-the-sky sense none of this proves anything about the fundamental nature of politics, I suppose. Although... if we lived in a sane well balanced world there may not even be a need for politics then. It wouldn't resemble what it is now, at least.

I understand not liking my post though since I completely skipped your three points for satire. What is this though, a homework assignment? "I like the Democrats!" "No I like the Republicans!" Well I like neither, but not because I want people to poke each other with spears. To be honest, that's what they might as well be doing as it is, sadly.

If it were a homework assignment and you turned that in as an essay you'd better hope your teacher recognized it was satire.

[Metamorph]

@DogOfDanger Well, I've literally written satire about Nazis for a class before and it was fine. Granted, it wasn't a typical essay format, but people still got it. And I was writing in German to people who were not any kind of native or regular German-speakers. If you're not getting the satire that easily that's probably because you're really cynical about what you expect other people to say. I've misread lots of things because of my expectations too. Ironically the only thing I've ever had people get onto me for a class about was me just being into Sufi poetry and not really a fan of most European Romantics or "rah rah Catholicism" and also preferring scientific methodologies while thinking Sufi poetry is cooler than Christian allegories as far as the medieval period goes, no edgelordry or anything. When I do do the biggest edgelordy things (to different people than the ones I don't) I get a "positive" reaction for some reason, and when I just do something that's not popular like say "maybe science isn't Western imperialism because science seems to come from these areas: Greece (Western,) Persia, Egypt, India, Arabia (not Western, also, all these are connected to Greece by waterways and we define the West by land, defining cultural areas by land instead of water is probably a huge mistake)" I just get shot down fast. People prefer the devil they know 100% of the times it seems. Even when the thing they don't know is not a devil. I can't say I'm baffled, though. I write satire because it makes me uncomfortable and I want to be more comfortable. The conclusions I get are not always the ones I'm comfortable with. I believe it because it is absurd.

Anyhow, how do you imagine bringing down things to the individual level? I don't see that as ending the polis, I see that as, simply, people getting involved in it. It reminds me of Plato's Republic even though I've been having trouble finding translations I think are both reliable and easy to get through. Well, I'm decent at Greek by now anyways, maybe I should just get a dictionary and the original and skip this whole idea I should read notes and explanations the same way I skipped them for Goethe and many other things and drew conclusions people hated.

[DogOfDanger]

Anyhow, how do you imagine bringing down things to the individual level? I don't see that as ending the polis, I see that as, simply, people getting involved in it.

An individual involving themselves in politics is looking to take on others responsibilities as their own. I suppose that's fine, but the general public still remains in a dependent state looking to others to solve their problems. That may be all we can manage in these circumstances, and individuals that are willing to take on that responsibility can be applauded... assuming they somehow manage to avoid all the moral pitfalls in store for them. But what i think the ultimate solution would be is not certain super-human individuals taking responsibility for the masses, but the people at large taking individual responsibility for themselves and the consequences of their own actions. This individualism would be a general attitude fostered in the public. With it there would no longer be a need for these super-human individuals to take on the burdens, and if there was still a need for a government... it wouldn't resemble what we think of as the government.
So personally what do I aim to do...
I'm not interested in suffering for the sins of the masses, being one of these super-humans... I'm not really morally suited for that and it's already been done anyway. I'll take responsibility for my own actions and live my own life to the best of my ability... and when confronted with these topics I'll encourage others to do the same. What I won't do is get distracted by this big lie that political activism as it's practiced (not connected to action) is somehow noble and accomplishing something (i.e. your 1 vote in your non-swing state which you probably won't even cast is worth all this going on about), or allow myself to get overly distracted by these things. So fuck politics, basically.

[Metamorph]

An individual involving themselves in politics is looking to take on others responsibilities as their own. I suppose that's fine, but the general public still remains in a dependent state looking to others to solve their problems. That may be all we can manage in these circumstances, and individuals that are willing to take on that responsibility can be applauded... assuming they somehow manage to avoid all the moral pitfalls in store for them. But what i think the ultimate solution would be is not certain super-human individuals taking responsibility for the masses, but the people at large taking individual responsibility for themselves and the consequences of their own actions. This individualism would be a general attitude fostered in the public. With it there would no longer be a need for these super-human individuals, and if there was still a need for a government... it wouldn't resemble what we think of as the government.
So personally what do I aim to do...
I'm not interested in suffering for the sins of the masses, being one of these super-humans... I'm not really morally suited for that and it's already been done anyway. I'll take responsibility for my own actions and live my own life to the best of my ability... and when confronted with these topics I'll encourage others to do the same. What I won't do is get distracted by this big lie that political activism as it's practiced (not connected to action) is somehow noble and accomplishing something (i.e. your 1 vote in your non-swing state which you probably won't even cast is worth all this going on about), or allow myself to get overly distracted by these things. So fuck politics, basically.

I kind of think there's a third way: just leave the people who can't take care of themselves alone. Who can they hurt but themselves, and whose fault is it anyways?

[DogOfDanger]

I kind of think there's a third way: just leave the people who can't take care of themselves alone. Who can they hurt but themselves, and whose fault is it anyways?

So then what is left for the government to do? As a government actor you're ultimately in the business of cleaning up some mess that someone before you should have cleaned up.

In practice I don't think this really works, we need the government to deal with these messes - someone has to clean them up, they don't just go away... they tend to spread, actually... society is interconnected, there are always ripple effects through society. Eventually the mess will spread into your vicinity. Besides, there are always opportunists willing to step in & take on the role of government authority. Left wing authoritarians especially love the opportunity to assist some loud oppressed victims. I just would rather not take on that burden myself, unless I'm getting paid to do it, because to someone who isn't driven by a need for power it's not really rewarding. Encouraging people to clean up the messes without asking the government is the extent of my noble contribution on this scale.
But people in my life... I do help them where possible.
Some people will take tremendous advantage of you for that, though, you have to be careful there too.
But there are certain people who I've helped and they haven't taken advantage, and I'm glad I did, so...

[Metamorph]

So then what is left for the government to do? As a government actor you're ultimately in the business of cleaning up some mess that someone before you should have cleaned up.

In practice I don't think this really works, we need the government to deal with these messes - someone has to clean them up, they don't just go away... they tend to spread, actually... society is interconnected, there are always ripple effects through society. Eventually the mess will spread into your vicinity. Besides, there are always opportunists willing to step in & take on the role of government authority. Left wing authoritarians especially love the opportunity to assist some loud oppressed victims. I just would rather not take on that burden myself, unless I'm getting paid to do it, because to someone who isn't driven by a need for power it's not really rewarding. Encouraging people to clean up the messes without asking the government is the extent of my noble contribution on this scale.
But people in my life... I do help them where possible.
Some people will take tremendous advantage of you for that, though, you have to be careful there too.

I think they often do just go away. Maybe we just need more prisoners and more slaves, or to make nations much smaller. I wish I were better at politics. Probably time for me to just read Plato.

[DogOfDanger]

I think they often do just go away.

For this strategy of ignoring things to work for you... you'd need the other people involved on board with it, including their close relatives, the people they know, their extended network of contacts, etc.. Otherwise what will happen is they'll go petition others for help, and assuming you're the one in a position to do something, people will bring the problem to you... so now you're not just ignoring the one person, but many people you know. So that right there is a consequence for you. And those people will collaborate to achieve what is needed, if it includes undermining you / outright taking from you they'll do it if they're desperate enough.... if this sounds farfetched I've seen this exact scenario happen in great detail over the course of 2 decades. 2 people I know wouldn't work and, through the mans wife / extended family, pretty much took from him 1.5 million$ over 2 decades, he tried everything he possibly could to make the problem go away... but he was married.
But you can't hide from the world either, that doesn't work, that's not even really healthy.

[End]

I think they often do just go away. Maybe we just need more prisoners and more slaves, or to make nations much smaller. I wish I were better at politics. Probably time for me to just read Plato.

CIA plant says what? Sorry, I'm just so pissed off in regards to how intel ops work I'm just a wee bit touchy.

I'd recommend you read more Aristotle and Aquinas over Plato if I got through to you with that.

[Metamorph]

CIA plant says what? Sorry, I'm just so pissed off in regards to how intel ops work I'm just a wee bit touchy.

I'd recommend you read more Aristotle and Aquinas over Plato if I got through to you with that.

Why, exactly? Besides "it's Catholic." I'm not sold on Catholicism. Aristotle sure, but why is Aquinas even relevant besides "Western man! Deus vult, flagellate yourself, put Galileo under house arrest because science is evil?"

[End]

Why, exactly? Besides "it's Catholic." I'm not sold on Catholicism. Aristotle sure, but why is Aquinas even relevant besides "Western man! Deus vult, flagellate yourself, put Galileo under house arrest because science is evil?"

A misdirection. Aquinas constructed 5 deductive arguments for the existence of God in "The Summa Theologica". Again, his proofs have yet to be logically refuted by any and all who dared to try and deductive arguments, successfully made, are definitive for any philosopher worthy of the label. You successfully make a deductive argument? You're right. That's it. End of the "argument" in all contexts.

Hell, John C. Wright, a former atheist who is now a most ardent Catholic, sought to bypass the whole ordeal of trying to honestly refute him in good faith with a clever yet earnest prayer. He suffered a Heart Attack for his efforts but the result was ultimately the same. He finally accepted that God exists, he's exactly the kind of entity honest and faithful Catholics proclaim he is, and that he ought to act accordingly.

I've mentioned what that prayer was elsewhere. Pure I gotta say. Though I am surprised the dude didn't see that heart attack coming. God's got a sense of humor contrary to what the unbelievers think. God does indeed laugh. Can't tell me Christ never cracked a joke during his time with the apostles. Then again, ardent atheist he was then, he probably felt betting heavily against the nonsensical/nonexistent house would work out just fine...

[Metamorph]

A misdirection. Aquinas constructed 5 deductive arguments for the existence of God in "The Summa Theologica". Again, his proofs have yet to be logically refuted by any and all who dared to try and deductive arguments, successfully made, are definitive for any philosopher worthy of the label. You successfully make a deductive argument? You're right. That's it. End of the "argument" in all contexts.

Hell, John C. Wright, a former atheist who is now a most ardent Catholic, sought to bypass the whole ordeal of trying to honestly refute him in good faith with a clever yet earnest prayer. He suffered a Heart Attack for his efforts but the result was ultimately the same. He finally accepted that God exists, he's exactly the kind of entity honest and faithful Catholics proclaim he is, and that he ought to act accordingly.

I've mentioned what that prayer was elsewhere. Pure I gotta say. Though I am surprised the dude didn't see that heart attack coming. God's got a sense of humor contrary to what the unbelievers think. God does indeed laugh. Can't tell me Christ never cracked a joke during his time with the apostles. Then again, ardent atheist he was then, he probably felt betting heavily against the nonsensical/nonexistent house would work out just fine...

End, the misdirections are yours. None of those arguments were originally Thomas Aquinas's and none of them prove Catholicism in particular. I have not once argued against the existence of the Most High and All-Encompassing, I have only argued against Catholicism in particular, which this does nothing for.

If you think Aquinas originated that argument, Al-Ghazali was the first one to use Aristotle's ideas but also specifically name God, an entire two centuries before Aquinas.

[DogOfDanger]

I've never been so concerned with sectarianism... an ally is an ally, we have enough people that hate our guts already, we don't need to be turning against one another. If you want to light candles and drink wine as you pray be my guest, I don't think it's going to make a hill of beans different ultimately.