Republican Bidens and the Failure of the Democratic Party

[Narz]

That's how it's always been, though. Well, maybe not always, but a lot. Fractious internal politics is nothing new for the Left, and conformity and loyalty are basic principles of the Right. Whatever's changed lately, it's not that.

Louis ck spoke about it in an interview (can't find the clip) about how the left used to be the party of inclusivity and solidarity and now it's more like, show me your tweet resume to see if you're pure enough.

Facing an extinction event the left (which is the only side that pretends at least to care about the environment) maybe should take a break from eating their own

 

[Narz]

You should get along then, 'cause you sure have no problem with "might makes right" when it goes your way.

It's apparent internet communists aren't very dissembler from irl ones, they're wannabe authoritarians.

 

[Gorbles]

Yes, because funny is the point. While on the other hand, supporting authoritarian dictatorship while trying to lecture about "might makes right" is not about being funny, but being a hypocrite.
I'm sure you were honestly mistaken and not just playing dumb, of course.

And you in turn turned from criticism of "might makes right", to criticism of the moral position behind the poster's support for a particular regime.

Was my point hard to understand or something? Don't you see that you literally just proved what I was trying to say?

Don't you and I both support "might makes right" insofar as the target is acceptable (for, say, defeating Russia)? And where we disagree is when we think the target isn't acceptable? It's not "might makes right" that we differ on, it's when it can be justified vs. when it can't. And imo that can be worthy of discussion, but people nitpicking each other over "you support might makes right" is funny because most humans do. Having empathy nomatter the target is the real challenge, and it's one I struggle with personally. I'm not pretending I'm superior there.

Louis ck spoke about it in an interview (can't find the clip) about how the left used to be the party of inclusivity and solidarity and now it's more like, show me your tweet resume to see if you're pure enough.

I feel like going for the guy who was credibly accused of sexual harassment (and admitted it) is probably not the best support for your "purity politics" jab, but sure, you keep doing you. Top-tier logic on display, here.

 

[Narz]

Well, I'll take it.

Take whatever emotional wins you can get I guess

Which involves criticising people like Biden, and parties like the Democrats. Maybe these Democrats and this Biden just need thicker skin, hmm? Surely they should be able to entertain mild criticism from progressive voices, or nah?

Sure criticize Biden I'm all for it

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

This is not true - Trump empowered Red States to push the most regressive regime across half the country.

Nah this existed waaaay before Trump. North Carolina and Wisconsin as states were flawed democracies at best by 2016 due to state GOP shenanigans. Shelby v Holder was 2013, and the day after the ruling Texas went wild with new voting restrictions. Etc etc

 

[Gorbles]

Take whatever emotional wins you can get I guess

Logical, actually, but I appreciate you have to reduce it to "feels".

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

Louis ck spoke about it in an interview (can't find the clip) about how the left used to be the party of inclusivity and solidarity and now it's more like, show me your tweet resume to see if you're pure enough.

I get it, but nobody in real life gives a crap about Twitter, and it’s conservatives in congress who are promoting another House leadership change and have a Freedom Caucus hell bent on disruption. Democrats - and the majority of their voters - are institutionalist, for better or worse right now. Hipster coffee shop patrons didn’t do Jan 6.

 

[Narz]

Logical, actually, but I appreciate you have to reduce it to "feels".

Your "logic" of "he said something general so I'm gonna interpret it as something specific as an attack on me or someone I relate with" isn't logic it's a psychological problem. I'm reducing it to feels because it is feels. You felt like I was saying something so in your mind I was. I didn't address it as I'm not your therapist so it's not my job but you may want to look into a professional.

 

[Klaus Hergersheimer]

Joe Biden looks like Skeletor

 

[Akka]

And you in turn turned from criticism of "might makes right", to criticism of the moral position behind the poster's support for a particular regime.

Yeah, because someone who try to gives lesson about "might makes right" being bad while supporting "might makes right" kinda make their entire argument pretty void (and kinda reveal their worth as persons).

Was my point hard to understand or something? Don't you see that you literally just proved what I was trying to say?

Don't you and I both support "might makes right" insofar as the target is acceptable (for, say, defeating Russia)? And where we disagree is when we think the target isn't acceptable? It's not "might makes right" that we differ on, it's when it can be justified vs. when it can't.

That makes absolutely no sense, and I certainly don't support "might makes right". I can happily support legitimate violence, but that's about "using might when right" and absolutely not "might makes right".
Saying "might makes right when it's justified" is just nonsensical contradiction. I get the feeling you kinda lost what "might makes right" even means.

 

[Gorbles]

That makes absolutely no sense, and I certainly don't support "might makes right", even if I can happily support legitimate violence.
Saying "might makes right when it's justified" is just nonsensical contradiction. I get the feeling you kinda lost what "might makes right" even means.

"might makes right" exists in roughly two contexts. The first is literally, might makes right. Those with the ability do, and those without make do. The second is the political history type, "history is written by the victors" kind of thing.

(it can also be used as "the ends justify the means", or "what are you going to do about it", along the lines of "better the demon you know than the demon you don't", but people at that point are kinda mixing idioms and it gets confusing)

I would make the argument that history should not look kindly on Russia's invasion of Ukraine, nor should it look kindly on what Israel is doing in Gaza, nor should it look kindly on US interventionism. You would make different arguments based on how you think each scenario shakes out.

But we would both make the argument that only with might can Ukraine's situation be made right. Military support, Western sanctions, you name it. This is all geopolitical might. It is maintained by the status quo. The US' ability to enact foreign policy is both good and bad, and we support it when we think it is "good". We certainly wouldn't support the made-up reality in which the US supported Russia, right? But what could we do about it? We wouldn't. It might be "might makes right".

So "might makes right" in terms of US foreign policy works a) when they're supporting an underdog, and critically b) when we support the underdog too. And the underdog doesn't have to be literally disadvantaged, it's a moral argument. There's always a line. I know there is, because we disagree on a number of political points to the point where I don't generally talk politics with you anymore. It saves us both time. That line is different for you than it is for me, and it's different again for Crezth, or Narz, or whoever. We all have a different line in the sand for the following factors:

• What constitutes "might".
• What constitutes "right".
• Who is on the receiving end (of the might).
• Who is inflicting (the might).

Maybe you have a different understanding of "might makes right". Mine is pretty textbook, at least according to what I've read. But rushing to assume I'm wrong, or "lost", just because of that, is a mistake. Sometimes a failure to communicate is just that, it doesn't mean the other person doesn't know the thing.

Your "logic" of "he said something general so I'm gonna interpret it as something specific as an attack on me or someone I relate with" isn't logic it's a psychological problem. I'm reducing it to feels because it is feels. You felt like I was saying something so in your mind I was. I didn't address it as I'm not your therapist so it's not my job but you may want to look into a professional.

It's not your job, which I feel like I should be thankful for

I'm not interpreting it as a specific attack on any one person, or even handful of people. I'm taking it as you intended it - as a criticism of all leftists, and all of their "pet issues". You didn't specify, so you own the generalisation. Maybe next time, think before you make one?

 

[Ordnael]

Joe Biden looks like Skeletor

I don't think Biden has enough charm to compare with both toon Skeletor and meme Skeletor.
Biden reminds me more of the guy that picked the wrong chalice at the end of Indiana Jones, minus the sniff!

 

[Kyriakos]

Σomehow one has to make do with the kakogerontokakistocracy.

 

[Gori the Grey]

I've been enjoying the back and forth here, and it's stimulating a lot thinking, both yesterday when I was one of the participants, and today when I've just been watching.

I will observe that the new energy @Narz brought to the discussion, despite the alternative idiom in which he casts matters, nevertheless involved the same basic dynamic that started the thread (and preceded it as a thread): the Lawrence O'Donnell thesis about differences in left and right voters:

Y'all (lefties) have too high standards

meanwhile right has unwavering loyalty

O'Donnell's thesis may not be correct (as several here argue), but it sure as hell strikes a nerve for the fine minds on CFCOT.

My hunch as to why involves @EgonSpengler 's sharp insight that the last X years (I understand that the value of X is itself a matter for argument) have seen a relatively rapid realignment of the two parties (relative to one another and against the two poles). Among the things that has done is it has left no thoughtful person any longer satisfied with the party he or she previously could at least grudgingly accept as representing his or her baseline political perspective. Traditional Rs hate what Trump has done to their party, and yet done it he has, revealing an undeniable reality of our present political landscape. I'm a lefty who laughs at what an institutionalist he's had to become (but only because it's the only set of resources I can think of that might hold Trumpism in check) and mourns to think how my party is losing/has lost labor.*

But it's not enough to say, "ok, things are shaking out; stay nimble, some new schema will emerge and there will be satisfactory new place to stand within it" because the duopolistic straight-jacket won't let that happen. So we're all just cranky as hell.

Oh, and the world is burning.

Anyway, keep throwing elbows, say I. Something is going to emerge from debates like these.

*I acknowledge that I have cast things in US terms, while we have had fine contributions from non US posters.

 

[Gorbles]

I mean, there's a big area in the middle where people who don't call themselves either sit, which is another hole in it.

 

[Farm Boy]

Take it to the Bible thread, but to simplify for here your take is still just "nope."

 

[Farm Boy]

but it sure as hell strikes a nerve for the fine minds on CFCOT.

Ignorance casts demons from bright minds.

 

[Gori the Grey]

It's the piece of sand that provides the irritant that forms the pearl.

It's stimulating enough that my just talking about our talking about it itself drew one voice back into the thread.

 

[Akka]

"might makes right" exists in roughly two contexts. The first is literally, might makes right. Those with the ability do, and those without make do. The second is the political history type, "history is written by the victors" kind of thing.

(it can also be used as "the ends justify the means", or "what are you going to do about it", along the lines of "better the demon you know than the demon you don't", but people at that point are kinda mixing idioms and it gets confusing)

I would make the argument that history should not look kindly on Russia's invasion of Ukraine, nor should it look kindly on what Israel is doing in Gaza, nor should it look kindly on US interventionism. You would make different arguments based on how you think each scenario shakes out.

But we would both make the argument that only with might can Ukraine's situation be made right. Military support, Western sanctions, you name it. This is all geopolitical might. It is maintained by the status quo. The US' ability to enact foreign policy is both good and bad, and we support it when we think it is "good". We certainly wouldn't support the made-up reality in which the US supported Russia, right? But what could we do about it? We wouldn't. It might be "might makes right".

So "might makes right" in terms of US foreign policy works a) when they're supporting an underdog, and critically b) when we support the underdog too. And the underdog doesn't have to be literally disadvantaged, it's a moral argument. There's always a line. I know there is, because we disagree on a number of political points to the point where I don't generally talk politics with you anymore. It saves us both time. That line is different for you than it is for me, and it's different again for Crezth, or Narz, or whoever. We all have a different line in the sand for the following factors:

• What constitutes "might".
• What constitutes "right".
• Who is on the receiving end (of the might).
• Who is inflicting (the might).

Maybe you have a different understanding of "might makes right". Mine is pretty textbook, at least according to what I've read. But rushing to assume I'm wrong, or "lost", just because of that, is a mistake. Sometimes a failure to communicate is just that, it doesn't mean the other person doesn't know the thing.

This was extremely confusing and I didn't really understand your point. A number of your sentence feel like non sequitur.
"might makes right" seems pretty spelled out for me : it means that whoever is able to enforce his will is "right". Basically a moral justification for the law of the strongest. Alternatively a constatation that if one is powerful enough he can influence others to see him as in the right (guess it would be the "history is written by the victor"), but in this case it's just an observation and not a moral argument.

 

[Farm Boy]

Yes, for example, when you referred to trans people being concerned that Biden is basically doing nothing to protect them from being literally killed as "self-obsession and obsession w your little pet issues" that was a great demonstration of the amount of empathy you have for people.

I wonder how that would translate to permanent incapacitation punishments for violent offenses, ie "tough on crime," in the light of male murder victimization rates(particularly among the neurodiverse) when held up to say, equal pay for upper middle class women, or more extensive coverage for recreational reproductive acts among those that are relatively well insured? Or perhaps additional wages per hour for above average unionized labor?

Empathy intact, you're going to get a Spiderman meme laugh from me for this post. Not even in mean spirit. It's just funny as hell.