Best Way To Defeat the Right?

[jackelgull]

Currently dogs do not have the right to vote, but as one looks at the ever increasing importance of dogs to Americans, I expect that within your life time, the issue will come up.

Humans have been cruel and oppressive to other humans (and dogs) throughout history. It has been and still in our nature. What we think today does not apply 100, 200, 500, or more years ago except in your judgmental mind. You can condemn the past all you want and hate on everyone who ever thought differently than you do now. To what end? They lived their lives as they thought best or as best they could.

Since you seem to be having some reading comprehension issues, a quick primer - a dog is not a person, and does not have the rights one would assign to a person, such as voting. Slaves and women were always people, and the fact that society didn't act like this until later doesn't change that fact. I won't argue with your warped and misanthropic view of human nature. It says more about you then people, and I think maybe you should work on your self-loathing issues. I mean that sincerely.

I hope this helps!

 

[amadeus]

yeah it is stupid how capitalists can go “oh thats crony capitalism” when their bad system inevitably starts to fail every single time

To be fair most of the alternatives can be boiled down to "Food, again? But you just had some yesterday."

 

[Sonereal]

In the first half of the 19th C in the US the definition of democracy did not include slaves; nor did it include women or dogs. Applying your modern sensibilities to a world almost 200 years gone is inappropriate.

The legal definition of personhood did not extend to Jews from 1933 to 1945 in vast swathes of Central and Eastern Europe, but we'd hardly say the Germans were "merely people of their time" or think twice about applying modern sensibilities to the Holocaust. For some reason, the heinous crimes of the Third Reich are (rightfully) considered heinous, but the same crimes and legal dancing of the American slave society are excused in such a way that we skip over the opinions of the tens of millions of slaves shipped from Africa across the sea, thrown into the sea in droves, whipped, and burned under Anglo-American flags.

I am the tallest man on Earth. Why? Because I have, personally, written the definition of height to exclude those taller than me. Silly, right? Yet here we do that sort of dance when will pretend the US was a democracy in the 19th century (or 20th or 21st).

 

[Berzerker]

My point was about the prevalence of "echo chambers" (which is a phrase typically, but not exclusively, thrown at progressives by conservatives). It doesn't mean people from different backgrounds can't find common ground. These could be the very similarities that I'm talking about.

echo chambers shut out dissent with a cult-like virulence, dont disrupt the vibes man

And creates cultural richness. Integration takes time and effort, but it happens where prejudice is absent. Look at how Hispanics have worked their way into the culture of the Midwest.

True, but aren't we losing that richness in a melting pot? In theory racism would end if everyone had melted into various shades of caramel brown but culture needs to be distinctive, like chunks of chocolate in the caramel. Self segregation creates that richness and from that pov I can see why 'traditionalists' might object to 'cultural appropriation'. Maybe I'm the glass half full type, converts are welcome. Or I have no culture We moved way too often to join a culture.

 

[NinjaCow64]

To be fair most of the alternatives can be boiled down to "Food, again? But you just had some yesterday."

25,000 people die of starvation every day according to the UN. Mostly in countries that are unashamedly capitalist. And if you say something along the lines of “That’s not real capitalism, its [something else]!” then I kindly invite you to never criticise someone who says “That’s not real Communism” ever again.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Since you seem to be having some reading comprehension issues, a quick primer - a dog is not a person, and does not have the rights one would assign to a person, such as voting. Slaves and women were always people, and the fact that society didn't act like this until later doesn't change that fact. I won't argue with your warped and misanthropic view of human nature. It says more about you then people, and I think maybe you should work on your self-loathing issues. I mean that sincerely.

I hope this helps!

Clearly, you are unaware of how many dog owners see their little poopsies.

Yes, slaves and women have always been humans not too unlike their oppressors. We (most of the world) today consider that an evolutionary, biological and cultural fact. That truth has not been as widely accepted for most of our recorded history. Remnants of that are clearly seen in how many tribes label themselves as the People and everyone else as not. They were barbarians and often lesser, worthy of enslavement and oppression. Once cultures moved into the 18th C and later, the truth we so clearly see now slowly worked its way into mainstream thinking all across the globe and became the fact you claim. Facts unknown to people are not facts to them. We see them now easily and take them for granted. The excuses for ignoring emerging facts about the humanity of all humans diminish as one moves through time. That is why the Holocaust and the Rape of Nanjing were so terrible. And why the destruction of Tenochtitlan, the destruction of Carthage, or the Hebrew forced exile to Babylon seem less terrible. I am certainly not giving a pass to antebellum slaveholders who did terrible things. They are dead and gone and paid some price and they should be talked about. But that does not change the voting rules of 1850 which said in the US democracy only adult white men could vote.

 

[Birdjaguar]

The legal definition of personhood did not extend to Jews from 1933 to 1945 in vast swathes of Central and Eastern Europe, but we'd hardly say the Germans were "merely people of their time" or think twice about applying modern sensibilities to the Holocaust. For some reason, the heinous crimes of the Third Reich are (rightfully) considered heinous, but the same crimes and legal dancing of the American slave society are excused in such a way that we skip over the opinions of the tens of millions of slaves shipped from Africa across the sea, thrown into the sea in droves, whipped, and burned under Anglo-American flags.

I am the tallest man on Earth. Why? Because I have, personally, written the definition of height to exclude those taller than me. Silly, right? Yet here we do that sort of dance when will pretend the US was a democracy in the 19th century (or 20th or 21st).

See my post above.

 

[onejayhawk]

Is to elect them?
Trump and BoJo got elected and not so good at the governing part.

Scomo in Aussie appears to be screwing up but very partisan media there.
Erdogan and Bolsonero no comment.
I've mentioned the general failure of the left espicially the woke left but it seems doing nothing and let the right defeat themselves might be the best strategy.

Who knew a political philosophy devoted to greed, selfishness and a lack of empathy would have trouble attracting ethical or effective candidates.​

I won't speak to the other, but Trump did a very competent job of governing.

No matter how messy he looked while doing it, the list of accomplishments is long and significant. I was pleasantly surprised with the results.

J

 

[Birdjaguar]

True, but aren't we losing that richness in a melting pot? In theory racism would end if everyone had melted into various shades of caramel brown but culture needs to be distinctive, like chunks of chocolate in the caramel. Self segregation creates that richness and from that pov I can see why 'traditionalists' might object to 'cultural appropriation'. Maybe I'm the glass half full type, converts are welcome. Or I have no culture We moved way too often to join a culture.

Melting pot needs to be defined. It is unlikely that the cultural stew will ever be uniformly mixed. Richness will remain.

 

[Edmund Ironside]

the list of accomplishments is long and significant

Go on, name some of Trump's accomplishments...

I will give you 100 horsehocky things Trump did, and they only cover his environmental policies.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks-list.html

Anyway this thread isn't about your strange love affair with Trump @onejayhawk , it is about how you defeat the right.
So how do you think we can defeat the right!??

 

[Sonereal]

See my post above.

Yes, slaves and women have always been humans not too unlike their oppressors. We (most of the world) today consider that an evolutionary, biological and cultural fact. That truth has not been as widely accepted for most of our recorded history.

The tens of millions of slaves who were brought to the Americas or were born into slavery would not call their own humanity into question. When you say "the truth has not been widely accepted for most of our recorded history", we need to ask by who and why. In the United States, this truth was denied by a white, feudal planter class and their accomplices in an emerging national mercantile bourgeoisie who rose up in rebellion hand-in-hand in opposition to a growing British industrial bourgeoisie.

But that does not change the voting rules of 1850 which said in the US democracy only adult white men could vote.

Had Germany won the Second World War, it's definition of personhood could today be universal. In such a case, would you be here arguing in favor of the Germanic conception of personhood simply because, according to the rules set by Germany, the Jews are not people? Of course not. You would scoff at that and laugh at the person who suggested that, at best, and maybe even come to blows over such a ridiculous idea.

Yet, here we are, using the logic of the victor of mass genocide and slavery to argue in favor of the victor's definition of personhood and democracy to argue that it was a democracy at a time where it was amping up a genocidal war against every tribe in North America and enslaving millions of Africans, destroying their languages and religion, raping their women, and tearing apart their families.

 

[amadeus]

The legal definition of personhood did not extend to Jews from 1933 to 1945 in vast swathes of Central and Eastern Europe, but we'd hardly say the Germans were "merely people of their time" or think twice about applying modern sensibilities to the Holocaust.

That’s because they had more modern sensibilities about personhood. Goebbels in his “total war” speech misspoke and said they were on their way to exterminating the Jews; Goebbels caught himself mid-sentence and the error was not published.

Yet, here we are, using the logic of the victor of mass genocide and slavery to argue in favor of the victor's definition of personhood and democracy to argue that it was a democracy at a time where it was amping up a genocidal war against every tribe in North America and enslaving millions of Africans, destroying their languages and religion, raping their women, and tearing apart their families.

Because it was, relative to everywhere else. If it wasn’t, then when was the U.S. a democracy? After the civil war? After Stonewall? After the ADA?

 

[Birdjaguar]

The tens of millions of slaves who were brought to the Americas or were born into slavery would not call their own humanity into question. When you say "the truth has not been widely accepted for most of our recorded history", we need to ask by who and why. In the United States, this truth was denied by a white, feudal planter class and their accomplices in an emerging national mercantile bourgeoisie who rose up in rebellion hand-in-hand in opposition to a growing British industrial bourgeoisie.

Had Germany won the Second World War, it's definition of personhood could today be universal. In such a case, would you be here arguing in favor of the Germanic conception of personhood simply because, according to the rules set by Germany, the Jews are not people? Of course not. You would scoff at that and laugh at the person who suggested that, at best, and maybe even come to blows over such a ridiculous idea.

Yet, here we are, using the logic of the victor of mass genocide and slavery to argue in favor of the victor's definition of personhood and democracy to argue that it was a democracy at a time where it was amping up a genocidal war against every tribe in North America and enslaving millions of Africans, destroying their languages and religion, raping their women, and tearing apart their families.

As I said, as one moves forward in time what is "fact" to those alive changes And it changes differently across geography. This discussion began being about the US in 1850 and democracy. There was a slow and steady upheaval, that included new "facts", in the world that began in the 16th C and continued through today. Prior to that Most of what was "Fact" was local and regionally defined. Often the dominant power defined it with or without dispensation to other ideas. Pick your time and place.

In the US rich white men were dominant and defined the facts of democracy and humanity. They had opposition. Some of those were a growing power forging a new set of facts regarding slavery and humanity. We see our understanding of humanity as universal and therefore retroactive. The powerful rich white men of 1850 saw their "facts" on humanity also as correct and universal. They devised voting laws to fit their universal truth. Democracy as you define did not exist anywhere 150 years ago. The concept might have, but no one had figured out how to implement it or exactly what its scope might be. Railing against the atrocities of the past is kinda like saying, geez if the Donner Party had had cell phones, they wouldn't have had to eat each other. Why didn't those nasty slave owners know better? Why wasn't Genghis Khan nicer? They all should have known better!

It is better, in my opinion, to focus on how we can better the world today than to rail against those who are dead.

 

[Gorbles]

We can't defeat defeat the right cuz we're arguing over dogs from 200 years ago?

This is a bit rich considering I'm still waiting for an answer from you

echo chambers shut out dissent with a cult-like virulence, dont disrupt the vibes man

Oh, cool. That means basically nothing described by any conservative as an "echo chamber" actually qualifies.

Its funny though. Leftists are constantly accused of being so ineffective because they waste their time on fighting themselves. But we're also accused of always being in echo chambers? Which is it? I can't be both in an echo chamber, and in an argument with another leftist

Personally, I don't see what's wrong with leftists arguing amongst themselves. We're currently all registered on a gaming fan forum, the majority of subforums for which involve endless arguments about small changes to numbers in a few video games. I'm not knocking it either, I've been in more than a few balance arguments in my time.

I just don't see the problem in using a comparable amount of time discussing actual world issues.

 

[onejayhawk]

Go on, name some of Trump's accomplishments... I will give you 100 **** things Trump did, and they only cover his environmental policies.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks-list.html

One of the big ones is environmental, the Great American Outdoors Act.

No surprise that NYT has a big jones for Trump. Some of those, like redrafting the rules of the Waters of America act were absolutely needed. Perhaps more to the point, under Trump the EPA was again focussed on clear air, water, and soil.

Anyway this thread isn't about your strange love affair with Trump @onejayhawk , it is about how you defeat the right.
So how do you think we can defeat the right!??

I don't love Trump but I will defend him when he's attacked. He surprised me by being a very successful administrator.

Anyone who can improve relations with both Israel and Saudi Arabia is no slouch. Defeating ISIS, thwarting Russia in Syria, Boxing in Iran, the Abrahamic Accords are some of his other major accomplishments in the region. Domestically he produced record-low unemployment among women and minorities, FIRST STEP, energy independence, more than a dozen trade agreements, tax reform, stopped the flood of illegals across the Mexican border, and produced the COVID vaccine a year ahead of schedule. Oh yeah, he appointed and confirmed a ton of judges. it's a long list. I surely forgot something important.

J

 

[NinjaCow64]

Birdjaguar, I feel like I have no choice but to report you to the Admins for your poor conduct in this thread. I will refrain from posting further in this thread as I do not think I can do so without PDMA.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Birdjaguar, I feel like I have no choice but to report you to the Admins for your poor conduct in this thread. I will refrain from posting further in this thread as I do not think I can do so without PDMA.

Your choice. PDMA is not a good path.

 

[Narz]

This is a bit rich considering I'm still waiting for an answer from you

I answered many pages ago.

You meanwhile are just nitpicking others and offered no answers as per usual.

 

[Berzerker]

Take your time, but here's some reading:

'Garrison became famous as one of the most articulate, as well as most radical, opponents of slavery. His approach to emancipation stressed "moral suasion," non-violence, and passive resistance.'

sounds moderate, even Christ-like

Oh, cool. That means basically nothing described by any conservative as an "echo chamber" actually qualifies.

Its funny though. Leftists are constantly accused of being so ineffective because they waste their time on fighting themselves. But we're also accused of always being in echo chambers? Which is it? I can't be both in an echo chamber, and in an argument with another leftist

I dont know why you're asking me, I haven't accused leftists of either. Russiagaters exist(ed) in an echo chamber built by propagandists like MSNBC where dissent is censored, lied about, and called names. I was in that echo chamber until leftist voices outside led me to the light.

I thought QAnon was considered a cult-like echo chamber. The people who thought Zimmerman, Rittenhouse, Sandmann, OfC Wilson were guilty got their educations from echo chambers built by Trump hate. If people want to defeat the right, try telling people the truth. Its a start...

 

[Sonereal]

As I said, as one moves forward in time what is "fact" to those alive changes.

This fact did not change for the tens of millions enslaved and killed.

And it changes differently across geography. This discussion began being about the US in 1850 and democracy. There was a slow and steady upheaval, that included new "facts", in the world that began in the 16th C and continued through today.

Irrelevant.

Prior to that Most of what was "Fact" was local and regionally defined. Often the dominant power defined it with or without dispensation to other ideas. Pick your time and place.

The fact of non-Jewish personhood was well-defined in Central and Eastern Europe for a period from 1933 to 1945. Do you believe that Jews in Europe were no longer people because the regionally dominant power defined them as such? If you do, then there's really no point in bothering with this conversation.

In the US rich white men were dominant and defined the facts of democracy and humanity.

Do you believe Apartheid South Africa was a democracy?

Some of those were a growing power forging a new set of facts regarding slavery and humanity.

You keep saying "facts", but the fact of Africans being human beings actually does not change based on time period. I'm not a moral relativist on this issue.

We see our understanding of humanity as universal and therefore retroactive.

Africans, at the time, saw themselves as human. Why are you prioritizing the definitions and standards of the slavers over the enslaved?

The powerful rich white men of 1850 saw their "facts" on humanity also as correct and universal.

So?

They devised voting laws to fit their universal truth.

They devised voting laws to serve their material interests. Material conditions do not spring forth from the realm of ideas.

Democracy as you define did not exist anywhere 150 years ago.

Correct.

Railing against the atrocities of the past is kinda like saying, geez if the Donner Party had had cell phones, they wouldn't have had to eat each other. Why didn't those nasty slave owners know better? Why wasn't Genghis Khan nicer? They all should have known better!

My father was not able to move into the neighborhood I live in now until recent memory because of redlining, a policy that has been officially illegal since the 1970s but more or less in effect in this area until the last few decades. This is the result of "atrocities of the past" that, while they don't affect you obviously (no one whose family who was affected by this country's legacy of genocide and slavery would talk like you do), do resonate in my family today and in our society today. Who you choose to uphold as democratic and good, who you forgive because it was "the beliefs (of whites, because the opinion of non-whites implicitly do not matter in your telling) of the time", is the result of the material reality of these genocides and who "won" to write the history books.

It is better, in my opinion, to focus on how we can better the world today than to rail against those who are dead.

The present does not spring from nothing. History is a series of events, of cause and effects.

Edit: The only way to argue that the US was a democracy in the 19th century is by saying the opinion of the millions of enslaved Africans and displaced indigenous peoples must be weighted against the opinion of the people enslaving and killing them. There is, functionally, no other way to make the argument.