Election 2024 Part III: Out with the old!

[aelf]

In my experience, neither has much of a sense of humour.

Is that worse than having a bad sense of humour?

I thought a platform for the alt-right, including a broad swath of religious types, is to be able to make tasteless jokes without consequences.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

I thought a platform for the alt-right, including a broad swath of religious types, is to be able to make tasteless jokes without consequences.

Is that not just basic freedom of expression? Taste is a subjective thing and what I find funny you might find offensive and otherwise. And I for one do not wish to live in a world where either of us (rhetorically speaking) is given the power to be the absolute arbiter of what is and is not funny.

 

[Samson]

Is that not just basic freedom of expression? Taste is a subjective thing and what I find funny you might find offensive and otherwise. And I for one do not wish to live in a world where either of us (rhetorically speaking) is given the power to be the absolute arbiter of what is and is not funny.

There is legal consequences, which is a freedom of speech thing. There are social consequences, which is also a freedom of speech thing, but kind of the other way round.

 

[innonimatu]

What is interesting is the lack of opportunism I some times see in american politics. Like say for example if Trump was to suddenly declare he wants to join as the Democratic candidate. To americans this is unthinkable. But over here, the "democrat" equivalents would have happily worked something out to make some sort of Trump/Harris combined ticket just so that they can get the overwhelming majority of votes and win at any cost while leaving their opposition gutted without their front runner. Because at the end of the day ideology is nice but victory is better.

Just a quirk of coalition governments I suppose.

I guess I can comment on this view from outside, to say that my view from outside is that politics there is as politics elwewhere. I see no difference. American politicians often join the other band and are welcome. Dick Cheney was absolutely demonized (and deserved it) by the democrats for his role in supporting the original "stolen election" and in getting the 2003 Iraq War going, and yet his support is now happily received by those who 20 years ago depicted him as a demon on earth. So welcome that his daughter, who much the same as the father, seems to be currently the tool of another manufactured political "scandal" over her chicken-hawkism having been called out.

 

[Angst]

Quite how this translates to opposition to tackling climate change, as that will change traditional ways more than anything the liberals are doing I do not really get.

interestingly, the danish conservatives are reasonably green (within their sphere of the right wing, as capital still always takes priority for them) and push for green tech and environment-preservant politics. the paranthesis (that capital always supercedes) is relevant ofc, but among right wing parties, they are the only one who properly market themselves as a party that cares about the environment, at least

 

[Canadian Bluebeer]

I didn't name any. You replied to another poster. (Edit: Flippy)

They aren't socialist countries.

oops, yer right. my bad. brainfart. (about who I replied to I mean)
As for the socialist part, well, no they aren't but ..

Of course, the subjection of indigenous peoples, the stealing of their land, making war upon them and breaking treaties with them was perfectly legal when Europeans "legally" (according to whom?) migrated here. I mean they, Indians, were just savages. The racial hierarchy, at least in the European worldview, not really so in reality, during colonial times was as follows: civilized, barbarian and savage. I wonder who racially is at the top of that ladder? That's, European immigration to America, a good example of legal immigration, legal when it fits a certain narrative. I'd call it a slow-moving, ill-thought out genocide hiding under the mask of "settling" the land. The disturbing truth is this: many white people are absolutely resistant to sharing power with those that do not look like them. This has been true since 1492. It's a bit of a sickness and its a major factor in resistance to immigration.

Just to clarify, I am not an open borders proponent, I believe in measures to regulate immigration, just not mean spirited punitive ones.

I'm not going to get into the 'colonization' debate, cause that also gets into religious arguements, and nope, not going there.
(no, I don't like what happened, how it happened, etc.)

 

[innonimatu]

Many people are resistant to sharing power. "White" is doing nothing there but sowing division. Every polity throughout history that had surplus population and could expand, expanded. At the expense of other groups. Whatever the skin color or religion.

 

[Gorbles]

Many people are resistant to sharing power. "White" is doing nothing there but sowing division. Every polity throughout history that had surplus population and could expand, expanded. At the expense of other groups. Whatever the skin color or religion.

By that logic, so is every other similar descriptor. Weird how you don't fixate on those.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

There is legal consequences, which is a freedom of speech thing. There are social consequences, which is also a freedom of speech thing, but kind of the other way round.

On the contrary. If we allow "society" to punish people for using their rights in ways which are not illegal than we are making them de facto illegal. We are just obfuscating it through a layer of indirection.

 

[Samson]

On the contrary. If we allow "society" to punish people for using their rights in ways which are not illegal than we are making them de facto illegal. We are just obfuscating it through a layer of indirection.

That is the way of life. If you are a jerk people will say you are a jerk and not want to associate with you. Do you think we can do anything to not 'allow "society"' to do that?

 

[Gori the Grey]

If we allow "society" to punish people for using their rights

Who is the "we" that could stop "society" from doing this? And how would that "we" do so?

 

[PPQ_Purple]

Basically what matters is that we do not allow it to go to the extreme it often does where people have their lives destroyed by the public for the crime of saying the wrong thing or holding the wrong view. I am in no way advocating for enforced tolerance. But I feel a balance must be found such that all sides are equally dissatisfied with the compromise.

 

[Gorbles]

Basically what matters is that we do not allow it to go to the extreme it often does where people have their lives destroyed by the public for the crime of saying the wrong thing or holding the wrong view.

Who defines what an "extreme" is? Who defines what "destroyed" means?

 

[Gori the Grey]

Basically what matters is that we do not allow it to go to the extreme it often does where people have their lives destroyed by the public

Which parts of a population are "we," and which parts are "the public"?

 

[PPQ_Purple]

Which parts of a population are "we," and which parts are "the public"?

Its a rhetorical we. As in we the people.

Who defines what an "extreme" is? Who defines what "destroyed" means?

Honestly, I hold that this is something that is so utterly self evident that I have a hard time accepting anyone would ask such a question in good faith. And I feel that saying this fact openly and directly serves the purpose of my point much better than trying to write up any sort of legalistic definition.

 

[Gorbles]

Honestly, I hold that this is something that is so utterly self evident that I have a hard time accepting anyone would ask such a question in good faith. And I feel that saying this fact openly and directly serves the purpose of my point much better than trying to write up any sort of legalistic definition.

That doesn't answer the question. "anybody who questions my self-evident assertion is a baddie" also does not inspire good faith.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Its a rhetorical we. As in we the people.

So the people should stop the public from doing something? How?

 

[danjuno]

I don't normally care for appeals to nature, but humans, as social animals, using social pressure doesn't really seem all that out there.

 

[Samson]

Basically what matters is that we do not allow it to go to the extreme it often does where people have their lives destroyed by the public for the crime of saying the wrong thing or holding the wrong view. I am in no way advocating for enforced tolerance. But I feel a balance must be found such that all sides are equally dissatisfied with the compromise.

In this day and age everyone has the option of anonymity to ensure that saying the wrong thing does not have lasting consequences.

It used to be that all speech was ephemeral, and mostly forgotten in the morning. Then the internet came along, made all speech last for ever, and some people have not changed quickly enough. I think kids should learn how to use tor in school.

BTW there is actually a science answer to how to deal with this problem, but it is paywalled.

Spoiler Abstract :

Reputations are critical to human societies, as individuals are treated differently based on their social standing. For instance, those who garner a good reputation by helping others are more likely to be rewarded by third parties. Achieving widespread cooperation in this way requires that reputations accurately reflect behaviour and that individuals agree about each other’s standings. With few exceptions, theoretical work has assumed that information is limited, which hinders consensus unless there are mechanisms to enforce agreement, such as empathy, gossip or public institutions. Such mechanisms face challenges in a world where empathy, effective communication and institutional trust are compromised. However, information about others is now abundant and readily available, particularly through social media. Here we demonstrate that assigning private reputations by aggregating several observations of an individual can accurately capture behaviour, foster emergent agreement without enforcement mechanisms and maintain cooperation, provided individuals exhibit some tolerance for bad actions. This finding holds for both first- and second-order norms of judgement and is robust even when norms vary within a population. When the aggregation rule itself can evolve, selection indeed favours the use of several observations and tolerant judgements. Nonetheless, even when information is freely accessible, individuals do not typically evolve to use all of it. This method of assessing reputations—‘look twice, forgive once’, in a nutshell—is simple enough to have arisen early in human culture and powerful enough to persist as a fundamental component of social heuristics.

 

[GenMarshall]

But will he make the sun go supernova ?

If he could, and it would own the libs, he would.