Election 2024 Part III: Out with the old!

[Strong Reaction]

lawls, this is the behavior I'm talking about, you've literally convinced yourself it's okay because our history is similar (that's not universal btw)

I think you missed the point. I never said it, might makes right axiom or insanity of man, was OK merely pointing out its prevalence and existence.

 

[Angst]

I think you missed the point. I never said it, might makes right axiom or insanity of man, was OK merely pointing out its prevalence and existence.

i don't know much about the exchange here, so please don't read this as me sniping in from the side;

i think it's incredibly strange to paint a sort of pan-civilizational dualism, and i also think it's strange to attribute one part of it to madness or even dysfunction per se. the translation from holistic hinduism to the dualistic morality of the abrahamics takes a lot of reinterpretation to fit at all on a level of foundationals (ie it reads as misappropriation along the translation); and the implication of madness here is a strange one (and i say that as someone who just colloquially (and imo correctly) called out madness ("insane") on behalf of vance earlier in this thread).

like, don't get me wrong. your thread of thought is somewhat compelling, it aligns a lot with my rants about the birth of agriculture in some senses, but it's all somewhat unstructured to me. is there anything you've been reading and is rephrasing like this so i can look it over, or is it, like, your own shower thoughts?

not meaning to be rude either, i'm honestly just puzzled and want to know what's up. so, would love a share.

 

[Kyriakos]

The phrasing "we let nation states behave in said manner because might makes right" is itself on the apologetic side, due to use of the term "let". Certainly next to no one is able to allow or disallow states to act in the way they do, but if we actually were communally allowing them (supposedly due to seeing something of our own destructive tendencies and power-plays in that), it would follow that the states themselves are automata and without blame, if not actual avatars of a communal "madness". In both cases, it's like claiming that you stole the candy not because you liked sweets more than you are wary of being shamed, but due to humanity itself unconsciously forcing you to through undiscovered fundamental law.
This is (imo) more reminiscent of a theory of a child (which can be intricate, if the child is intelligent), than a deep insight about society. So I am not tempted to read Tolle's book the excerpt influencing you comes from. I do suspect, however, that your own phrase is indeed compatible with that book, ie that you didn't misinterpret him.

 

[Strong Reaction]

This is (imo) more reminiscent of a theory of a child (which can be intricate, if the child is intelligent), than a deep insight about society. So I am not tempted to read

Wow, ouch! Thats really dismissive. But I lolled. Whats the saying, contempt prior to investigation. I sounds like that may be at play. For sure Tolle is literally not for everyone, I think for many it just does not strike a cord in fact his views miss completely with many. Thats fine though.

 

[Kyriakos]

Wow, ouch! Thats really dismissive. But I lolled. Whats the saying, contempt prior to investigation. I sounds like that may be at play. For sure Tolle is literally not for everyone, I think for many it just does not strike a cord in fact his views miss completely with many. Thats fine though.

I wasn't meaning it as a comment against you, though Just an 'imo' against the book excerpt!

 

[Akka]

We can reframe it as how the opposite forces of competition and cooperation shaped the human psyche.
Cooperation with your fellow increases your chance of surviving and reproducing (that's the entire social animal aspect).
But competition with them allows you to get a better social position and reproducing (that's the whole intrasocial struggle).
Because after all, in the evolutionary long term, the only "success" is about transmitting your gene to the next generation.

It's not insanity, it's just equilibrium.

 

[Kyriakos]

That's simplistic, though. People can (and do) find themselves in all sorts of gray areas. For example, cooperation frequently devolves to enthrallment, and competition can turn to domination.

 

[Strong Reaction]

i don't know much about the exchange here, so please don't read this as me sniping in from the side;

i think it's incredibly strange to paint a sort of pan-civilizational dualism, and i also think it's strange to attribute one part of it to madness or even dysfunction per se. the translation from holistic hinduism to the dualistic morality of the abrahamics takes a lot of reinterpretation to fit at all on a level of foundationals (ie it reads as misappropriation along the translation); and the implication of madness here is a strange one (and i say that as someone who just colloquially (and imo correctly) called out madness ("insane") on behalf of vance earlier in this thread).

like, don't get me wrong. your thread of thought is somewhat compelling, it aligns a lot with my rants about the birth of agriculture in some senses, but it's all somewhat unstructured to me. is there anything you've been reading and is rephrasing like this so i can look it over, or is it, like, your own shower thoughts?

not meaning to be rude either, i'm honestly just puzzled and want to know what's up. so, would love a share.

First, its entirely possible I missed an important part of the original argument. I jumped into the the thread when Estebonrober said "

Humans literally created social structures to stop those very same kinds of abuses, I'm not allowed to go to my neighbor's house and tell him he has to sell me his computer or I'm going to burn his house down, so why do we let nation states behave in this manner?

I took it to mean he was bemoaning the fact that humans, are generally vicious to each other. I used Tolle's example of the history of mankind and his assertion that it is largely a history of madness In an attempt to explain the general dysfunctional nature of man and man-made entities dysfunctional nation states. I think I misunderstood his point and Tolles example was probably not a good example or applicable. Estebonrober main assertion seems to be: why do we let nation states behave in this manner? i.e. use violence as a vehicle to attain a goal.

Might makes right: used to say that people who have power are able to do what they want because no one can stop them (websters dictionary). My overarching point is that violence/might is what is used to enforce laws. The very same laws that protect people from unscrupulous neighbors demand an application of violence if the laws are not heeded. If I don't comply with the law, society will use violence to make me comply. Detainment, imprisonment, and force are all forms of violence. To the extent that force can be applied is the extent that laws are effective. If a society cannot apply the necessary force to make the public comply with a law then the law is essentially meaningless.

If you extend that same principle to nation states the same rules would apply. For instance,

The United Nations General Assembly on Wednesday voted overwhelmingly to adopt a resolution that demands that Israel “brings to an end without delay its unlawful presence” in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
Is Israel going to comply? No! Why because who is going to apply the necessarry violence to make them comply? The Palestinians? The U.N. will certainly not. Nation states act in any manner they see fit when force/might cannot be applied to make them to adhere to a code or standard. Is the same principle not applicable to the general public or in the example that Estebonrober used?

I regret using Tolle's text while think it explains mankinds dysfunction it is not really relevant to the main point.

 

[Voidwalkin]

Humans literally created social structures to stop those very same kinds of abuses, I'm not allowed to go to my neighbor's house and tell him he has to sell me his computer or I'm going to burn his house down, so why do we let nation states behave in this manner?

(fwiw I've thought of this too, others have as well, that very fact should indicate our rationality leads us to better behavior than this garbage)

No larger body of greater power exists to regulate the behavior of states credibly. Law of the jungle consequently re-emerges.

Sometimes one state is of sufficiently greater power than two others and is able to perform that role. The big boys, though, no, there is no organization capable of it.

We've not yet created a social structure of that overwhelming scale. Nor do we seem close to it. The attempts are toothless and suffer from a lack of buy in.

As for competition like the hypothetical of you vs your neighbor, yeah, we did set up a social structure that prohibits those kind of direct plays. In practice though, I'm not sure how much different sending your kid to a fancy college is. It's an attempt to establish greater access to resources, which, in a limited resource environment, is itself competitive. It also carries a weighty opportunity cost in that you've spent what probably amounts to a fairly high % of your resources on something meant to benefit kin, ignoring the opportunity cost of using those same resources towards altruism which would be of far greater benefit to a far greater number of people.

We do cooperate, of course, within a framework that actually still supports really extensive competition with disastrous consequences both socially and environmentally(2nd larger in importance as time goes on). It's who we are.

TBH I'm not sure the moral consensus against violent plays on the individual level came first. Some elite benefits from the labor of the loser and is therefore incentivized to prohibit that sorta direct move. I think that may have actually been the real reason for its existence, with religious frameworks later arising to justify it, but on this point, I'm not particularly sure.

Should automation really boom though, and labor less valuable(reducing elite incentive to keep everybody alive), I'm unsure it won't change again. Peter Thiel and now Vance seem pretty adjacent to some bizarre and disturbing philosophers that support some weird capital-feudalism.

 

[Joij21]

As in capitalism is a type of legal status of property.

What type of legal status do you mean?

@Joij21

Well my history books teach me that the US civil war was about states rights and the power of the federal government... or that the Korean War (still ongoing btw) was because of Soviet incursions at the time.... Our textbooks are full of propaganda or just plain stupidity.,,

I think you are aware of all this, so yea, your education system failed you.

Care to enlighten me so I don't forever wallow in ignorance?

 

[Yeekim]

If you ask me, I will of course tell you that ideally the US should go communist and make all those basics public goods, to be managed by the state or states, somehow to be chosen) and apportioned more or less equally to the population in need.

That explains so much.

 

[Takhisis]

That explains so much.

Eh, since innonimatu goes out of his way to support explicit anti-communists we can say that he's more of an anti-liberal than anything else.

 

[Estebonrober]

I think you missed the point. I never said it, might makes right axiom or insanity of man, was OK merely pointing out its prevalence and existence.

I understood, the point, I think we are talking past each other a bit, I'm not attacking your personal view in my reply, but the prevalence to excuse current insanity with previous insanity in society writ large. Humans be better than this personally, regionally, even nationally... but the moment that distance is jsut far enough... no more concern for basic compassion...

 

[Broken_Erika]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1856035739537961251

Seems familiar.....

 

[Sommerswerd]

Don't worry, their mighty manly man is gonna put quite a dent in that demographic if his campaign promises were remotely accurate.

I just saw a video discussing how AOC got a bunch of votes from MAGA voters. They split their ticket, ie., voted for Trump, but also for AOC. She apparently put the question out to those voters as to why and the responses seemed to be mostly that they saw her and Trump both as populist, Washington "outsiders".

EDIT: Thinking about it... Does that mean AOC is going to win if she runs next cycle/2028? @Hygro, any thoughts?

 

[Lexicus]

If her credibility as an "outsider" is somehow still intact after basically selling her soul to the Party establishment over the past year or so then maybe she can be the standard-bearer? Idk

 

[Voidwalkin]

Dude's hair is disturbing.

 

[amadeus]

If her credibility as an "outsider" is somehow still intact after basically selling her soul to the Party establishment over the past year or so then maybe she can be the standard-bearer? Idk

I haven’t followed—what did she do that ruffled your feathers?

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

I haven’t followed—what did she do that ruffled your feathers?

AOC on her way to the border now that fences are bad again

 

[choxorn]

I haven’t followed—what did she do that ruffled your feathers?

Mainly make lots of excuses for the Biden admin and broader Democratic establishment supporting Israel pretty much unconditionally while they do genocide