U.S. Politics

[limpid]

58 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

It wasn't a real insurrection. It was a bunch the the lunatic mob incited by Trumps lies to essentially riot. 

Attempting to stop the peaceful transfer of power would be a standard example for any definition of insurrection.

What's your definition?

[bickster]

47 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

Trans in womens sports

Not sure that has anything to do with left and right. The right are against it but I can find you many many left wing (some extreme) who are absolutely against it

 

49 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

Coordinated cancel culture

Yeah the right wing never ban anyone from speaking or receiving funding, hell there's even a new definition from the UK government on extremism only this week. This line is only peddled by disingenuous hypocritical politicians

 

53 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

The driving of identity politics.

So people shouldn't identify as anything and organise on that basis? Black people shouldn't be allowed to organise protests about racism for example, what on earth do you imagine you're talking about? Also women have been organising and campaigning around sexism for a considerable time. This also isn't exclusively left wing, its just another right wing meaningless line, its bollocks

[sne]

Interesting choice of words.

 

[Genie]

5 minutes ago, sne said:

Interesting choice of words.

 

It’s madness, and more worryingly is the amount of people that buy it. 

We have nutters here but they just don’t get more than a bit or marginal support.

[bickster]

12 minutes ago, sne said:

Interesting choice of words

A reaction to dropping in the polls, ramp up the threat and the rhetoric 

[villa89]

A bloodbath after trump loses might be the only thing that gets USA to change it's nonsensical gun laws. 

[LondonLax]

1 hour ago, sne said:

Interesting choice of words.

 

He knows what he’s doing. 

[Captain_Townsend]

6 hours ago, CVByrne said:

Left and Right both gone insane it appears when compared to "traditional" ie 1990/2000s. 

I still do wonder how much of that is really true though. It's certainly true for the loudest and on social media.

I think there are still lots of sensible people still who are silent. Liberal democracy means tolerance for others views however much you disagree with them. 

I do agree CV Byrne. It just seems to me that the people who, 20 years ago, would have been in the corner of thr pub being ignored, are now out there getting thousands of likes and I am not sure it is good for democracy. 

Democracy seems to work best when at the very least 75-80% of people agree on the basic facts. Now people consume partisan media more than ever so there isn't even agreement on the objective main issues let alone how to tackle them with different policies

[bickster]

11 minutes ago, Captain_Townsend said:

I do agree CV Byrne. It just seems to me that the people who, 20 years ago, would have been in the corner of thr pub being ignored, are now out there getting thousands of likes and I am not sure it is good for democracy. 

Democracy seems to work best when at the very least 75-80% of people agree on the basic facts. Now people consume partisan media more than ever so there isn't even agreement on the objective main issues let alone how to tackle them with different policies

75-80% of the people have never agreed with anything in a western liberal democracy.

[Marka Ragnos]

Priest at my local RC church today said, from the pulpit, that this election year was "a battle of good against evil." He's Republican. No question what he meant. It's absolutely despicable behaviour from him. I know many of you aren't believers and may see this as just more amusing proof that America's crackpots are in charge, but this kind of rhetoric is downright dangerous and it will resonate in my community and cause anxiety among vulnerable people. It's also, for my area, new. It's just not something local mainline clerics say. It's not illegal, but it's unethical, for sure, and I plan to complain. I doubt it will make any difference.  It's really **** up. You see what's on the news, etc., and that tends to be exaggerated, but here you go -- a depressing report from a small town in America that's normally very middle-of-the-road politically. The fascists are afoot.

 

Edited March 17 by Marka Ragnos

[bickster]

9 minutes ago, Marka Ragnos said:

Priest at my local RC church today said, from the pulpit, that this election year was "a battle of good against evil." He's Republican. No question what he meant. It's absolutely despicable behaviour from him. I know many of you aren't believers and may see this as just more amusing proof that America's crackpots are in charge, but this kind of rhetoric is downright dangerous and it will resonate in my community and cause anxiety among vulnerable people. It's also, for my area, new. It's just not something local mainline clerics say. It's not illegal, but it's unethical, for sure, and I plan to complain. I doubt it will make any difference.  It's really **** up. You see what's on the news, etc., and that tends to be exaggerated, but here you go -- a depressing report from a small town in America that's normally very middle-of-the-road politically. The fascists are afoot.

 

Religion being used for its intended purpose.

[Marka Ragnos]

17 minutes ago, bickster said:

Religion being used for its intended purpose.

I don't know. Any ideology where In-Groups and Out-Groups are set up can be used to foment political violence, theft, sexual assault, ad nauseam, can't it? I can tell you that this particular manifestation of it in my community in this context is aberrant. There are plenty of peace churches (esp. those from English dissenters) in these parts, too. You don't hear this shit in those spaces, or at least, I haven't heard of it.

Quote

In sociology and social psychology, an in-group is a social group to which a person psychologically identifies as being a member. By contrast, an out-group is a social group with which an individual does not identify. People may for example identify with their peer group, family, community, sports team, political party, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or nation. It has been found that the psychological membership of social groups and categories is associated with a wide variety of phenomena.

 

Edited March 17 by Marka Ragnos

[bickster]

14 minutes ago, Marka Ragnos said:

I don't know. Any ideology where In-Groups and Out-Groups are set up can be used to foment political violence, theft, sexual assault, ad nauseam, can't it? I can tell you that this particular manifestation of it in my community in this context is aberrant. There are plenty of peace churches (esp. those from English dissenters) in these parts, too. You don't hear this shit in those spaces, or at least, I haven't heard of it.

You belong to a church that agrees with the Trump / GOP stance on Roe vs Wade

[Marka Ragnos]

29 minutes ago, bickster said:

You belong to a church that agrees with the Trump / GOP stance on Roe vs Wade

Mostly, yes, but it's a bit more complicated than that, too, Bickster. I think this goes beyond a mere Religion is Bad problem. Lots of Catholics don't agree with church doctrine and don't insert the latest Vatican bull into their brains like some new software operation system code. My larger point is that a prominent cleric in small American town is telling parishioners to see a highly disputed  upcoming election through a prism that suggests the olitical opposition is "evil." This may not be hate speech, but it's kissing cousins to it. Priests here normally keep elections out of their mouths. But my views are quite distorted, too, I'm sure, so I don't know if I can be objective. I don't know. I think it's worrying. 

Edited March 17 by Marka Ragnos

[bickster]

17 hours ago, Marka Ragnos said:

Lots of Catholics don't agree with church doctrine

Nah sorry can’t buy that. You still go, you're still part of the church, if you are only selecting the bits you agree with, why bother? I presume the church is no difference in the US to here, there’s still a collection plate each service, do you stipulate when that money gets spent?
Anyway, this is for the religion thread

[Marka Ragnos]

2 hours ago, bickster said:

Nah sorry can’t buy that. You still go, your still part of the church, if your only selecting the bits you agree with, why bother. I presume the church is no difference in the US to here, there’s still a collection plate each service, do you stipulate when that money gets spent?
Anyway, this is for the religion thread

I hear you. Unfortunately, it's for both threads. That's my chilling point. I wish it were only in the religion thread. 

[Genie]

Reminds me of a Christening I went to years ago and the vicar made a pro vote leave comment. Word removed.

[CVByrne]

14 hours ago, Captain_Townsend said:

I do agree CV Byrne. It just seems to me that the people who, 20 years ago, would have been in the corner of thr pub being ignored, are now out there getting thousands of likes and I am not sure it is good for democracy. 

Democracy seems to work best when at the very least 75-80% of people agree on the basic facts. Now people consume partisan media more than ever so there isn't even agreement on the objective main issues let alone how to tackle them with different policies

I think the source of information changing is the key issue. Where and from whom people get their news. It started in the US when they were allowed create partizan news channels in the 80s. Stopped the laws requiring TV networks to show impartial news. From there it's just spiraled with the internet and particularly social media where people get fed "news" which keeps them engaged on a platform. Also negative emotions keep people more engaged than positive, so "news" which people are outraged by is what to feed people. I think we are seeing the consequences of that in our society.

I do think more people are realising this effect now, there is a rise of people being more aware information you are fed is via other people and they will add their spin or their views to the information, or sometimes completely misrepresent something. Now AI will be able to create legit fake video footage means people will be foreced to disbelieve more and more.

Edited March 18 by CVByrne

[CVByrne]

 

20 hours ago, bickster said:

Yeah the right wing never ban anyone from speaking or receiving funding, hell there's even a new definition from the UK government on extremism only this week. This line is only peddled by disingenuous hypocritical politicians

Co-ordinated attackes online and cancel culture is as bad (or worse) on the left than it is on the right. If people hold views your tribe doesn't like go all out attack on those people. (take JK Rowling for example) 

20 hours ago, bickster said:

So people shouldn't identify as anything and organise on that basis? Black people shouldn't be allowed to organise protests about racism for example, what on earth do you imagine you're talking about? Also women have been organising and campaigning around sexism for a considerable time. This also isn't exclusively left wing, its just another right wing meaningless line, its bollocks

Identity politics is to group all people into categories based on a few identifiable traits, race, sexuality etc. To make this the primary focus of pursuing aims. This is a divisive ideology where everything can be reduced to your group. You start by stating your group before making your point as points made from people outside the group are invalid. "I as a xxx, xxx, xxx think etc.."

Once things have been reduced to identity group then the we can move to things like hiring based on this group (take Hollywood have rules for 50% of all hires and people from "underepresented groups") this is hiring based on identity. Redistribution of wealth based on your group, like "reparations" yes of course that was next, give this group money from taxpayer based on identity. 

The majority of the issues are socio-economic issues, which are tagged as down to race particularly in the US. When we see the same evidence in countries like Ireland where 99% of population are same race/religion until recent years. 

What starts out as noble aims, ends up in the extreme. Like the recent Antisemitism not being racist (Jews are rich and white in US). 

All of this is at odds with liberal democracy. You need to be tolerant of others views if you don't agree with them. Those on the extreme left do not share this concept. It's tribalism on both extremes now, left and right. 

 

 

[bickster]

3 hours ago, CVByrne said:

Co-ordinated attackes online and cancel culture is as bad (or worse) on the left than it is on the right. If people hold views your tribe doesn't like go all out attack on those people. (take JK Rowling for example) 

Nonsense, this is just your perception. You have no basis for this claim. If this is true what is your solution? It will obviously need to be a solution that doesn't interfere with free speech in a liberal democracy. I'd be really curious to see which knots you tie yourself in figuring out this conundrum

3 hours ago, CVByrne said:

All of this is at odds with liberal democracy. You need to be tolerant of others views if you don't agree with them. Those on the extreme left do not share this concept. It's tribalism on both extremes now, left and right. 

Actually, you need to be tolerant and accepting of others, whether that be their views or their characteristics. Those on the extreme right are equally or even more intolerant of others, you know how fascism works I presume? 

What you're actually saying is that black people shouldn't be allowed to organise as black people to raise issues of race discrimination. If that didn't happen. nothing would change. Same with women's issues, gay rights etc.

Ironic that your post comes across as full of right wing talking points but no actual solutions to your perceived problems. What would be your solutions that would be acceptable in a liberal democracy?