| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Skatealex1
* Dog in the Sand *
1670 Posts |
 Posted - 09/09/2020 : 08:50:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jason Bravo
Oh man, I'm tired, I got to get off this Antifa board.
Attacks like that fall flat on its face. I don't like Antifa at all.
The weird thing about Trump Republicans is that everything is a bombastic attack on whoever dislikes Trump. IE Trump calling Joe Biden a socialist or radical is laughable at best. Biden is pretty milk toast and could probably fit alongside more 'moderate' Republicans from the past if anything. |
Edited by - Skatealex1 on 09/09/2020 12:20:01 |
 |
|
|
Discoking
* Dog in the Sand *
Belgium
1120 Posts |
Posted - 09/09/2020 : 09:27:33
|
drain the swamp
 it's educational |
|
|
|
Jason Bravo
- FB Fan -
USA
90 Posts |
Posted - 09/09/2020 : 20:50:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by Discoking
drain the swamp
it's educational
Thank you, thank you! Joe Biden, hmmm. I'll just leave it at that, and that's good for him. |
|
|
|
Discoking
* Dog in the Sand *
Belgium
1120 Posts |
Posted - 09/10/2020 : 13:07:43
|
very good point, once again.
it's educational |
|
|
|
Jason Bravo
- FB Fan -
USA
90 Posts |
Posted - 09/10/2020 : 16:33:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by pot
quote:
Originally posted by Jason Bravo
Again, I am gong to agree with you on your statements here Pot. I don't want to reply with a bunch of shit, but I just want to ask what person in power has not been a so called "racisit", or misogynist, or anything else that the media can conjure up? I mean, come on man, do people really thing that Obama or the Clinton's aren't racist? The word racist is a strong word, and should not be passed around like a board game. Trump was a DEMOCRAT for crying out loud forever, nobody had anything to say about him until he became President. He ran on the Republican ticket on purpose, he had no choice because of the abuse that the DC Beltway created for generations. It's gross and disgusting what has been done under the carpet. Again, all I hear is hate for no apparent reason, no facts. You can call anybody names, but for the most part it does not stick. Facts are facts and they do not play to the emotional. You can say that you don't like the way he speaks (for whatever reason or reasons), but the point remains that he does not back down, he's a baller, a boss and people don't like that. They want hand holding and PC, and that is all bullshit.
Lots of people had plenty to say about Trump before he can president. My beef with him is mainly with the Golf course in Aberdeenshire, and the Mexican wall which is going to destroy natural habitats. The guy's a fraud, he's been bankrupt several times and is only currently being propped up by the banks now because (through appealing to masses of rednecks through his racist, mysoginist and provocative language) he became the popular candidate to beat the democrats. He's an idiot, and a hypocrite and he wants to develop more property in Scotland. He can fuck off. His whore of a wife and his trophy daughter can fuck off, and his three American Psycho-esque sons can fuck off. He can fuck off out of Scotland, and butt out of our politics while he's at it.
I also don't like Obama or the Clintons. Obama is also a fraud, and the fakest virtue signaller ever to walk into the white house. He's even worse than the Clintons.
I put it back to you to name me one good thing Trump has done while in power, and I don't mean something like "he spoke his mind" or "he stuck to his guns". Sell me Trump. Good luck with that 
Pot, let's just leave it at this. I think you are informed, more than other's that I have been around and I respect that. You're entitled to you opinion(s), and I also respect that. But, there is just one thing that I have an issue with and that is that you do not live in the US. Your feelings are not on the "ground" so to speak. That's the easiest way I can put it I suppose. I wish you well, not bad, and I personally have a fear of Socialism/Communism coming to my country, the one I grew up in. I was born in England (North Hampton) because my Father was stationed there via the Air Force. I was a baby when my Mother and I came back to the states. I still have my birth certificate from England in my possession, and until recently because of that I had dual citizenship, but as I understand that does not apply anymore. I don't even have my American birth certificate, just a SS card/number. Somewhere along the lines I lost it, and now I have to pay (of course) to get another one. My immediate family has ties to England for what its worth. Anyway, not to put it on you, but the couple of questions that I posted in some earlier posts never were answered, and I'm ok with that at this point. Let's go ahead and let this thread die! |
|
|
|
pot
> Teenager of the Year <
Iceland
3910 Posts |
Posted - 09/10/2020 : 23:03:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jason Bravo But, there is just one thing that I have an issue with and that is that you do not live in the US.
Sure, a bit like me having an issue with Menwith Hill then because it's a military air base for personnel who don't live in the UK?
I'm sure the whole world could care less about American politics, when the US government finally realises the running of every other country in the world is none of their damn business and its high time they butted out and sent their armies of knuckle daggers home.
You don't have to live in America to get American politics shoved up your ass throughout your entire life. |
Edited by - pot on 09/10/2020 23:48:56 |
|
|
|
Jason Bravo
- FB Fan -
USA
90 Posts |
Posted - 09/11/2020 : 15:56:28
|
| OK |
|
|
|
tamefan
- FB Fan -
Canada
239 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2020 : 15:10:20
|
Modern politics poisons everything and this thread is proof.  |
|
|
|
pot
> Teenager of the Year <
Iceland
3910 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2020 : 13:40:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by tamefan
Modern politics poisons everything and this thread is proof.
Please share with us your positive vision for the world? |
|
|
|
two reelers
* Dog in the Sand *
Austria
1036 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2020 : 12:23:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jason Bravo
China is the largest threat, there is no doubt, and it has been the plan of the Cabal for decades now. They have infiltrated our universities without speaking the language for Christ sake!
Coming back to reality:
- How many countries has China invaded in comparison to the US?
- How many hidden and visible international terrorist attacks has China conducted in comparison to the US?
- How many regime changes (of democratically elected governments) has China done in comparison to the US?
If you critically think for just 5 minutes, you will figure out that the greatest threat to mankind is the US (if we understand the US as a nation led by a few cooperate elite persons), and in particular their spokesperson in form of the GOP. The non-existent China threat (same as the Iran threat) is just one example on how easily the US population can be made to accept that 2+2=5.
Please, wake up from your bubble. The misinformation of the US population through its mass-media and education system has a purpose, which is to brainwash you with the idea that the US are an "exceptional" nation, that they lead the "free world", and that all they do is good. Quite the opposite is true in every respect. The idea of US democracy has been hijacked after WW2 to erect an oligarchy of self-enrichers, on cost of its citizens and by now on costs on the entire world. Turbo-chargers in that process were Reagan and now the Trump administration.
Oh, and I live in the US as well.
I joined the cult of Souled American / 'cause they are a damn' fine band |
|
|
|
Bedbug
> Teenager of the Year <
3148 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2020 : 14:03:36
|
The U.S. has the Liberty Bell and Disney on both coasts. It's pretty happening.
My uncle was born in America. But he was one of the lucky ones. He managed to escape by balloon during the Jimmy Carter presidency.
(Sorry, just getting some Nick Rivers quotes out there). |
|
|
|
Jason Bravo
- FB Fan -
USA
90 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2020 : 19:08:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by two reelers
quote:
Originally posted by Jason Bravo
China is the largest threat, there is no doubt, and it has been the plan of the Cabal for decades now. They have infiltrated our universities without speaking the language for Christ sake!
Coming back to reality:
- How many countries has China invaded in comparison to the US?
- How many hidden and visible international terrorist attacks has China conducted in comparison to the US?
- How many regime changes (of democratically elected governments) has China done in comparison to the US?
If you critically think for just 5 minutes, you will figure out that the greatest threat to mankind is the US (if we understand the US as a nation led by a few cooperate elite persons), and in particular their spokesperson in form of the GOP. The non-existent China threat (same as the Iran threat) is just one example on how easily the US population can be made to accept that 2+2=5.
Please, wake up from your bubble. The misinformation of the US population through its mass-media and education system has a purpose, which is to brainwash you with the idea that the US are an "exceptional" nation, that they lead the "free world", and that all they do is good. Quite the opposite is true in every respect. The idea of US democracy has been hijacked after WW2 to erect an oligarchy of self-enrichers, on cost of its citizens and by now on costs on the entire world. Turbo-chargers in that process were Reagan and now the Trump administration.
Oh, and I live in the US as well.
I joined the cult of Souled American / 'cause they are a damn' fine band
Very ignorant bullet points. The modern world is not battled on the ground anymore you idiot. "Invasions" as you put it were put on by the Clinton and Obama administrations and others. They have the most blood on their hands currently. If you think for a minute that the rest of the world does not rely on the US when bad things arise or start happening, well I just can't grip what you are trying to imply because that's the simple truth. If America did nothing ever again to help other nations, what would the reaction then be? It would be negative to say the least. Get a grip and quit paying attention to Buzzfeed and the rest. Trump is getting the US out of the Middle East and other foreign nations because it has been such a waste of time, resources, money and corruption. Specifically, if you did any real research, Obama was the plant to destroy a lot of things including this country. He bombed like crazy in the Middle East killing women and children, that's fact. I could go on, but it's just not worth it because too many people are afraid to look past PC and personalities, and really that's on the low end of the scale. |
|
|
|
Skatealex1
* Dog in the Sand *
1670 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2020 : 23:11:09
|
It's amazing how Trump supporters repeat the same talking points. You guys worship him like Jim Jones cult followers and their kool aid. Trump is a raging narcissist. This is obvious to most people.
Drone strikes by the way are worse under Trump! https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-ends-us-report-on-civilian-deaths-in-drone-strikes
Not my opinion. That is reality. Also the Pc charge is disingenuous. Just cause Trump acts like an asshole bully doesn't make him some hero of free speech lol. He's the lunatic that daily repeatedly shouts how all news is fake anytime a report calls out his lies. The type of stuff you see from fascist dictators and paranoid narcissists. |
Edited by - Skatealex1 on 10/06/2020 23:12:33 |
|
|
|
Joey Joe Jo Jr. Chabadoo
* Dog in the Sand *
1079 Posts |
Posted - 10/07/2020 : 12:38:50
|
Pixies members (especially one) talking about "politics"... then forum members... Gosh. How pointless. That's just what FB/Pixies music was not all about...
Dont you rile them, oldballs?
++++ |
|
|
|
pot
> Teenager of the Year <
Iceland
3910 Posts |
Posted - 10/07/2020 : 13:01:01
|
| Nowt much else to talk about this year other than how crap everything is.. |
|
|
|
tamefan
- FB Fan -
Canada
239 Posts |
Posted - 10/07/2020 : 13:31:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by pot
quote:
Originally posted by tamefan
Modern politics poisons everything and this thread is proof.
Please share with us your positive vision for the world?
I do not have a comprehensive vision and I would never endorse any one ideology. Politics is about reconciling many competing moral concerns:
Policy-making is a separate subject that deals with crafting solutions to problems (using the government). Policy is a practice, like engineering or law. Politics is a messy blend of performance art, inter-group rivalry and competition, non-violent conflict, group psychology, clientelism, bargaining, propaganda, moral philosophy, and rhetorical language games. It's just a lot of stuff.
And it all boils down to these different moral foundations that tend to cluster together. Whatever moral concerns we personally prioritize will influence how we understand what matters and what doesn't matter; this, in turn, will influence which facts about the world we will give salience to. In a relatively moderate political environment, there will be disagreement on the relative weight to give different facts, but the set of facts themselves will be agreed upon. In our highly polarized environment, however, there is not even agreement on the set of basic facts.
If you want a crude portrait of my modern political takes, I think that: the EU is German hegemony by other means (it maps onto the Kaiser's post-WW1 plan for Europe); the universal franchise empowers predatory elites to enter into a perverse bargain with a permanent underclass to pick the pockets of a struggling middle; young people are being deliberately infantilized and radicalized by a cohort of educators who themselves repudiate the essential values of Western civilization; a new therapeutic language is being pushed in order to collapse the distinction between subjective and objective reality and in order to undermine the sacredness of free speech as a value by suggesting that speech can be harmful and therefore should be censored; this therapeutic mindset is a result of our culture's decadence (moral decline due to affluence, peacefulness, and tolerance of maladaptive beliefs and behaviors) and it is a political strategy employed by bureaucrats who need a way of governing a populace that otherwise lacks any shared coherent understanding of virtue; all that remains in Anglo societies is the priority of harmlessness and non-judgmentalism (these are, in my view, both terrible things). Protection from harm is the alibi of tyrants, as Camus observed, and as the response to Covid-19 illustrates. Our elites have contempt for ordinary people and ordinary people are so weak and averse to risk-taking that they themselves fear freedom and willingly vote for their own slavery.
This was meant to be a list of takes, but it veered off track into a miniature rant about our cultural problems. Anyway, I stand by my original complaint that politics is poisonous. It increasingly poisons every aspect of our lives because we are living in the late stages of cultural decline. Culture is like a liquid that seeps into every little crack. Because politics is currently so tightly wed to culture, it too will enter into everything. In principle, politics is separable from culture; unfortunately, our current elites are monomaniacs who have slotted their politics into a religion-sized hole. What results from the reintroduction of religious-like moral absolutism into politics (something that characterized Europe for many centuries; Wars of Religion) is a new intolerance. As we all know, puritans are meddlesome busybodies who seek to convert and control all wrongthinkers -- hence, the transformation of our culture by politics. In light of these circumstances, anyone who can find ways, however small, to protect the purity of those things that matter most to them from the baleful influence of politics would be well advised to do so. For me, one of those things is my love of music.
That's my positive political vision. Find whatever sources of joy and hope and beauty and awe and sublimity that you can and appreciate them, be grateful, and do whatever is within your power to protect them from being vulgarized like everything else. |
Edited by - tamefan on 10/07/2020 13:56:22 |
|
|
|
QuaBear
- FB Fan -
USA
66 Posts |
Posted - 10/07/2020 : 14:00:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by two reelers
quote:
Originally posted by Jason Bravo
China is the largest threat, there is no doubt, and it has been the plan of the Cabal for decades now. They have infiltrated our universities without speaking the language for Christ sake!
Coming back to reality:
- How many countries has China invaded in comparison to the US?
- How many hidden and visible international terrorist attacks has China conducted in comparison to the US?
- How many regime changes (of democratically elected governments) has China done in comparison to the US?
If you critically think for just 5 minutes, you will figure out that the greatest threat to mankind is the US (if we understand the US as a nation led by a few cooperate elite persons), and in particular their spokesperson in form of the GOP. The non-existent China threat (same as the Iran threat) is just one example on how easily the US population can be made to accept that 2+2=5.
Please, wake up from your bubble. The misinformation of the US population through its mass-media and education system has a purpose, which is to brainwash you with the idea that the US are an "exceptional" nation, that they lead the "free world", and that all they do is good. Quite the opposite is true in every respect. The idea of US democracy has been hijacked after WW2 to erect an oligarchy of self-enrichers, on cost of its citizens and by now on costs on the entire world. Turbo-chargers in that process were Reagan and now the Trump administration.
Oh, and I live in the US as well.
I joined the cult of Souled American / 'cause they are a damn' fine band
I completely agree with you tworeelers....Neo-liberalism, or laissez faire, or libertarianism has hijacked our populace since Reagan. It certainly started in the post world war 2 era with Hayek and all of those economists.
New Deal policy, or Keynseian economics helped a lot of common people. Social Security, Unemployment, and being able to collectively bargain as unions with employers. Of course, this did not last long, as Capitalists soon after WWII started attacking the left, with the whole communist Red Scare/McCarthyism, as well as the passage of the Taft Hartley act that made it harder for unions to organize...
That being said, still very prosperous during the 50s and 60s, because of big tax percentages on the wealthy. You could buy a house or what have you with only one job. College was incredibly cheap...again, this was still an era where government or the state was viewed as a structure that would help people, or would intervene in economics.
On a side note, we can't forget the racism, or the lack of civl rights however within the new deal, but eventually, that came in the 60s, not without a struggle from the bottom.
We can't forget as well, that the New Deal, or the 8 hour work day, or civil rights or what have you was done because of the pressure from the left. Organizations like the communist party, or anarcho syndicalists, socialists or unions or leftists...
Of course though, like i stated earlier, by the 50s, they started to attack the left, and they bloated the military budget because of the stupid cold war, and arms race...(that being said, again, the 50s and 60s were still pretty prosperous because of the progressive taxes, which is ironic because progressive taxes were leftist)
In anycase, eventually, by the 1960s, leaders like MLK, or Malcolm, or Fred Hampton were a threat to the right wing establishment, or perhaps Capitalism in general...which is why they were assassinated..Fred Hampton was bringing together people from all over the spectrum, whether it was whites, latinos, asians, you name it...he was a threat because the powers at be, the elites did not want socialism or really, did not want their elitist power to subside...and by the late 60s, that shift, to the right was already happening, with the whole Barry Goldwater affair, and the attack on the left/communism/red scare, the powers at be were going against the left, and the new deal...
By the 1970s, elites wrote a book called the Crisis of Democracy, essentially saying that the 60s was plagued with "too much democracy", which just mean the common people are stupid, the whole idea of the "stupid herd." And that only the "elites", we smart people can make decisions.
Which then brings me to my next point, in that this country was never really a democracy to begin with...or rather, they were pretty contempt with ordinary people...I mean, why have the electoral college, why was the Senate created? (We could not vote for the Senate until the early 20th century)...not only that, but we could go on right, you had to have property to vote...the founding fathers were slave holders, and genocidal maniacs as they plundered and stole land (broke treaties) from the indigenous people....(I might add that Black Francis alludes to this stuff in Doolittle with the song I Bleed)
One can argue that the American Revolution was a Counter Revolution (just read Gerald Horne's book Counter Revolution of 1776)
But, back to the whole attack on the left. in the 1950s, there was a very clear cut propaganda campaign, quite successful that brainwashed a generation with this whole red scare/anti-communist tirade even though the New Deal, or rather, the fruits that these boomers were getting like cheap college were of direct result of New Deal legislation...
But yes tworeelers, you are correct...how many countries has the US invaded? How many innocent people (Vietnamese, Iraqis, Afghanis, etcc..) have died under the US Military Industrial Complex? That is our taxes? Which can easily go to something more productive....Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan not to mention the countless dictators we have supported over the years, whether it's Suharto, the Contras in Iran, Noriega...I could go on...the US doesn't really believe in democracy, they just use it as a sort of veneer...
Lastly, the only way to change this is with grassroots movements, as it did in the 1930s or the 1960s...where the bottom puts pressure on the powers at be...
the US is not exceptional, this is all usual empire lingo, like pax-romana or pax-britanica...or what have you.
|
|
|
|
pot
> Teenager of the Year <
Iceland
3910 Posts |
Posted - 10/07/2020 : 14:26:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by tamefan
quote:
Originally posted by pot
quote:
Originally posted by tamefan
Modern politics poisons everything and this thread is proof.
Please share with us your positive vision for the world?
I do not have a comprehensive vision and I would never endorse any one ideology. Politics is about reconciling many competing moral concerns:
Policy-making is a separate subject that deals with crafting solutions to problems (using the government). Policy is a practice, like engineering or law. Politics is a messy blend of performance art, inter-group rivalry and competition, non-violent conflict, group psychology, clientelism, bargaining, propaganda, moral philosophy, and rhetorical language games. It's just a lot of stuff.
And it all boils down to these different moral foundations that tend to cluster together. Whatever moral concerns we personally prioritize will influence how we understand what matters and what doesn't matter; this, in turn, will influence which facts about the world we will give salience to. In a relatively moderate political environment, there will be disagreement on the relative weight to give different facts, but the set of facts themselves will be agreed upon. In our highly polarized environment, however, there is not even agreement on the set of basic facts.
If you want a crude portrait of my modern political takes, I think that: the EU is German hegemony by other means (it maps onto the Kaiser's post-WW1 plan for Europe); the universal franchise empowers predatory elites to enter into a perverse bargain with a permanent underclass to pick the pockets of a struggling middle; young people are being deliberately infantilized and radicalized by a cohort of educators who themselves repudiate the essential values of Western civilization; a new therapeutic language is being pushed in order to collapse the distinction between subjective and objective reality and in order to undermine the sacredness of free speech as a value by suggesting that speech can be harmful and therefore should be censored; this therapeutic mindset is a result of our culture's decadence (moral decline due to affluence, peacefulness, and tolerance of maladaptive beliefs and behaviors) and it is a political strategy employed by bureaucrats who need a way of governing a populace that otherwise lacks any shared coherent understanding of virtue; all that remains in Anglo societies is the priority of harmlessness and non-judgmentalism (these are, in my view, both terrible things). Protection from harm is the alibi of tyrants, as Camus observed, and as the response to Covid-19 illustrates. Our elites have contempt for ordinary people and ordinary people are so weak and averse to risk-taking that they themselves fear freedom and willingly vote for their own slavery.
This was meant to be a list of takes, but it veered off track into a miniature rant about our cultural problems. Anyway, I stand by my original complaint that politics is poisonous. It increasingly poisons every aspect of our lives because we are living in the late stages of cultural decline. Culture is like a liquid that seeps into every little crack. Because politics is currently so tightly wed to culture, it too will enter into everything. In principle, politics is separable from culture; unfortunately, our current elites are monomaniacs who have slotted their politics into a religion-sized hole. What results from the reintroduction of religious-like moral absolutism into politics (something that characterized Europe for many centuries; Wars of Religion) is a new intolerance. As we all know, puritans are meddlesome busybodies who seek to convert and control all wrongthinkers -- hence, the transformation of our culture by politics. In light of these circumstances, anyone who can find ways, however small, to protect the purity of those things that matter most to them from the baleful influence of politics would be well advised to do so. For me, one of those things is my love of music.
That's my positive political vision. Find whatever sources of joy and hope and beauty and awe and sublimity that you can and appreciate them, be grateful, and do whatever is within your power to protect them from being vulgarized like everything else.
Thanks for that tamefan. I feel inclined to reluctantly concur with much of what you said there, but I'd be lying if I said I had half a clue about what some of the sentences mean. I feel like I've just tried to cram an entire masters degree in some kind of -ology into 5 minutes.
Might give that another spin in my head again later, give the first reading some time to seep into the dark corners of my brain. |
|
|
|
tamefan
- FB Fan -
Canada
239 Posts |
Posted - 10/07/2020 : 14:33:28
|
| Sorry, I was honestly trying to write plainly, but accurately. Perhaps I tried to cram too many ideas into too few words. |
|
|
|
pot
> Teenager of the Year <
Iceland
3910 Posts |
Posted - 10/07/2020 : 15:20:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by tamefan
Sorry, I was honestly trying to write plainly, but accurately. Perhaps I tried to cram too many ideas into too few words.
Yeah maybe needs stretched out a bit into a full blown essay maybe? Otherwise I vaguely followed the thread of what you are saying. Not a clue what the diagrams mean though. I personally feel that diagrams should be banned from sociology or political theory, and only used to describe how the physical or chemical laws of the universe work. |
|
|
|
tamefan
- FB Fan -
Canada
239 Posts |
Posted - 10/09/2020 : 07:15:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by pot
quote:
Originally posted by tamefan
Sorry, I was honestly trying to write plainly, but accurately. Perhaps I tried to cram too many ideas into too few words.
Yeah maybe needs stretched out a bit into a full blown essay maybe? Otherwise I vaguely followed the thread of what you are saying. Not a clue what the diagrams mean though. I personally feel that diagrams should be banned from sociology or political theory, and only used to describe how the physical or chemical laws of the universe work.
 Please allow me to try and clarify. I don't have any degrees in any particular social sciences, so if my language is confusing, that's my fault alone, and not the fault of the political sciences or sociology (although I imagine many people with degrees in those fields also write poorly.)
This is just my own thinking, supplemented by whatever books I happen to have read. You can usually find these books at your local bookstore. Many are bestsellers. For instance, the diagram above is from The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt, a psychologist at NYU. Your local Barnes & Noble probably has some copies. Haidt can explain himself far better than I ever will, so you could ignore the rest of my comment and instead watch one of his many YouTube videos; he has an appearance on Joe Rogan, for starters: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG6HbWw2RF4
According to Haidt, human beings aren't as rational as we like to imagine. It turns out that humans have powerful emotional drivers that influence how we think. And we aren't always aware of these emotional influences on our thinking. So, we're often blinded to these emotional effects. We believe that we're thinking rationally, when we're really rationalizing our emotional preferences.
To give a topical example: people who protest against government lockdowns by not wearing a mask in public may argue that they have read studies showing that masks do not help reduce the risk of infection. But in fact, it doesn't matter whether that person has read any studies or whether the studies are or aren't reliable. These people are citing the study in order to rationalize their decision to not weak a mask. That decision wasn't made for rational reasons, it was done out of a moral commitment to the moral foundation called "liberty." The study does play a part in our decision-making, but not the one we think. We aren't rationally determining what to do by dispassionately interpreting the data; rather, we're using the data as a prop to justify our emotionally and morally influenced conclusion. Facts matter, but not as much as we like to think they do. We fool ourselves, without realizing we're doing it, into believing that we're acting on the evidence, without realizing we're acting on emotion.
Haidt illustrates this using the metaphor of a rider sitting on an elephant:
The rider is rational and goal oriented. He has a direction he wants the elephant to travel in and he tries to direct it that way. The elephant represents our emotional thinking, which is based in intuitive impulses that we've evolved, as all animals have. Rather than being analytical, this part of our reasoning is based in morality. And we communicate these moral intuitions using storytelling.
The rider looks like he or she is in charge, because he's on top and holds the reins. But in fact, the emotional reasoning of the elephant tends to be stronger; when the rider and the elephant disagree about what to do, the elephant tends to win. The key takeaway is that we think we're making rational choices free from the influences of our emotions, intuitions, and moral concerns, when in fact we're often just unaware of their influence.
"Moral foundations theory" studies these moral concerns. It turns out, they are universal across all human cultures; in other words, they're a psychological product of humanity as a species. We evolved these moral intuitions. And it turns out that there are roughly 6 moral dimensions/concerns/intuitions (the exact number and what to call them has been studied for many decades and is a core issue in the field of psychology).
The diagram that I posted in my previous comment shows you these 6 moral dimensions:
1. Care/harm
2. Liberty/oppression
3. Fairness/cheating
4. Loyalty/betrayal
5. Authority/subversion
6. sanctity/degradation
And it turns out these moral dimensions are tightly correlated to your political worldview. If you care A LOT about liberty and comparatively little about the other 5 intuitions, you're probably a libertarian. If you care A LOT about the care/harm axis, you're probably left wing. If you're more balanced in your moral intuitions, then you're probably right wing. I circled these in red, to show the differences. The thicknesses of the black lines in Haidt's original figures was how he tried to illustrate the relative weight that different political worldviews give to these moral intuitions.
These moral preferences also correlate with other things, like sex. One reason women are more left wing, on average, and men are more conservative, on average, is that women are more sensitive, on average, to the care/harm dimension, probably because of hormonal influences and evolved psychological traits related to nurturing children. Men are more tolerant of risk ( a direct effect of higher testosterone levels) and this is correlated to treating people as having higher levels of personal agency and responsibility, which is a conservative intuition based in the fairness/cheating and liberty moral dimensions.
Why do moral foundations relate to political outlook? Well, one reason is because humans organize into tribes based on our moral values. And politics is all about tribalism (in a democracy, it's a peaceful rivalry over controlling how our society is going to operate). Different moral beliefs lead to different conclusions about how the society should operate. Libertarians say, "no welfare." Liberals say, "more welfare." Conservatives say, "limited welfare."
Tribes tell stories. Morality is communicated using storytelling:
a. Liberals tell a story of innocent victimhood. Liberals are very sensitive to the downtrodden and tend to believe that people who aren't doing well aren't blameworthy for their circumstances and we therefore have a shared obligation to help them.
b. Libertarians tell a story of unlimited choice. Libertarians tend to emphasize personal responsibility at a high level, and so they're likelier to see a downtrodden person as being somewhat or fully responsible for their situation, and so they won't see society as obliged to reward them for their own faults.
c. Conservatives tell a story of corruption. Conservatives tend to prefer charity to welfare because they have a moral view of humans as fallen and therefore worry about the perverse incentives of government welfare.
These policy conclusions were arrived at not by a rational analysis of costs and benefits, but by reasoning from moral principles. If people are born uncorrupted (Rousseauian left wing belief), then it's immoral to ignore the harmful effects that society has had on them and instead of blaming them, we should see them as somewhat or fully innocent victims of circumstances beyond their control who deserve our help. If people are inherently fallen (Christian right wing belief), then government programs will have unintended consequences because people will take advantage of them and so we should hesitate to offer them government welfare, even if we think they might deserve it.
Unfortunately, humans can't feel all of these moral intuitions simultaneously. In a lot of cases, if you're concerned about one thing, it means you're becoming blind to something else. For example, people more concerned about equality will be less concerned with liberty, and vice versa. This is one reason why humans sort into political tribes. And the tribes have blind spots because as soon as you take on certain concerns, you inevitably are blinded to other concerns. Most people aren't equally as worried about protecting everyone from the potential harm of covid-19 (care/harm, equality) as they are about government limitations on rights (fairness, liberty). No. People sort into one or the other tribe. Either, they're freaking out about the government not doing enough to protect us all, or they're freaking out about the government taking away too many of our basic rights and freedoms. And both sides think the other side is totally insane.
You can see how these moral values conflict. Protecting everyone equally from covid-19 means quarantining everyone, including the young and healthy, which is (from a liberty point of view) unfair to people who are at little to no risk from the disease and who are forced to stay at home and lose work, etc. On the flip side, when there is a high level of uncertainty about a novel disease, the situation is risky and therefore having a preference for liberty comes at a potential cost to the vulnerable (care/harm). Where you draw the line isn't something a public health expert can figure out using some epidemiological equation. The only way to answer this is by weighing your moral concerns and either prioritizing harm and equality or fairness and liberty. There's no correct answer. Sweden prioritized liberty and avoided major lockdowns; Britain prioritized harm and continues to have major restrictions on freedom.
And the point of all of this, which I tried to make above, is that most political tribes organize around moral foundations that are important. The left worries about care and harm. The right wing worries about tradition and proportionality. We need both. And so the only sane approach to politics is to try and see how both sides are interpreting the situation based on their concerns for competing moral values. It's like a division of labour. We could, in theory, have a comparative advantage kind of situation where we take the best from both sides and synthesize them into policies that address concerns on both sides. This is what healthy politics looks like.
Of course, we're living in unhealthy times. Haidt has a quote that explains how our moral tribes are playing out :
quote:
“Morality binds and blinds. It binds us into ideological teams that fight each other as though the fate of the world depended on our side winning each battle. It blinds us to the fact that each team is composed of good people who have something important to say.”
Our political tribes shouldn't view one another as mortal enemies. Both sides are speaking to different sets of moral concerns. And so, both sides have important insights to contribute. The problems with our politics today are primarily a byproduct of our unhealthy culture (I named some of these cultural problems in my previous comment). Once your cultural values become corrupt, your politics will shortly follow along, especially in a democracy where the corrupt values of the citizens are appealed to by politicians.
This is the real "positive vision" answer. If everyone understood that political tribes are inevitable and that they reflect genuine disagreements over which moral values matter the most, we could achieve some real progress towards reducing polarization and ending the spiral of dehumanization that is occurring. For example, people who see Trump voters as "deplorables" are blind to the genuine modern concerns that animate his political base. Similarly, many of the young people on campuses today who are engaging in what is effectively 21st century cultural Maoism also have genuine moral concerns, but those concerns have been intensified in dangerous ways.
As I mentioned in my previous comment, the moral absolutism that now exists in our culture (the belief that there is only one correct worldview) is poisonous and results in a tyrannical politics where the absolutists try to control and subordinate the tolerant (tolerant people accept that different people will have different perspectives and are OK with that, even when each side considers the other side's perspective to be deeply wrong or offensive). We are headed towards a society controlled by moral absolutists and it is terrifying. Moral absolutism is a nonsensical approach to culture and politics because humans do not all share the same moral concerns in the same combination and the same weight. We care about different things at different times and in different amounts. There isn't one correct answer to which values matter the most. And the people who think there is only One Correct Answer have already caused a lot of damage and may yet cause much more, as they have done in other countries throughout history. |
Edited by - tamefan on 10/09/2020 08:36:23 |
|
|
|
Troubles A Foot
= Cult of Ray =
USA
955 Posts |
Posted - 10/09/2020 : 09:26:01
|
| Weird, I just read The Righteous Mind this week. |
|
|
|
tamefan
- FB Fan -
Canada
239 Posts |
Posted - 10/09/2020 : 09:31:08
|
 |
|
|
|
pot
> Teenager of the Year <
Iceland
3910 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2020 : 03:00:36
|
| I was coming back to continue reading your post tamefan but I see you have updated it to a second edition, so imma have to start again. To be honest "humans are highly irrational creatures and everything we do is emotionally driven at a subconscious level" is really all that is needed to convince me, and no deeper explanation is required. You only need to take a trip down to your local Walmart (or Tesco if you live in other parts of the world) to find some of the locals fighting over toilet paper to see that. |
|
|
|
two reelers
* Dog in the Sand *
Austria
1036 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2020 : 19:59:19
|
For some people, being ignorant seems not to be enough. They also have to demonstrate their ignorance in public (and in particular on internet forums). What does your "reply" has to do with my comment? I was replying to your comment on "China being the greatest threat". Do you actually read comments before you reply to them, and if so, do you actually process them?
I did dnot say anything positive about Obama or Clinton. It is quite clear that ALL US administrations since more than 100 years follow imperialism. Clinton made it quite clear with his "doctrine", esentially stating that the US reserve the right to conduct unilateral military actions against other nations if it harms their economic interests. Think about this for just one second. In essence, the US have taken over colonialism from the British after their empire crumbled in the beginning of the 20th century.
Regarding "what would have happened" if the US did not do their "peacekeeping" and "fight for freedom" in the last 70 years or so? My guesses: Central and Latin America would be real and stable democracies, relying on their natural resources (is it just pure coincidence that Venezuela has the largest oil reseves of all nations?), and there would be no need for refugees/migrants from these countries flooding into the US. Same for the Middle East (there would be no Iran clerical dictatorship, no Saddam Hussein and the aftermath, no Taliban, no ISIS), and no refugees fleeing to Europe.
In that regard, I even give Trump credit for his "shocking" question on US veterans - "I don't get it, what was in for them?". This question of course is not asked in the US, because the real answer would rock a foundation of the economy - which is the exploitation of other nations by "investors". The US military is essentially working for them by installing puppet governments all over the world which create the setting for the "investors" (deregulation, privatization) - at expense of the local population of course, who are robbed from their land and resources.
However, the current US administration may have not started a new war, but the things which are going on in Yemen and Syria are bad enough. Only because you don't read in the US media about this, does not mean that there is no slaughter with US support. The murder of the Iranian general and the ongoing torture of Palestine people at the hands of Kushner are for sure not suited to better the situation in that region, and they are simply the continuation of the imperialistic agenda.
However, given your ignorance and insults, I doubt that you are truly interested in any real exchange of opinions.
quote:
Originally posted by Jason Bravo
quote:
Originally posted by two reelers
quote:
Originally posted by Jason Bravo
China is the largest threat, there is no doubt, and it has been the plan of the Cabal for decades now. They have infiltrated our universities without speaking the language for Christ sake!
Coming back to reality:
- How many countries has China invaded in comparison to the US?
- How many hidden and visible international terrorist attacks has China conducted in comparison to the US?
- How many regime changes (of democratically elected governments) has China done in comparison to the US?
If you critically think for just 5 minutes, you will figure out that the greatest threat to mankind is the US (if we understand the US as a nation led by a few cooperate elite persons), and in particular their spokesperson in form of the GOP. The non-existent China threat (same as the Iran threat) is just one example on how easily the US population can be made to accept that 2+2=5.
Please, wake up from your bubble. The misinformation of the US population through its mass-media and education system has a purpose, which is to brainwash you with the idea that the US are an "exceptional" nation, that they lead the "free world", and that all they do is good. Quite the opposite is true in every respect. The idea of US democracy has been hijacked after WW2 to erect an oligarchy of self-enrichers, on cost of its citizens and by now on costs on the entire world. Turbo-chargers in that process were Reagan and now the Trump administration.
Oh, and I live in the US as well.
I joined the cult of Souled American / 'cause they are a damn' fine band
Very ignorant bullet points. The modern world is not battled on the ground anymore you idiot. "Invasions" as you put it were put on by the Clinton and Obama administrations and others. They have the most blood on their hands currently. If you think for a minute that the rest of the world does not rely on the US when bad things arise or start happening, well I just can't grip what you are trying to imply because that's the simple truth. If America did nothing ever again to help other nations, what would the reaction then be? It would be negative to say the least. Get a grip and quit paying attention to Buzzfeed and the rest. Trump is getting the US out of the Middle East and other foreign nations because it has been such a waste of time, resources, money and corruption. Specifically, if you did any real research, Obama was the plant to destroy a lot of things including this country. He bombed like crazy in the Middle East killing women and children, that's fact. I could go on, but it's just not worth it because too many people are afraid to look past PC and personalities, and really that's on the low end of the scale.
I joined the cult of Souled American / 'cause they are a damn' fine band |
Edited by - two reelers on 10/11/2020 20:01:34 |
|
|
|
QuaBear
- FB Fan -
USA
66 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2020 : 07:00:40
|
To add more to what tworeelers is talking about, Donald Trump is just as imperialist as the rest, if not more. Here is a great report/piece of journalism from the people at Empire Files.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAmpD5MvDw8
Please watch |
|
|
|
Discoking
* Dog in the Sand *
Belgium
1120 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2020 : 03:25:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by pot
I was coming back to continue reading your post tamefan but I see you have updated it to a second edition, so imma have to start again. To be honest "humans are highly irrational creatures and everything we do is emotionally driven at a subconscious level" is really all that is needed to convince me, and no deeper explanation is required. You only need to take a trip down to your local Walmart (or Tesco if you live in other parts of the world) to find some of the locals fighting over toilet paper to see that.
the statement applies to everyone, including you.
if you think you need a trip to your local supermarket to witness irrationality, you don't completely understand what this is about.
i'd draw a diagram, but what's the point?
it's educational |
|
|
|
pot
> Teenager of the Year <
Iceland
3910 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2020 : 03:45:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by Discoking
the statement applies to everyone, including you.
if you think you need a trip to your local supermarket to witness irrationality, you don't completely understand what this is about.
i'd draw a diagram, but what's the point?
Actually if you could help me out there with a diagram it would be good thanks. |
|
|
|
tamefan
- FB Fan -
Canada
239 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2020 : 15:36:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by pot
I was coming back to continue reading your post tamefan but I see you have updated it to a second edition, so imma have to start again. To be honest "humans are highly irrational creatures and everything we do is emotionally driven at a subconscious level" is really all that is needed to convince me, and no deeper explanation is required. You only need to take a trip down to your local Walmart (or Tesco if you live in other parts of the world) to find some of the locals fighting over toilet paper to see that.
I may have been unclear, yet again. Apologies if that is the case. My point isn't that humans are "highly irrational creatures." Rather, it's that humans are non-rational creatures. We hold beliefs based on a variety of non-rational considerations and those include non-rational moral intuitions that we feel, innately. We then fool ourselves into believing that we're thinking or acting rationally, when in fact we are sitting on an Elephant with a mind of its own (our moral intuitions). Humans are creatures who are sometimes capable of rationality, usually if we have systems in place, like the scientific method or the common law. Humans can also behave irrationally. But by and large, I think we are non-rational. |
|
|
|
johnnyribcage
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1301 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2020 : 17:36:57
|
What a world.
I had a bad reaction to your public hobby writings. |
|
|
|
Bryanwex
Zapped Profile
33 Posts |
|
|
Bryanwex
Zapped Profile
33 Posts |
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Frank re: COVID
