Page 183 of 219

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2018 6:13 pm UTC
by Quercus
eran_rathan wrote:makes one wonder what they'd do with someone like me, who is an XXY male, if they are determining it by chromosomes (do they even check that at birth? Neither of my kids had it done, I'm certain).


I really doubt they've thought about that at all. Science is not their strong suit.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2018 6:15 pm UTC
by Quercus
Quercus wrote:
eran_rathan wrote:makes one wonder what they'd do with someone like me, who is an XXY male, if they are determining it by chromosomes (do they even check that at birth? Neither of my kids had it done, I'm certain).


I really doubt they've thought about that at all. Science is not their strong suit.



Sableagle wrote:How? HOW does someone pay £150M for a golf course in cash? Do you just walk into the estate agent's office, followed by a coachload of guys in suits and sunglasses, each carrying a suitcase full of 10s and 20s?


There are "cash-like" instruments such as bearer bonds. I'm guessing that's what's being referred to, but the explanation of that was cut to keep the article short.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2018 6:20 pm UTC
by Dauric
Quercus wrote:
Sableagle wrote:How? HOW does someone pay £150M for a golf course in cash? Do you just walk into the estate agent's office, followed by a coachload of guys in suits and sunglasses, each carrying a suitcase full of 10s and 20s?


There are "cash-like" instruments such as bearer bonds. I'm guessing that's what's being referred to, but the explanation of that was cut to keep the article short.


Depending on the definition it can include a check written on a personal bank account. When I bought my house I had to have a down payment of $7,000 "In Cash", which meant I needed to have $7,000 in a bank account, it couldn't be paid as part of the mortgage financing or off a credit card.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2018 6:21 pm UTC
by sardia
To be fair, whoever controls Congress is allowed to subpoena anyone's tax forms. It just so happens that the Republicans do not exercise that power for some reason.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2018 6:26 pm UTC
by Tyndmyr
sardia wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:For title IX, we're looking at the following: no person shall “be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity” receiving federal assistance “on the basis of sex.”

That ought to soundly qualify even if we're using a Republican definition of sex.

I think a good metaphor would be if the ATF decided to define rifles as not an "firearm" from the second amendment. Then the pesky second amendment protections wouldn't apply.


It's not a bad comparison. It's actually why I have familiarity with this stuff. The ATF has frequently tried such redefinitions. Nothing nearly so broad, mind you. They occasionally get some mild fuckery in about pedantic stuff, but they get away with fairly little, and when it hits a courtroom, it generally gets slapped down pretty hard. Attempting to redefine rifle would obviously get wrecked in court, and thus, as a move isn't very threatening. This is similar.

Sableagle wrote:How? HOW does someone pay £150M for a golf course in cash? Do you just walk into the estate agent's office, followed by a coachload of guys in suits and sunglasses, each carrying a suitcase full of 10s and 20s?


Having once purchased a property cash, what this means is that one brings a cashier's check. No mortgage is associated, but it is not actually a briefcase full of money.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2018 7:24 pm UTC
by ijuin
“Cash” in this sense does not necessarily mean literal Federal Reserve Notes, but rather any form of money that you can take to your bank and deposit into your account as-is.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2018 7:43 pm UTC
by sardia
ijuin wrote:“Cash” in this sense does not necessarily mean literal Federal Reserve Notes, but rather any form of money that you can take to your bank and deposit into your account as-is.

The actual question is if the money was laundered or used as a tax shelter.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2018 11:24 pm UTC
by CorruptUser
@Pforrest

Wikipedia lists gender having meaning outside of grammar in 1945, but that it had been used as another word for sex at least 20 years prior. Gender had been used interchangeably with sex for quite some time.

The issue comes down to one of proscriptivism vs descriptivism. In common parlance, until recently, "gender" was used as a more polite word for "sex", and as this was how the vast majority of people perceived and used this word, to descriptivists, this is what it meant. In terms of academia, the distinction between gender and sex remained, and as an academic term, to descriptivists again, this distinction remained. The proscriptivist would insist that the academic meaning is the correct one while the common meaning is incorrect, or in the current case of the Trump administration, that the common parlance was actually correct while the academics were wrong.

It's sort of like arguing with someone over "organic" food. Yes, yes, the word had an academic meaning, and most of the people buying organic food are easily manipulated fools, but if the vast majority of people interpret "organic food" to mean "grown without synthetically produced pesticides/fertilizers" then that is what it means. Personally, I think all the oil companies should rebrand themselves as "organic natural energy" companies just to cause all the granola hippies to have an aneurysm, but that's just me.

eran_rathan wrote:Quick question - how many of you know that your chromosomes match your dangly bits? XXY (Kleinfelter) Syndrome (like what I have) has an incidence rate of 1 in 500. XYY has a rate of roughly 1 in 1000. Given there are 403,007 members on this forum, and roughly half are male (estimating here), then at a rate of 1/500 you'd expect 403 with XXY syndrome and 201 with XYY, and that's not even counting the ladies with XXY or XO or other chromosomal makeups.


Except XXY generally has symptoms including lower testosterone and small testicles, so most men can be sure they aren't XXY. XYY, on the other hand...

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2018 7:07 am UTC
by gd1
Nationalism? So we will start supporting baseball and electing baseball players as officials? Cuz baseball is the national pastime right?

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2018 2:30 pm UTC
by DavidSh
gd1 wrote:Nationalism? So we will start supporting baseball and electing baseball players as officials? Cuz baseball is the national pastime right?

Nah, only the Washington Nationals, not the other teams. (I'd say that's Trump's home team, except that he spends a lot of his spare time in Florida.)

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2018 3:28 pm UTC
by sardia
DavidSh wrote:
gd1 wrote:Nationalism? So we will start supporting baseball and electing baseball players as officials? Cuz baseball is the national pastime right?

Nah, only the Washington Nationals, not the other teams. (I'd say that's Trump's home team, except that he spends a lot of his spare time in Florida.)

The Nazis/kkk/white supremacists will be happy he said nationalists, the conservatives elite will look the other way, desperately assuming that he meant America first. Usually with feigned outrage at the 'liberals'who dare complain about Basic Human Decency.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2018 4:51 pm UTC
by Pfhorrest
When not otherwise qualified (e.g. "white nationalism"), is "nationalism" really a taboo thing to associate with in America? "America first" seems like, if anything, the default position of most politicians, and one that's likely to play well with voters. Maybe we more often say "patriotism" but the connotations seem to be exactly the same: "U-S-A! U-S-A!" And Trump's always been pretty obviously in line with that. What's the news here?

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2018 4:54 pm UTC
by asoban
I really like George Orwell's Notes on Nationalism and that's my primary lens when talking about it. After reading and thinking about it, in America we have nationalists on both the right and the left.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:20 pm UTC
by Quercus
Pfhorrest wrote:When not otherwise qualified (e.g. "white nationalism"), is "nationalism" really a taboo thing to associate with in America? "America first" seems like, if anything, the default position of most politicians, and one that's likely to play well with voters. Maybe we more often say "patriotism" but the connotations seem to be exactly the same: "U-S-A! U-S-A!" And Trump's always been pretty obviously in line with that. What's the news here?


To my mind the use of that particular word is a dog-whistle to fascists of various sorts. Possibly deliberate, but even if accidental it will certainly be interpreted that way by the far right.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:29 pm UTC
by Yablo
In its most basic (and reasonable) form, Nationalism means pretty much the same as Patriotism. It's the love of and devotion to a particular nation.

That doesn't matter here though. Conservatives and Republicans are going to say he was using that definition. Liberals and Democrats are going to use the more extreme definition to say Trump meant he's a white nationalist and that he supports Nazi and Fascist causes, racism, etc ... The far right is going to use the same extreme definition the Liberals and Democrats use, but they'll use it as a positive.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:30 pm UTC
by Trebla
Quercus wrote:To my mind the use of that particular word is a dog-whistle to fascists of various sorts. Possibly deliberate, but even if accidental it will certainly be interpreted that way by the far right.


This is quite accurate. With words like "nationalism" having connotations beyond the traditional meanings, this is a way for mainstream politicians to signal to certain groups that he/she supports those groups, but has to use language that appeals to a broader base. Moderate supporters can rationalize that "he didn't mean it that way, because that's horrible" while at the same time the politician can subtly wink to the fringes of the party and casually mouth "you guys know what I meant"

FL's Republican gubernatorial candidate did something similar by saying that a vote for the democrat (who happens to be black) would let them "monkey up the system." Many of his supporters of course defend it as an innocuous phrase that happens to have gained racial context, while the good ole boys in the country understand that he used the M-word instead of the N-word just because he had to.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:38 pm UTC
by Tyndmyr
Pfhorrest wrote:When not otherwise qualified (e.g. "white nationalism"), is "nationalism" really a taboo thing to associate with in America? "America first" seems like, if anything, the default position of most politicians, and one that's likely to play well with voters. Maybe we more often say "patriotism" but the connotations seem to be exactly the same: "U-S-A! U-S-A!" And Trump's always been pretty obviously in line with that. What's the news here?


For the left, that particular term is mildly taboo. For the right, not so much.

In practice, an America First policy is fairly widely accepted on both sides of the aisle. It's simply too popular with the electorate to do otherwise.The two sides use different language, though.

And yeah, Trump's largely gotten where he has by following the winds of populism. On the one hand, that seems to clash with his approval rating, but on the other, one only needs to be popular with one side of the voting public. Not even the majority of the voting public. So in the end, it works for him.

Trebla wrote:This is quite accurate. With words like "nationalism" having connotations beyond the traditional meanings, this is a way for mainstream politicians to signal to certain groups that he/she supports those groups, but has to use language that appeals to a broader base. Moderate supporters can rationalize that "he didn't mean it that way, because that's horrible" while at the same time the politician can subtly wink to the fringes of the party and casually mouth "you guys know what I meant".


It's not really a dog whistle if the non-dogs are hearing it.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:49 pm UTC
by Quercus
Tyndmyr wrote:
Trebla wrote:This is quite accurate. With words like "nationalism" having connotations beyond the traditional meanings, this is a way for mainstream politicians to signal to certain groups that he/she supports those groups, but has to use language that appeals to a broader base. Moderate supporters can rationalize that "he didn't mean it that way, because that's horrible" while at the same time the politician can subtly wink to the fringes of the party and casually mouth "you guys know what I meant".


It's not really a dog whistle if the non-dogs are hearing it.


The right hears it, believes it, sees it as a positive. The left hears it, believes it and rails against it. Much of the center either doesn't hear it or doesn't believe it, therefore ignores the right and ridicules the left as paranoid. In some ways it's more effective if (particular) non-dogs hear it.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2018 6:02 pm UTC
by Sableagle
Well, now, on the legal principle that works must be taken to have the meanings they are commonly understood to have, perhaps it would help to ask: "What does nationalist mean?"
Spoiler:
Front National
Image
Image

British National Party
Image
Image
Image

American National Socialist Party
Image
Image

Serb Nationalists
Image
Image

For reference, aftermath of one of Mladic's many heroic acts:
Image

On the topic of "America First," here's what Britain First looked like:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/j ... 89881.html

..... and, of course, let's not forget the National Socialist German Workers' Party.
Image


That established, to me this guy ...

Trump Gives White Supremacists an Unequivocal Boost Aug. 15, 2017

President Trump buoyed the white nationalist movement on Tuesday as no president has done in generations — equating activists protesting racism with the neo-Nazis and white supremacists who rampaged in Charlottesville, Va., over the weekend.

Never has he gone as far in defending their actions as he did during a wild, street-corner shouting match of a news conference in the gilded lobby of Trump Tower, angrily asserting that so-called alt-left activists were just as responsible for the bloody confrontation as marchers brandishing swastikas, Confederate battle flags, anti-Semitic banners and “Trump/Pence” signs.

“Thank you President Trump for your honesty & courage to tell the truth,” David Duke, a former Ku Klux Klan leader, wrote in a Twitter post shortly after Mr. Trump spoke.

“I’ve condemned neo-Nazis,” Mr. Trump told reporters.

He spoke of “very fine people on both sides.”


... saying they can call him a Nationalist is that guy saying he's still one of them and he'll continue to support them.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2018 6:37 pm UTC
by Tyndmyr
Quercus wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:It's not really a dog whistle if the non-dogs are hearing it.


The right hears it, believes it, sees it as a positive. The left hears it, believes it and rails against it. Much of the center either doesn't hear it or doesn't believe it, therefore ignores the right and ridicules the left as paranoid. In some ways it's more effective if (particular) non-dogs hear it.


How much of a center do we have that hasn't chosen a side?

I mean, to an extent you have people like me, who vote third party, but we're not particularly blind to the flaws of a side. We're just more likely to highlight that from our perspective, both major parties are garbage.

Sableagle wrote:Well, now, on the legal principle that works must be taken to have the meanings they are commonly understood to have, perhaps it would help to ask: "What does nationalist mean?"


Nazis are/were certainly nationalist, but not all nationalists are nazis. It's pretty much just focused on "my nation first", for whatever definition of "my nation" applies to that person. It might be someone of a given subset seeking independence for his region from the larger nation. It might be functionally equivalent to patriotism. Trying to call 'em all nazis is a fair bit of cramming a round peg into a swastika shaped hole.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2018 6:44 pm UTC
by EdgarJPublius
Tyndmyr wrote:
Quercus wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:It's not really a dog whistle if the non-dogs are hearing it.


The right hears it, believes it, sees it as a positive. The left hears it, believes it and rails against it. Much of the center either doesn't hear it or doesn't believe it, therefore ignores the right and ridicules the left as paranoid. In some ways it's more effective if (particular) non-dogs hear it.


How much of a center do we have that hasn't chosen a side?


The data I've seen indicates that while a majority of Americans are centrist/undecided, a minority of voters are.
That's several years old though, I wouldn't really be surprised if things have changed under the current partisan climate, and I wouldn't really be surprised if it hadn't changed and the partisan minority has just become even more vocal than they already were.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2018 6:52 pm UTC
by Dauric
From my own memory of the national media: Until recently people who supported "America First" policies tended to call themselves "Patriotic", the word "Nationalist" rarely got any airtime. That changed around the Charlottesville demonstration when Trump said there were "good people on both sides". 'Nationalist' as a word entered the public discourse through increased discussion of white superiority groups (often using the word 'nationalist' to self describe without admitting to being racist).

So, yeah, the existence of a term which isn't so emotionally charged or so heavily associated with white power groups (ie: Patriotism) and has been in fairly routine use strongly suggests that the new emphasis on 'nationalism' has significant dog whistle characteristics in a Republican Party that has been reluctant to curb the influence of those groups.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2018 6:54 pm UTC
by Trebla
Tyndmyr wrote:It's not really a dog whistle if the non-dogs are hearing it.


Everyone can hear it, but if you grew up supporting a Republican and just KNOW that the democrats are evil (or vice versa, picking this particular perspective for ease of wording as it relates to the FL election I brought up before) then it's easy to believe that the dog whistle you hear is really just Ron Desantis using a harmless phrase that just happens to have other connotations. He couldn't possibly mean it the way it sounds because the democrats are evil and want to kill our babies.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2018 7:08 pm UTC
by ucim
Yablo wrote:In its most basic (and reasonable)[citation needed] form, Nationalism means pretty much the same as Patriotism. It's the love of and devotion to a particular nation.
No. They are opposites, in an important way.

Patriotism is the love and devotion to...
Nationalism is the blind and arrogant promotion of...

Yablo wrote:That doesn't matter here though.
Well, it does, because people will interpret it the way they wish. Recognizing this, Trump's adoption of the label gives cover to all who wish to use it that way, and that includes the neo-Nazis who will see it as a wink and a nudge: "I'm with you!"

In that sense, his adoption of the label isn't speech. It's an action.

Jose

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2018 7:16 pm UTC
by Thesh
Patriotism is loyalty to a nation, nationalism is loyalty to a national identity. In practice, the two are not inseparable as to justify distinguishing yourself as a nation requires adopting a national identity. They are both bad, but nationalism is worse because the national identity tends to be more fantasy than reality and arbitrarily includes or excludes people from that identity, while the nation is reality through law and includes and excludes people based only on physical location.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2018 7:58 pm UTC
by Yablo
ucim wrote:No. They are opposites, in an important way.

Patriotism is the love and devotion to...
Nationalism is the blind and arrogant promotion of...

I disagree on those definitions. Most dictionaries (Merriam-Webster, Oxford English, Collins, Vocabulary.com, Google's Dictionary) give the basic definition I did and then the more extreme definition as an alternate or a qualifier.

Yablo wrote:That doesn't matter here though.
Well, it does, because people will interpret it the way they wish. Recognizing this, Trump's adoption of the label gives cover to all who wish to use it that way, and that includes the neo-Nazis who will see it as a wink and a nudge: "I'm with you!"

That's what I said. When I say the particular definition doesn't matter, I mean it doesn't matter in that it will be interpreted differently by different sides.

In that sense, his adoption of the label isn't speech. It's an action.

Jose

I suppose that's true if he's adopting the label for the purpose of allowing the fringe to interpret it one way while still leaving room to deny it. It's far from a proven fact that this is the case, though, and just like with the definition of nationalism, each side is going to see it through its preferred filter.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2018 8:11 pm UTC
by Quercus
Tyndmyr wrote:
Quercus wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:It's not really a dog whistle if the non-dogs are hearing it.


The right hears it, believes it, sees it as a positive. The left hears it, believes it and rails against it. Much of the center either doesn't hear it or doesn't believe it, therefore ignores the right and ridicules the left as paranoid. In some ways it's more effective if (particular) non-dogs hear it.


How much of a center do we have that hasn't chosen a side?


I wasn't necessarily equating the "center" with "undecided voters", I was equating "center" with "political centrists in general". I.e. including the left of the Republicans and the right of the Democrats.

Yablo wrote:I suppose that's true if he's adopting the label for the purpose of allowing the fringe to interpret it one way while still leaving room to deny it. It's far from a proven fact that this is the case, though, and just like with the definition of nationalism, each side is going to see it through its preferred filter.


Intent isn't everything. Whether this was down to Trump's malice or Trump's stupidity doesn't change that the effect of this will be the emboldening and encouragement of fascists. Even if this was entirely accidental why the fuck would anyone be willing to forgive that level of obliviousness in a president?

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2018 8:29 pm UTC
by Tyndmyr
Quercus wrote:I wasn't necessarily equating the "center" with "undecided voters", I was equating "center" with "political centrists in general". I.e. including the left of the Republicans and the right of the Democrats.


Ah, that makes rather more sense.

Yeah, undecided voters are getting rarer and rarer. Edgar is likely correct in that there is a massive pile of non voters with more or less centrist ideologies, but if they're not voting, well...they don't matter a great deal to politics. So appealing to them didn't make much sense to me. And of course, I don't get the sense that Trump cares about hiding his beliefs a great deal.

I honestly don't think he's good at subtlety, or dog whistles. But he might be trying for it to best appeal to his base, fair enough.

Intent isn't everything. Whether this was down to Trump's malice or Trump's stupidity doesn't change that the effect of this will be the emboldening and encouragement of fascists. Even if this was entirely accidental why the fuck would anyone be willing to forgive that level of obliviousness in a president?


If a bit of stupidity ruled someone out of the presidency for the general populace, I think we'd have gotten to that point before now.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2018 8:49 pm UTC
by ucim
Most dictionaries give the basic definition I did and then the more extreme definition as an alternate or a qualifier.
And the sun is a big ball of fire. Well, nuclear fire. Well, thermonuclear fire. The qualifiers serve to differentiate between the sun and a campfire.

The qualifiers are important - they are what make a word different from other words. From your own list:

Merriam-webster: (1)... exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests...
(note below): Patriotism is similar insofar as it emphasizes strong feelings for one’s country, but it does not necessarily imply an attitude of superiority.

Oxford: (1) ...especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations.

Collins: (1) ...often associated with the belief that a particular nation is better than any other nation, and in this case is often used showing disapproval.

Vocabulary.com:
(note at the top: It is important not to confuse nationalism with patriotism. Patriotism is a healthy pride in your country that brings about feelings of loyalty and a desire to help other citizens. Nationalism is the belief that your country is superior, without question or doubt.)
(1) the doctrine that your national culture and interests are superior to any other.
(4) love of country and willingness to sacrifice for it.

Google's dictionary: (1a) ...especially marked by a feeling of superiority over other countries.

Patriotism and nationalism are different from each other, in those ways.

Yablo wrote:It's far from a proven fact that [his use of it as a dog whistle] is the case
Well, his intent is essentially unprovable, but what would you accept as evidence? It is certainly in line with "Whoever body slams a member of the press is my guy!" and all his other vile, inciteful (not to be confused with "insightful") divisive, fearmongering statements and actions, and his complete disregard for actual facts.

And in any case, the result is plain to see. I doubt that he didn't foresee this result. If that's not intent, I don't know what is.

Jose

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2018 8:50 pm UTC
by DaBigCheez
I think the attachment to a "national identity" in nationalism, vs. a "nation" in patriotism, probably mirrors my thinking on it - I tend to hear nationalism more in the sense of tribal conflict. As the development of an in-group, to contrast with (read: view as superior to) an out-group, whereas patriotism focuses more on the development and improvement of the nation without being as focused on the "other".

That said, I can't help but be reminded of this SMBC comic on the distinction between the two, which is probably coloring my perception.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2018 8:54 pm UTC
by Pfhorrest
America only has a center, and a right, and an undecided center-right who aren't sure how much right they're okay with.

There is no left anymore.

I mean, there are lots of left-leaning people, but the centrist party is the closest to political representation we have.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2018 8:55 pm UTC
by ucim
Pfhorrest wrote:There is no left anymore.
Bernie supporters are centrists? Tell me again how sheep's bladders can be used to prevent earthquakes!

Jose

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2018 9:06 pm UTC
by Sizik
Patriotism is chanting "U-S-A!" when the USA team walks onto the field.
Nationalism is chanting "U-S-A!" when the other country's team walks onto the field.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2018 9:22 pm UTC
by Yablo
Sizik wrote:Patriotism is chanting "U-S-A!" when the USA team walks onto the field.
Nationalism is chanting "U-S-A!" when the other country's team walks onto the field.

Okay. I can accept this distinction. And in light of it, nationalism would definitely be the dickmove side of it. Also, in light of it, I can see Trump falling on the side of nationalism.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2018 9:26 pm UTC
by Yablo
Pfhorrest wrote:America only has a center, and a right, and an undecided center-right who aren't sure how much right they're okay with.

There is no left anymore.

Except, we can't have a right and a center without a left. If the entire left were to simply cease to exist, everything would necessarily recalibrate, and the center would become the new left.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2018 9:26 pm UTC
by Tyndmyr
Pfhorrest wrote:America only has a center, and a right, and an undecided center-right who aren't sure how much right they're okay with.

There is no left anymore.

I mean, there are lots of left-leaning people, but the centrist party is the closest to political representation we have.


The democratic party offers up left leaning politicians plenty often. It's not the representation that's lacking. It's something else. Strategy? Coordination? I agree that there's an inequity there, but it's not that the Democrat candidates fail to be leftist.

In MD, which is blue as hell, we are invariably going to choose to relect a republican governor. Why? Because the democrat candidate isn't leftist enough? He's way out there. That's the problem. He's too far left from the voters. The republican gov is centrist as hell, and is pragmatic about focusing on making stuff work. Voters want the potholes filled. The leftist candidate's ideas are *very* far left(free college for all, as one prominent example), but he isn't convincing anyone that he can actually make things work.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2018 9:42 pm UTC
by Thesh
Mainstream Republicans/Reactionary: The system sucks, we need a stronger hierarchy.
RINOs/Democrats/Conservative: The system is pretty cool, we should only make changes if necessary to maintain the status quo.
Mainstream Democrats/Centrist: The system is pretty cool, but we should make sure that everyone gets equal representation in wealth and poverty.
Democrats/Progressive: The system is mostly cool, but we need to work towards eliminating the inequality.
Leftists: The system sucks, we should tear down the hierarchy.

There is no real representation of leftists in American politics or media. The Republicans have just shifted everything so far to the right that the concept of government doing anything to help people other than by arresting or shooting other people is considered far-left extremism.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2018 10:11 pm UTC
by Pfhorrest
Yablo wrote:Except, we can't have a right and a center without a left. If the entire left were to simply cease to exist, everything would necessarily recalibrate, and the center would become the new left.

Only if you have nothing but other local and contemporary politicians' policies/platforms/opinions by which to judge, and not the whole world's historical breadth of possibilities.

You can quite easily know that there are possible opinions (because people have held them) far to one side of the spectrum of opinions held by people near you in space and time, and not much to the other side of that spectrum, and judge that people near you in space and time are generally biased toward one side of the whole spectrum of possibilities.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2018 10:57 pm UTC
by CorruptUser
So what, are we just ignoring China and India? India is far, far more rightwing than the general US public. Economically, China is, well, it's weird; officially it's commie bastards, but in reality it's the 1870's gilded age robber barons of the US, so economically it's far to the right of the US, as well as socially.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2018 11:20 pm UTC
by Pfhorrest
Yeah, I'd put China (and I didn't know about India, but taking your word for it, them too) down in the lower-right area too.