President Trump & the USA

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

Im suggesting its gone beyond that, initially they allowed him to get away with stuff simply for the Presidency, but they stood up for the "greater good of politics" and held to the Republicans beliefs, they have now actually allowed him to change the party. I have stopped following US politics because of its iddiocracy, so im in no real position to judge...but my guess is the Repubs are totally screwed for several elections after this cluster****

Maybe, I'm discounting nothing right now given all that has happened.

 

And yeah, they've allowed him ot change the party ethos because they now know getting in his way means they're out on their ear. Self-interest ruling supreme.

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

4 hours ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48997008

 

"It doesn't concern me because many people agree with me."

 

That's really the nub and the crux of it - often perception is the most important thing and it can be perceived that the remarks were racially charged as much as one likes, there are those who will not stop, never stop, thinking that they were not and even if they were it wouldn't matter.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48998696

 

About the right response. Don't expect civility for you will be shown none, just keep on keeping on.

"Racially charged" is a great way of saying 'not racist'

 

People agree with him because the politics of these people is antithetical to the US

 

Omar cant condemn terrorists when questioned. AOC also couldnt condemn the antifa attack, add that to the list of retarded things she has done. People agree with Trump because these people are dangerous idiots, nothing to do with race

 

If people moaning about these tweets were at all serious about the greater good in politics they would have to think a bit harder than  just say RaCIsT. Trump is playing the dems like a fiddle

 

Cant wait for 2020, its going to be great

[MC Prussian]

3 hours ago, ozleicester said:

Why does the Republican party do nothing to control this lunatic?

How or why does he need controlling? He's not the first US president with an ego problem. So far, he hasn't started a war or sent the US economy down the drains, on the contrary.

 

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Like I said, they're covering their own arses because they know they get mauled on election day.

Or maybe they see that Trump's actions in favour of the US top his Twitter antics, and they don't read as much into his writing as his critics do.

 

The real lunacy these days is played on the Democrats' side, they are the party of disarray - the amount of in-fighting is incredible and leading up to 2020, their candidates are either tremendously stupid, weak or absolutely un-charismatic, with two exceptions:

Tulsi Gabbard (who even gets sabotaged by her own party and the media) and Andrew Yang (he's Asian-American, so not black enough for the progressive Democrats).

Edited 16 July 2019 by MC Prussian

[MC Prussian]

6 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

If you're worried about the accuracy of quotes, here's the relevant section (my bold):

 

"So interesting to see 'Progressive' Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly and viciously telling the people of the US, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run. Why don't they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how it is done".

 

He refers to their "countries" of origin, then goes on to lambast the govts of those countries in comparison to the US, before suggesting they go back to these "broken and crime infested places from which they came". Yet you somehow deduce that he's referring to "their own district"? So, in the case of Ocasio Cortez, the "broken and crime infested place" he's referring to is New York, where he came from himself? 

 

And why would he be interested in the districts of 3 of them, but only the country of origin of Omar?

Anyway, Somalia is a horrendous mess.....but Omar is now a US citizen & elected US representative.

 

 

Here's Wikipedia with a history of his racial views, including his prosecution for housing discrimination against black renters, his long campaign suggesting that Obama wasn't born in America and his rape accusations against black men proven to be innocent after a confession from someone else was confirmed by DNA evidence:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_views_of_Donald_Trump

 

Yeah, just a non-racist bloke who keeps expressing himself clumsily and thinks people should look after their own districts..... 

 

 

Even if his comments against Mexicans / Central Americans were aimed at illegal immigrants (cannot confirm either way), his clear insinuation that most are rapists & drug dealers is untrue.

Obviously, some are criminals. But most illegal immigrants go to the USA to work - often in crappy jobs that are low-paid by US standards, but offer a better living than available back home.

Of course, illegal immigration itself is a valid issue to raise. But implying that most immigrants from Mexico, or even most illegal immigrants, are rapists & drug dealers was blatantly dishonest - & clear, deliberate racism

 

 

I heard there was a certain amount of crime, poverty and drug trafficking in the Scottish central belt. Send Trump back to the country he "originally came from" to "fix [that] total broken and crime infested place", I say! 

 

I wonder which country he thinks Congresswoman Pressley "originally came from" and should "go back and help fix"?

She's a black American so I'm guessing she has slave ancestry? Has Trump identified which modern African country her slave ancestors were brought from? 

You are basically regurgitating what I've said before, and I've also pointed out that his generalizations don't help his cause, since only one out of the four congresswomen he's attacking wasn't originally born in the US. That was either incedibly ignorant or on purpose, you can interpret it either way.

 

In his second part of that lengthy Tweet, he talks about "places", not countries. And the way I read it, yes, it's about Minnesota (or Somalia) in Omar's case, Detroit (Tlaib), Boston (Pressley) and New York (AOC).

Trump was a real-estate mogul before he became president, never a politician. It's AOC's job to take care of her district or NYC, not his. Never has.

New York, city and State, are deep in debt, have been so for decades and are not the greatest places to live on paper.

https://observer.com/2017/12/thomas-dinapoli-new-york-state-debt/

Mayor de Blasio is so detested, he regularly polls at 0% in popularity, in other cases even in the negative area!

https://theweek.com/speedreads/842760/bill-de-blasio-astonishing-8-percent-favorable-rating

 

I've said it before and I'm saying it again, too many gullible people read way too much into Trump's Twitter output. Some of it is hilarious, other posts are hilariously bad, other parts are funny, some are serious, others stupid or inflammatory/derogatory. We all knew the character Trump way before he became president, look it up on YouTube for example, so why the outrage over his behaviour today? He's got an ego problem, has done so most of his life once he became famous, it's part of a narcissistic personality, yet I don't see how that distinguishes himself from presidents that came before him (apart from Doubleyah, maybe).

Where was the outrage there? It just happens to be Twitter didn't mean anything to them, because for most of them, it simply didn't exist yet.

This obsession with Social Media is crazy, and downright idiotic.

 

The media enforce and shape Trump's image accordingly, the liberal media hate him, so they'll do anything to portray him in a negative way, no matter what the circumstances. Even if he does something "amazing", they'll either stay silent or find a minor offense to talk about.

Edited 16 July 2019 by MC Prussian

[Jattdogg]

5 hours ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

Cant wait for 2020, its going to be great

The only good thing would be if neither of the coonts won. The US really needs a viable third party somewhere between both these far right and far left nut bars but they tend to be too stupid to realize that.  Even just having a third party could help with any one party having an absolute majority and actually having to work together more so then they do now. Sure it won't always be the case as majority governments  appear to happen even with 3 or more parties but another voice is needed in america for those who align with policies from both parties. 

Edited 16 July 2019 by Jattdogg

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

2 minutes ago, Jattdogg said:

The only good thing would be if neither of the coonts won. The US really needs a viable third party somewhere between both these far right and far left nut bars but they tend to be too stupid to realize that.  Even just having a third party could help with any one party having an absolute majority and actually having to work together more so then they do now. Sure it won't always be the case as majority governments  appear to happen even with 3 or more parties but another voice is needed in america for those who align with policies from both parties. 

If anything it looks like there is room for a 3rd party to oust the democrats atm, if they continue to worsen

[Jattdogg]

5 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

If anything it looks like there is room for a 3rd party to oust the democrats atm, if they continue to worsen

You could have said the same about the republicans when barack won twice.  Again, i think  those central in both parties could form a party and get shit done for america. The real maga if you will

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

5 minutes ago, Jattdogg said:

You could have said the same about the republicans when barack won twice.  Again, i think  those central in both parties could form a party and get shit done for america. The real maga if you will

I dont remember them going as mental when Obama won, but I wasnt paying so much attention then

 

Its true a bit more centrism wouldnt hurt. Not where the trend is headed though

[Jattdogg]

15 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

I dont remember them going as mental when Obama won, but I wasnt paying so much attention then

 

Its true a bit more centrism wouldnt hurt. Not where the trend is headed though

The future needs to be though. Going too far right when more US voters checked democrat at the ballot is bad for the country.  The reverse scenario would be too. If things continue down this path you might as well carve up america (have a referendum).

 

Politics are toxic right now.. too much us vs them.

 

 

Edited 16 July 2019 by Jattdogg

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

8 minutes ago, Jattdogg said:

The future needs to be though. Going too far right when more US voters checked democrat at the ballot is bad for the country.  The reverse scenario would be too. If things continue down this path you might as well carve up america (have a referendum).

 

Politics are toxic right now.. too much us vs them.

 

 

Politics is very toxic right now, for me Trump is an antidote to that, for others he is the main cause of that.

 

The next election is going to be even more interesting than the last. 

 

I tried to watch the Hunt v Johnson debate last night and it was so boring and tedious and empty

 

US politics is very entertaining atm, gotta give it that

[Detroit Blues]

28 minutes ago, Jattdogg said:

You could have said the same about the republicans when barack won twice.  Again, i think  those central in both parties could form a party and get shit done for america. The real maga if you will 

I think too many people's opinions have conformed to the party they have supported. There's not enough independent thinkers in this country to have a true "third party." At best, a candidate can use their own platform to pull a party towards their direction on various key issues (like Bernie did to the Democratic Party, or Trump did to the Republican Party.) 

 

 

 

[leicsmac]

6 hours ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

"Racially charged" is a great way of saying 'not racist'

 

People agree with him because the politics of these people is antithetical to the US

 

Omar cant condemn terrorists when questioned. AOC also couldnt condemn the antifa attack, add that to the list of retarded things she has done. People agree with Trump because these people are dangerous idiots, nothing to do with race

 

If people moaning about these tweets were at all serious about the greater good in politics they would have to think a bit harder than  just say RaCIsT. Trump is playing the dems like a fiddle

 

Cant wait for 2020, its going to be great

AFAIC the content of the Tweets was racist, but seeing as that accusation seems to draw so much ire these days I thought a more measured term would be better.

 

Once again, AOC and Omar are hardly the only "dangerous idiots" in Congress that Trump might target...so, again: why only them, and why in this way?

 

Can't say that I disagree that the Dems getting down into the mud with Trump is a bad idea, though - it plays to each and every one of his strengths.

 

NB. Ready to talk about those environmental matters we discussed yesterday when you have time and feel ready.

 

 

6 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

How or why does he need controlling? He's not the first US president with an ego problem. So far, he hasn't started a war or sent the US economy down the drains, on the contrary.

 

Or maybe they see that Trump's actions in favour of the US top his Twitter antics, and they don't read as much into his writing as his critics do.

 

The real lunacy these days is played on the Democrats' side, they are the party of disarray - the amount of in-fighting is incredible and leading up to 2020, their candidates are either tremendously stupid, weak or absolutely un-charismatic, with two exceptions:

Tulsi Gabbard (who even gets sabotaged by her own party and the media) and Andrew Yang (he's Asian-American, so not black enough for the progressive Democrats).

....I'm curious to know what you think those are, outside of economics and skirting the line with war but not actually doing it, that is - I posted a response regarding the actions of this administration a couple of pages back when you wanted to discuss it, which went ignored.

 

I'd agree that the Repub establishment by and large think he's their best or even only hope to keep most of their own seats, but the amount of criticism his comments draw from more moderate Repubs speak for themselves, really.

[leicsmac]

44 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

I dont remember them going as mental when Obama won, but I wasnt paying so much attention then

 

Its true a bit more centrism wouldnt hurt. Not where the trend is headed though

Speaking purely as a human being interested in the future of civilisation I think you could be right about this and frankly it scares me.

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

8 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

AFAIC the content of the Tweets was racist, but seeing as that accusation seems to draw so much ire these days I thought a more measured term would be better.

 

Once again, AOC and Omar are hardly the only "dangerous idiots" in Congress that Trump might target...so, again: why only them, and why in this way?

 

Can't say that I disagree that the Dems getting down into the mud with Trump is a bad idea, though - it plays to each and every one of his strengths.

 

NB. Ready to talk about those environmental matters we discussed yesterday when you have time and feel ready.

 

 

....I'm curious to know what you think those are, outside of economics and skirting the line with war but not actually doing it, that is - I posted a response regarding the actions of this administration a couple of pages back when you wanted to discuss it, which went ignored.

 

I'd agree that the Repub establishment by and large think he's their best or even only hope to keep most of their own seats, but the amount of criticism his comments draw from more moderate Repubs speak for themselves, really.

I havent read up on them yet. I do feel like when you list 5 things Trump has done and 2 or 3 of them turn out to be not how you perceived them it doesnt seem to make you think - hmmm, maybe i should question his portrayal in a more broad way - and I dont really get why.

 

I think the left are the ones causing crazy polarisation, they are the ones dragging us into the mire. They lied abiout the border, they are the ones that pretened to care and use racial dogwhistles whilst not helping

 

Omar and AOC are the most extreme examples of the dangerous tactic of the left in america atm. Omar is a terrorist symapthiser. She downplayed 9/11. She is an anti semite.  And you can say that with more certainty than these frankly false claims of Trump's racism

 

I dont know why this doesnt worry you more. The danger of open borders and the false promises of socialism are embodied by these politicians. They are the pits

 

Trump is the Daddy, these guys are the children in the room. Change my mind

 

[leicsmac]

21 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

I havent read up on them yet. I do feel like when you list 5 things Trump has done and 2 or 3 of them turn out to be not how you perceived them it doesnt seem to make you think - hmmm, maybe i should question his portrayal in a more broad way - and I dont really get why.

 

I think the left are the ones causing crazy polarisation, they are the ones dragging us into the mire. They lied abiout the border, they are the ones that pretened to care and use racial dogwhistles whilst not helping

 

Omar and AOC are the most extreme examples of the dangerous tactic of the left in america atm. Omar is a terrorist symapthiser. She downplayed 9/11. She is an anti semite.  And you can say that with more certainty than these frankly false claims of Trump's racism

 

I dont know why this doesnt worry you more. The danger of open borders and the false promises of socialism are embodied by these politicians. They are the pits

 

Trump is the Daddy, these guys are the children in the room. Change my mind

 

Don't go all poisoned well fallacy on me now (not that I believe the well was particularly poisoned in the first place anyway), my friend, take a look. The man is bad news for any and all environmental future which is more important than any other issue wholesale because every single other social or economic issue depends on a stable Earth in which it can be applied - change my mind on that.

 

TBH we could play the "he started it, no he started" game until the cows come home but as far as I'm concerned it isn't really all that relevant anyway - the polarisation exists and if it causes real problems down the line people aren't going to be asking how it came about.

 

With respect, I reckon this comes down to a pretty simple clash of worldviews as evidenced in your penultimate paragraph here. I can see where you stand, and my own stance is that humanity either thrives together, or collapses divided. Evolutionary history is full of examples of that. Putting that end off for as long as possible is what drives me and what will continue to drive me until someone puts me to bed with a shovel. Other people have their hills they would die on - that one is mine. That is why I think that those who advocate for humanity above the nation-state (on some issues, not all) are the adults in the room. Make of that what you will.

 

One more thing; I asked Sampson a fair while back a question on this topic (as the talk was pretty similar) and I'd be interested in your answer too: if the day came when humanity had to choose between collectivism (on a temporary basis) and extinction (and hypothetical as this is it is a choice that has been given to and chosen by many other complex species in the past)...which would you go for?

Edited 16 July 2019 by leicsmac

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

38 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Don't go all poisoned well fallacy on me now (not that I believe the well was particularly poisoned in the first place anyway), my friend, take a look. The man is bad news for any and all environmental future which is more important than any other issue wholesale because every single other social or economic issue depends on a stable Earth in which it can be applied - change my mind on that.

 

TBH we could play the "he started it, no he started" game until the cows come home but as far as I'm concerned it isn't really all that relevant anyway - the polarisation exists and if it causes real problems down the line people aren't going to be asking how it came about.

 

With respect, I reckon this comes down to a pretty simple clash of worldviews as evidenced in your penultimate sentence here. I can see where you stand, and my own stance is that humanity either thrives together, or collapses divided. Evolutionary history is full of examples of that. Putting that end off for as long as possible is what drives me and what will continue to drive me until someone puts me to bed with a shovel. Other people have their hills they would die on - that one is mine. That is why I think that those who advocate for humanity above the nation-state (on some issues, not all) are the adults in the room. Make of that what you will.

 

One more thing; I asked Sampson a fair while back a question on this topic (as the talk was pretty similar) and I'd be interested in your answer too: if the day came when humanity had to choose between collectivism (on a temporary basis) and extinction (and hypothetical as this is it is a choice that has been given to and chosen by many other complex species in the past)...which would you go for?

We've been through the environmentalism thing a lot - it just seems to me to be so easy to trot it out and lay it like a blanket over the whole world (which i guess politically that literally is what it is)  and then there is no room for dicussion.  I'm more and more sceptical of it.  We still tout the ozone layer as some sort of victory but it was also psuedo science.  I think you have your view on CC and I have mine and there is probably no room to bridge the gap in a real way

 

Human evolution is basically a history of clashing world views and clashing cultures and war is it not?  Some countries have managed to knock together workable societies that have furthered knowledge, art, science and medicine, have enabled us to have better political discussion and have been founded on protecting people's freedoms.  These countries are rare and precious and we must celebrate them.  Today there is a fashion to say these countries are the most evil on the planet, which is an empty virtue signal but has far too much traction relative to its value (ie. it has 0 value)

 

The ones that have not been great for the arts and sciences and civil freedoms etc. are the collectivist socialist ones.  I dont believe we are on the cusp of extinction from climate change, so if I dont believe that, why should I do whatever the people who do believe that tell me to do?  Its totalitarian in effect, but its just infused with the morality of 'saving humanity' so some people dont see it for its authoritarian nature.  Its a watermelon.

 

The globalist environmentalist movement seems to work hand in hand with destruction of sovereignty (because it wants countries to subject themselves economically to blocs, like the EU, for example), with mass migration (not migration, but mass migration) that dilutes and disturbs the cultural fabric to the point where a country cannot express the will of its people, who reflect its culture which has been painstakingly built and preserved over years and hard-fought for, and becomes weak to internationalist agendas which may well be apposite to the agenda of the populace

 

  - just read The Social Contract to learn how difficult it is to have a stable politic without a people who share values.  Its actually probably impossible.  And we have distrubed the social fabric in spades in the UK.  I dont really want to see the US do the same, we have problems now with the lack of integration and we will have plenty more in the future - before that gets called racist, I would love integration. Would love it.  In many places we dont have it.

 

Having an extreme environmentalist outlook seems to me to imply that any position which does not run in accordance with it is immoral.  Sounds like fundamental Islam, sounds like fascism, sounds like communism.  That will probably sound extreme to you, but I think nested in your environmental idea is a totalitarian aspect that even creeps into your speech at times, like when you say you would support collectivism on a temporary basis.  ie.  the men in power tell everyone what to do until they decide they dont need to anymore

 

What strikes me the most is that you seem such a nice guy, hell of a lot nicer than me, but in that ideology there is a tyrant that does not for me correspond with your nature as I perceive it

 

Edited 16 July 2019 by AlloverthefloorYesNdidi

[Leicester_Loyal]

Trump is an idiot for what he tweeted.

 

Ilhan Omar refusing to denounce Al-Queda? The democratics aren't helping themselves are they?

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

7 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

Trump is an idiot for what he tweeted.

 

Ilhan Omar refusing to denounce Al-Queda? The democratics aren't helping themselves are they?

Its crude and ostensibly oafish, but its tactically very effective

 

There is a petition going to start an official investigation into her marrying her brother to get him into the country, seems there might be some substance to that story after all

[Kopfkino]

51 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

One more thing; I asked Sampson a fair while back a question on this topic (as the talk was pretty similar) and I'd be interested in your answer too: if the day came when humanity had to choose between collectivism (on a temporary basis) and extinction (and hypothetical as this is it is a choice that has been given to and chosen by many other complex species in the past)...which would you go for?

I don't know why we should be scared of extinction tbh. The idea of preserving mankind for the sake of preserving mankind seems odd to me, it's the same mentality that means we leave 90+ year olds to essentially vegetate in care homes just for preservation and time maximisation. Of course, presented with your dichotomy of fluffy collectivism v 'catastrophe', it becomes easy to choose collectivism. 

[leicsmac]

Allow me to have a look at this paragraph by paragraph as there is a lot to unpack, interesting stuff:

 

 

9 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

We've been through the environmentalism thing a lot - it just seems to me to be so easy to trot it out and lay it like a blanket over the whole world (which i guess politically that literally is what it is)  and then there is no room for dicussion.  I'm more and more sceptical of it.  We still tout the ozone layer as some sort of victory but it was also psuedo science.  I think you have your view on CC and I have mine and there is probably no room to bridge the gap in a real way

 

I'm curious as to why you're sceptical about the data as it is because it would imply that collectively the scientific community is either incompetent or maliciously lying for their own purposes, unless there's a third explanation there. Collective action to fix the ozone layer and consequences of not doing so certainly wasn't pseudoscience in my opinion, but alright then - we'll leave the opposing views at that.

 

11 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

 

 

Human evolution is basically a history of clashing world views and clashing cultures and war is it not?  Some countries have managed to knock together workable societies that have furthered knowledge, art, science and medicine, have enabled us to have better political discussion and have been founded on protecting people's freedoms.  These countries are rare and precious and we must celebrate them.  Today there is a fashion to say these countries are the most evil on the planet, which is an empty virtue signal but has far too much traction relative to its value (ie. it has 0 value)

 

The ones that have not been great for the arts and sciences and civil freedoms etc. are the collectivist socialist ones.  I dont believe we are on the cusp of extinction from climate change, so if I dont believe that, why should do whatever the people who do believe that tell me to do?  Its totalitarian in effect, but its just infused with the morality of 'saving humanity' so some people dont see it for its authoritarian nature.  Its a watermelon.

 

 

Evolution through clashing world-views is indeed a great driver of progress - right up until the point where an outside stress puts enough pressure on a species. At that point, such evolution is actually counterproductive because instead of being able to take on the problem as one group, the various factions of a species will instead challenge and fight each other for control of whatever resource or area is dwindling...until there's barely anyone left any more, and nature might finish the job. Yes, not much forward progress is made, but as the name of the game is simply maintaining the status quo in terms of upkeep of civilisation/survival, that's not the idea anyway.

 

Mankind has to know when to switch from one mode to the other, and I'm not entirely sure that it does, considering that many (including yourself) do not even believe that such an outside stress even exists or could exist in the near future.

 

Of course you are free to act according to your own personal beliefs, but are you really OK with taking the gamble with highest of stakes regarding the future that you and those that think like you are not wrong - and do you feel you even have the right to? I guess that's what absolute personal sovereignty comes down to....

 

20 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

The globalist environmentalist movement seems to work hand in hand with destruction of sovereignty (because it wants countries to subject themselves economically to blocs, like the EU, for example), with mass migration (not migration, but mass migration) that dilutes and disturbs the cultural fabric to the point where a country cannot express the will of its people which reflect its culture which has been painstakingly built and preserved over years and hard-fought for and becomesweak to internationalist agendas .

 

  - just read The Social Contract to learn how difficult it is to have a stable politic without a people who share values.  Its actually probably impossible.  And we have distrubed the social fabric in spades in the UK.  I dont really want to see the US do the same, we have problems now with the lack of integration and we will have plenty more in the future - before that gets called racist, I would love integration. Would love it.  In many places we dont have it.

 

I'd love integration too - AFAIC the more people know about each other, the more they will be able to get along with each other, which is deeply helpful.

 

It's also difficult but not impossible to take on global issues as a global bloc where needed while maintaining cultural heritages that mean a lot to a great deal of people.

 

22 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

Having an extreme environmentalist outlook seems to me to imply that any position which does not run in accordance with it is immoral.  Sounds like fundamental Islam, sounds like fascism, sounds like communism.  That will probably sound extreme to you, but I think nested in your environmental idea is a totalitarian aspect that even creeps into your speech at times, like when you say you would support collectivism on a temporary basis.  ie.  the men in power tell everyone what to do until they decide they dont need to anymore

 

What strikes me the most is that you seem such a nice guy, hell of a lot nicer than me, but in that ideology there is a tyrant that does not for me correspond with your nature as I perceive it

 

You're of course welcome to that view, no need to justify it. I think morality is as subjective as any other quality so I don't get the feeling of offence that others get from being labelled immoral or whatever - it's just one persons viewpoint, after all.

 

Regarding tyranny - I most certainly don't want power, especially of that magnitude you describe here. I know I could never be trusted with it, because of how corruptive it is. Power needs to be shared around as many people as possible because of what it does to people. I also have a singular dislike and fear for places like China who have thoroughly embraced totalitarianism in an utterly needless way that benefits only a very chosen few - I can certainly see what you mean about such regimes being truly terrible and you're right to fear such authoritarianism.

 

However - and this might be where we differ on a crucial part of our worldview - as much as I fear such authoritarianism...I fear the collapse of civilisation in general and death, on the part of myself and a great deal of others, more.

Because authoritarian regimes, one day, can fall.

If the same happens to all human civilisation...I'm not sure there could be a recovery, ever.

 

 

 

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Kopfkino said:

I don't know why we should be scared of extinction tbh. The idea of preserving mankind for the sake of preserving mankind seems odd to me, it's the same mentality that means we leave 90+ year olds to essentially vegetate in care homes just for preservation and time maximisation. Of course, presented with your dichotomy of fluffy collectivism v 'catastrophe', it becomes easy to choose collectivism. 

You could be right (said the same thing to Sampson) - perhaps I personally fear death too much and don't allow enough leeway when I consider it by definition the worst case scenario.

 

For what it's worth I really hope we don't have to face that dichotomy and the sooner we take more decisive action the less chance we will have to do so IMO.

[Kopfkino]

35 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

 

Having an extreme environmentalist outlook seems to me to imply that any position which does not run in accordance with it is immoral.  Sounds like fundamental Islam, sounds like fascism, sounds like communism.  That will probably sound extreme to you, but I think nested in your environmental idea is a totalitarian aspect that even creeps into your speech at times, like when you say you would support collectivism on a temporary basis.  ie.  the men in power tell everyone what to do until they decide they dont need to anymore

 

 

 

I agree with this. Environmentalism now has fundy elements increasingly akin to religion, the environment being the deity and a pre occupation with organising mankind in such a way as to serve that deity to ensure eternalness. And such is the moral high ground of some, everything that isn't about that is morally inferior and thus the ends will justify the means. 

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

22 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Allow me to have a look at this paragraph by paragraph as there is a lot to unpack, interesting stuff:

 

 

I'm curious as to why you're sceptical about the data as it is because it would imply that collectively the scientific community is either incompetent or maliciously lying for their own purposes, unless there's a third explanation there. Collective action to fix the ozone layer and consequences of not doing so certainly wasn't pseudoscience in my opinion, but alright then - we'll leave the opposing views at that.

TBH  I recently read that the reduction of CPCs did not coincide with the ozone healing itself.  Dont know much more than that.  I'm not an expert on climate change, but I dont think many other people are.  The media is doing a good job of printing plenty of blatant lies atm, particularly the leftist media, as thats most of the mainstream media tbf atm, its not unreasonable to be sceptical

Quote

 

Evolution through clashing world-views is indeed a great driver of progress - right up until the point where an outside stress puts enough pressure on a species. At that point, such evolution is actually counterproductive because instead of being able to take on the problem as one group, the various factions of a species will instead challenge and fight each other for control of whatever resource or area is dwindling...until there's barely anyone left any more, and nature might finish the job. Yes, not much forward progress is made, but as the name of the game is simply maintaining the status quo in terms of upkeep of civilisation/survival, that's not the idea anyway.

I didnt say that evolution is driven by clashing world views.  I said some countries have established within themselves a society that drives progress, thats irrespective of clashing world vews.  Some countries do not have such an established society.  Just think some cultures do this better than others, dont feel ashamed to say.  And I think we cant take what we have for granted.  And I think thats what Trump means.  Omar literally compares England and the US to Al Quaeda.  She does not like ''The West'' and I think thats very different from wanting to just improve the country.  She would prefer to change it, fundamentally.  I actually dont mind him suggesting she jog on.  BTW she did not oppose harsher laws on FGM, for example.  I dont care for her or her opinions. 

Of course we should aim to get along with as many people and peoples as we can. 

Quote

 

Mankind has to know when to switch from one mode to the other, and I'm not entirely sure that it does, considering that many (including yourself) do not even believe that such an outside stress even exists or could exist in the near future.

 

Of course you are free to act according to your own personal beliefs, but are you really OK with taking the gamble with highest of stakes regarding the future that you and those that think like you are not wrong - and do you feel you even have the right to? I guess that's what absolute personal sovereignty comes down to....

 

I'd love integration too - AFAIC the more people know about each other, the more they will be able to get along with each other, which is deeply helpful.

 

It's also difficult but not impossible to take on global issues as a global bloc where needed while maintaining cultural heritages that mean a lot to a great deal of people.

 

Individuals have had more of an impact on history than anything else, good and bad. We must support the individuals who are doing the most, that means supporting a free society.    Like you say, power corrupts, and so I dont trust a giant authoritative bloc to gain power under claims of environmental impending disaster and not to abuse it. 

 

Quote

 

You're of course welcome to that view, no need to justify it. I think morality is as subjective as any other quality so I don't get the feeling of offence that others get from being labelled immoral or whatever - it's just one persons viewpoint, after all.

 

Regarding tyranny - I most certainly don't want power, especially of that magnitude you describe here. I know I could never be trusted with it, because of how corruptive it is. Power needs to be shared around as many people as possible because of what it does to people. I also have a singular dislike and fear for places like China who have thoroughly embraced totalitarianism in an utterly needless way that benefits only a very chosen few - I can certainly see what you mean about such regimes being truly terrible and you're right to fear such authoritarianism.

 

However - and this might be where we differ on a crucial part of our worldview - as much as I fear such authoritarianism...I fear the collapse of civilisation in general and death, on the part of myself and a great deal of others, more.

Because authoritarian regimes, one day, can fall.

If the same happens to all human civilisation...I'm not sure there could be a recovery, ever.

 

 

 

 

Edited 16 July 2019 by AlloverthefloorYesNdidi

[Detroit Blues]

It is funny to me how convenient people are when it comes to accepting modern science. We implicitly trust science for developments in modern technology, medicine, etc.  The same scientific principles are being applied to studying the climate. Why are we so interested, and so willing, to doubt science, in this particular area of study? 

 

Science tells us that human activity is adding carbon/methane/etc. to the atmosphere, which is raising the temperature of earth. If this continues to happen, it will have catastrophic consequences. Consider the likelihood that the scientific community, which has been right about all the aforementioned things, is also right about climate change. How much worse would your life, and the lives of future generations, be if the earth continues to warm at an increasing rate? How would you prioritize this issue against other political issues?

 

Edited 16 July 2019 by Detroit Blues

[leicsmac]

45 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

I agree with this. Environmentalism now has fundy elements increasingly akin to religion, the environment being the deity and a pre occupation with organising mankind in such a way as to serve that deity to ensure eternalness. And such is the moral high ground of some, everything that isn't about that is morally inferior and thus the ends will justify the means. 

I guess what one makes of all this it does come down to how much one specifically values the present, the future, the individual and the collective of humanity.

 

And there is no "right" and "wrong" way to look at that because of the subjectiveness of morality.

 

Speaking personally, I believe what I believe based on the evidence presented to me pretty damn strongly, but that's only my own viewpoint and I don't subscribe to it being more morally righteous one way or the other.

 

And, with the very greatest of respect, Kopf, you're someone whose viewpoints I admire highly for their clear intellect but I grow rather tired of the accusations of such moral righteousness being thrown around by you in this post and by @AlloverthefloorYesNdidi earlier on - they are not accurate. I beg your pardon if what you say here isn't meant to be personal, but the post you made before this one rather implied that it was.