The Democratic Primary is Upon Us! (Alaska, Hawaii, Louisiana, and Wyoming April 4 )

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NEXT
 

Agema:
Crises tend to push voters to the right.

"Right" must be standing in for some other collection of lurking variables, as that certainly isn't a satisfactory explanation of that process when it actually does happen. In any case, there is some anecdotal evidence that it is currently doing the opposite in the United States.

Seanchaidh:

"Right" must be standing in for some other collection of lurking variables, as that certainly isn't a satisfactory explanation of that process when it actually does happen.

I'd say crises tend to push voters towards easily-explained, easily-digested solutions to complex problems. People don't want to address underlying or systemic issues, or recognise problems with their own behaviour. The right (or, at least, the British Conservatives and US Republicans) tend to offer straightforward, simplistic approaches that are easily understood (fairly often featuring a scapegoat).

As with the climate crisis: It's difficult to countenance that we need to address long-term trends in consumerist culture, or that we need to think about the whole production process for various products. Hence the popularity of dismissiveness or conspiracy theories among the right.

& as with wage depreciation and unemployment: it's difficult to countenance that we need wide-ranging structural overhaul, and that the society we live in is not meritocratic. Hence the right's tendency to blame economic woes on migrants and benefit claimants.

So, with this crisis, it's only the Left that will bother pointing out that diseases such as COVID-19 only have the opportunity to leap from species to species due to unregulated back-alley meat markets. The right will just tell us to knuckle down and stiff-upper-lip (if they're not outright lying to us that it's all blown out of proportion, like Trump or Bolsonaro).

Silvanus:
As with the climate crisis: It's difficult to countenance that we need to address long-term trends in consumerist culture, or that we need to think about the whole production process for various products. Hence the popularity of dismissiveness or conspiracy theories among the right.

Which is precisely why I keep arguing the left needs to drop the woo-woo shit when it comes to climate change, and change tact to hit the issue hard on the national security angle. I absolutely loathe 'national security liberals' and 'nationalist liberals' like few others do thanks to their unabashed corporatism and neoconservatism, but this is one talking point the left should eagerly co-opt to advance their agenda. "Decades from now climate change will create unprecedented food and housing crises" isn't as immediate or throat-gripping as, say, "petrodollars fueled 9/11".

So, with this crisis, it's only the Left that will bother pointing out that diseases such as COVID-19 only have the opportunity to leap from species to species due to unregulated back-alley meat markets. The right will just tell us to knuckle down and stiff-upper-lip (if they're not outright lying to us that it's all blown out of proportion, like Trump or Bolsonaro).

Literally the exact opposite is what has been occurring. The right has been the faction to point to bushmeat consumption and unregulated wet markets, in the pursuit of what you (rightly) pointed out: scapegoating. The left has busied itself calling the right racist, and making appeals to cultural relativism, for it. "Both sides" are right, but for all the wrong reasons: global inequity, uneven distribution of wealth and resources, and cultural imperialism are a primary driver for bushmeat consumption and wet markets, and to a certain extent one state or culture ought not interfere in good faith, humane, and safe practices of others, but playing white savior to protect unsafe and inhumane practices does no good and neither does scapegoating.

This is as big a vindication of Marxist theory as one can get: social and economic elites are playing the right and left against one another to protect global economic inequality. Keep the useful idiots fighting over wet markets, rather than paying heed to why they exist in the form they do.

Eacaraxe:

Which is precisely why I keep arguing the left needs to drop the woo-woo shit when it comes to climate change, and change tact to hit the issue hard on the national security angle. I absolutely loathe 'national security liberals' and 'nationalist liberals' like few others do thanks to their unabashed corporatism and neoconservatism, but this is one talking point the left should eagerly co-opt to advance their agenda. "Decades from now climate change will create unprecedented food and housing crises" isn't as immediate or throat-gripping as, say, "petrodollars fueled 9/11".

I largely agree, but the climate change debate in Sweden has largely centered on the "what kind of world will our children inherit"-angle and the need for measures now to avoid massive refugee streams[1], flooding of Swedish cities etc., yet the trajectory of the discourse went pretty much the same way as in the rest of the Western world. That is to say, the dividing line goes somewhere a bit to the right of the center of politics. Everyone to the left of that divide will agree about the pressing need for action, everyone to the right will remain skeptical and argue that it is not that bad, that we need to think of the economy or that it is all a hoax orchestrated by (((global banking))).

I think the problem is that climate change is one of those issues where you can't be very moderate, because if you agree that it is real you also agree that it requires massive changes to our way of life, the way we structure society and our patterns of consumption and it needs to happen right now. So if you don't want a massive change to free market capitalism, nation states, government intervention, global cooperation or social stratification based on economic means, it is easier to keep on denying climate change and its impacts. Because the alternative is to admit that a lot of what you hold as important in politics is either irrelevant or wrong under the circumstances and the left (the commies, the tree huggers etc.) were right and have more solutions to the problem then you do. Easier then to just deny it all, pretend as if nothing bad will happen if you ignore it and make some non-PC jokes about Greta Thunberg.

[1] After the massive 2015 influx of refugees, invoking refugee streams and make vague threats about another refugee crisis is a great way to get some quick good will from pretty much all parties but the left in Sweden

Seanchaidh:
"Right" must be standing in for some other collection of lurking variables, as that certainly isn't a satisfactory explanation of that process when it actually does happen. In any case, there is some anecdotal evidence that it is currently doing the opposite in the United States.

This goes into research into the psychologies of people who tend to vote right or left. Right wingers are thought to be more threat-aware, anxious, and prefer stability and structure. However, if you subject people to sufficient feeling of threat, they tend to move towards "right wing" ways of thinking: and it is suggested they may well be more likely to vote that way too. Part of this is thought to be why the many right wingers often makes a lot of noise about threats and enemies; it not only reflects their mindset but works to make other people move more right wing.

Gethsemani:
I think the problem is that climate change is one of those issues where you can't be very moderate, because if you agree that it is real you also agree that it requires massive changes to our way of life, the way we structure society and our patterns of consumption and it needs to happen right now.

I actually disagree, to a certain extent: there is more than enough room for moderate positions on fossil fuel use reduction and transition to renewable energy sources, and creation of sustainable economic models. Note I say that, rather than climate change -- my entire point is the same policy outcomes can be reached through alternative means of persuasion, independent from climate change itself. The problem as I see it, is your point hinges on climate change being a point of absolute obstinacy and orthodoxy on the left, to the point in some cases to pseudoscience (especially when it comes to nuclear energy and novel solutions for environmental damage). That alone needlessly and destructively polarizes the argument, for exactly the reasons specified.

The right has essentially erected a firewall on climate change in defense of fossil fuels. The left needs to acknowledge this, and start finding back doors to make persuasive arguments that cannot be easily defended against, to achieve the same policy goals. Those arguments may not always be desirable, but the left needs to concede to itself the issue is of such paramount importance it is worth sacrificing purity to achieve results.

Eacaraxe:
The right has essentially erected a firewall on climate change in defense of fossil fuels. The left needs to acknowledge this, and start finding back doors to make persuasive arguments that cannot be easily defended against, to achieve the same policy goals. Those arguments may not always be desirable, but the left needs to concede to itself the issue is of such paramount importance it is worth sacrificing purity to achieve results.

There isn't any purity on the left over climate change. There's a mound of disagreement on how to deal with it.

The problem comes that there isn't a single argument ever levelled by the left on energy policy that the fossil fuel-funded right has ever given weight to: it's all too slow, too inefficient, too expensive, too "big government", or whatever else they need to say to keep the oil wells pumping: all these have been covered as subsidiaries to climate change. The very point of funding anti-climate change arguments up the wazoo was to make sure nobody troubled oil production. You can shift the primary rationale to something else, but the petrodollars will pour in against it just the same.

Eacaraxe:

I actually disagree, to a certain extent: there is more than enough room for moderate positions on fossil fuel use reduction and transition to renewable energy sources, and creation of sustainable economic models. Note I say that, rather than climate change -- my entire point is the same policy outcomes can be reached through alternative means of persuasion, independent from climate change itself. The problem as I see it, is your point hinges on climate change being a point of absolute obstinacy and orthodoxy on the left, to the point in some cases to pseudoscience (especially when it comes to nuclear energy and novel solutions for environmental damage). That alone needlessly and destructively polarizes the argument, for exactly the reasons specified.

The right has essentially erected a firewall on climate change in defense of fossil fuels. The left needs to acknowledge this, and start finding back doors to make persuasive arguments that cannot be easily defended against, to achieve the same policy goals. Those arguments may not always be desirable, but the left needs to concede to itself the issue is of such paramount importance it is worth sacrificing purity to achieve results.

My point hinges on the fact that once you "believe" in climate change, you also accept that current scientific consensus is that we are either at or slightly past the breaking point and need to act decisively and immediately to prevent the worst case scenarios. Keep in mind that the divide I spoke about goes to the right of the center, which in Swedish politics means that "the left" in this case includes everything left of conservative, where liberals in Sweden usually comes down on the same side of conservatives in most issues. The Swedish debate has had just as many moralistic "tear down capitalism"-arguments as it has had free market liberals espouse arguments about letting market forces work to stop climate change, so I can't really agree with your view on how "the left" argues.

The entire point of my post was to point out that the style of arguments you asked for have already been tried in Sweden and the results here were pretty bad, at least not any better then in the US. Essentially, I believe, it comes down to the fact that the current right-alt right-far right axis is largely reactionary in nature and that's where climate change denial is the most entrenched. If they even sense a whiff of leftist involvement (be it feminists, tree huggers, commies or whatever else they hate) they'll immediately adopt the opposite position as a badge of honor. What arguments you bring forth is not important because these people will not agree just to spite you, and are notoriously fact resistent to boot.[1] The fact that "progressives" and "experts" talk about climate change is enough to make them deny it, no matter what the argument presented is. That accepting climate change would require them to fundamentally revise their entire political stance is only icing on the stubbornness cake.

[1] And yes, there are absolutely people like this on the other end of the political spectrum, I grew up butting heads with Left Party Youth who would refuse any argument that suggested anything but plan economy was the solution.

Agema:

Seanchaidh:
"Right" must be standing in for some other collection of lurking variables, as that certainly isn't a satisfactory explanation of that process when it actually does happen. In any case, there is some anecdotal evidence that it is currently doing the opposite in the United States.

This goes into research into the psychologies of people who tend to vote right or left. Right wingers are thought to be more threat-aware, anxious, and prefer stability and structure. However, if you subject people to sufficient feeling of threat, they tend to move towards "right wing" ways of thinking: and it is suggested they may well be more likely to vote that way too. Part of this is thought to be why the many right wingers often makes a lot of noise about threats and enemies; it not only reflects their mindset but works to make other people move more right wing.

That explains the attacks against Asian people in the United States. It does not so much explain the rent strikes.

Silvanus:

Seanchaidh:

"Right" must be standing in for some other collection of lurking variables, as that certainly isn't a satisfactory explanation of that process when it actually does happen.

I'd say crises tend to push voters towards easily-explained, easily-digested solutions to complex problems. People don't want to address underlying or systemic issues, or recognise problems with their own behaviour. The right (or, at least, the British Conservatives and US Republicans) tend to offer straightforward, simplistic approaches that are easily understood (fairly often featuring a scapegoat).

There are times in history when that easily-digested solution is revolution. Russia in 1917 hardly lacked for crises.

Agema:
There isn't any purity on the left over climate change...

That, in itself, is the "purity" I'm calling out -- the unwillingness of the left to debate policy outside the context of "climate change". The left needs to take a cue from the right on this, and start framing the policy debate subversively, and in ways that outflank and divide the right, while moving away from "climate change" as the position's linchpin altogether. The arguments cannot be subsidiary to "climate change", they have to be the argument itself. Case in point,

Gethsemani:
My point hinges on the fact that once you "believe" in climate change...the style of arguments you asked for have already been tried in Sweden and the results here were pretty bad, at least not any better then in the US.

No, not in the way I describe. The example you gave was, "because of climate change, refugees, national/cultural heritage, etc.". That still brings up climate change, invoking the firewall, and giving reactionaries that contrarian fallback. What I'm saying, is the whole damn paradigm and framing of the conversation needs to be thrown out. To get climate change policy, the left needs to shut the hell up about climate change. Entirely.

The plural of anecdote isn't data, but allow me to provide an example: I have a conservative friend who's a lifelong Republican and pretty stolid denier of anthropogenic climate change, but he actually strongly supports the GND and transition to renewables because he's an economic nationalist. He sees fossil fuels as a dead-end industry and that reliance on foreign energy sources weakens our national defense posture, and sees the GND as a jobs and rural modernization bill. How the left frames the debate does little but piss him off, because he (like me) sees the left in a perpetual state of active refusal to actually sell the policy in any way that might appeal across party lines, in favor of throwing red meat to their base and making a perpetual series of empty promises.

Eacaraxe:

Which is precisely why I keep arguing the left needs to drop the woo-woo shit when it comes to climate change, and change tact to hit the issue hard on the national security angle. I absolutely loathe 'national security liberals' and 'nationalist liberals' like few others do thanks to their unabashed corporatism and neoconservatism, but this is one talking point the left should eagerly co-opt to advance their agenda. "Decades from now climate change will create unprecedented food and housing crises" isn't as immediate or throat-gripping as, say, "petrodollars fueled 9/11".

Adopting the principles and talking points of the right hasn't served the left very well in the past.

No, I don't think the key to addressing the climate crisis is to stop discussing the actual dangers of it.

Literally the exact opposite is what has been occurring. The right has been the faction to point to bushmeat consumption and unregulated wet markets, in the pursuit of what you (rightly) pointed out: scapegoating. The left has busied itself calling the right racist, and making appeals to cultural relativism, for it. "Both sides" are right, but for all the wrong reasons: global inequity, uneven distribution of wealth and resources, and cultural imperialism are a primary driver for bushmeat consumption and wet markets, and to a certain extent one state or culture ought not interfere in good faith, humane, and safe practices of others, but playing white savior to protect unsafe and inhumane practices does no good and neither does scapegoating.

This is as big a vindication of Marxist theory as one can get: social and economic elites are playing the right and left against one another to protect global economic inequality. Keep the useful idiots fighting over wet markets, rather than paying heed to why they exist in the form they do.

That's entirely the opposite of what I've seen. I've only seen left-wing outlets even mention wet markets, deregulation, or the source of produce.

Similarly, wheres the "racist" accusation used in defence of wet markets...? I've seen it pointed out how shitty and unhelpful using terms like "the Chinese virus" is, coming as they do from the scapegoater-in-chief. But that has nothing to do with an honest consideration of how the virus developed, and everything to do with his nationalist dick-waving.

The virus will hugely impact the voting process. Less people will go out, and even if they do an online voting things, it's going to be mishandled as usual.

Gergar12:
Joe Biden is a rapist.

https://theintercept.com/2020/03/24/joe-biden-metoo-times-up/

Ol' Joe grabbed 'em by the pussy?

...We were all thinking it.

Gergar12:
Joe Biden is a rapist.

https://theintercept.com/2020/03/24/joe-biden-metoo-times-up/

another thing he has in common with donald, besides the dementia.

Marik2:
The virus will hugely impact the voting process. Less people will go out, and even if they do an online voting things, it's going to be mishandled as usual.

I couldn't even fucking vote, so you know.... yeah. It kinda did effect things.

Eacaraxe:

No, not in the way I describe. The example you gave was, "because of climate change, refugees, national/cultural heritage, etc.". That still brings up climate change, invoking the firewall, and giving reactionaries that contrarian fallback. What I'm saying, is the whole damn paradigm and framing of the conversation needs to be thrown out. To get climate change policy, the left needs to shut the hell up about climate change. Entirely.

Like I said, I think this is a pipe dream. A lot of the problem is oil money. Whatever tack the left takes, oil money is going to pour into the usual suspect think tanks and lobbying, then out to Fox etc., and they'll shut it down. The second problem is simply the matter of who is saying it. The political schism is such that virtually none of the left have any traction at all: a bunch of moderate or non-aligned figureheads can be put up to push the message, but that'll be seen through in days, if not hours.

The plural of anecdote isn't data, but allow me to provide an example: I have a conservative friend who's a lifelong Republican and pretty stolid denier of anthropogenic climate change, but he actually strongly supports the GND and transition to renewables because he's an economic nationalist. He sees fossil fuels as a dead-end industry and that reliance on foreign energy sources weakens our national defense posture, and sees the GND as a jobs and rural modernization bill. How the left frames the debate does little but piss him off, because he (like me) sees the left in a perpetual state of active refusal to actually sell the policy in any way that might appeal across party lines, in favor of throwing red meat to their base and making a perpetual series of empty promises.

Maybe. But I think another way of looking at it is the attraction to your friend of blaming the left, rather than the more psychologically uncomfortable option of facing up to the wholesale purchase of his own party by the oil industry. There's also a certain sense of selfishness to demand that the left drop their ideas and beliefs to help him achieve his belief, where he doesn't have to move an inch.

Agema:

Like I said, I think this is a pipe dream.

Pun intended?

Silvanus:
No, I don't think the key to addressing the climate crisis is to stop discussing the actual dangers of it.

Well then feel free to preserve the status quo if you're happier letting the planet burn to say "I told you so", rather than listening to people who actually talk to conservatives and right-wingers, in person rather than on trash moron-flooded social media, and have input on how progressives might reach out and actually sell the case for transition to renewables to the people they need on their side.

Similarly, wheres the "racist" accusation used in defence of wet markets...? I've seen it pointed out how shitty and unhelpful using terms like "the Chinese virus" is, coming as they do from the scapegoater-in-chief. But that has nothing to do with an honest consideration of how the virus developed, and everything to do with his nationalist dick-waving.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-51456056

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5ccbJcqlUo

https://www.queensjournal.ca/story/2020-03-12/opinions/racism-over-coronavirus-outbreak-is-senseless/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/03/18/coronavirus-sen-john-cornyn-says-chinese-eating-bats-spread-virus/2869342001/

https://www.eater.com/2020/1/31/21117076/coronavirus-incites-racism-against-chinese-people-and-their-diets-wuhan-market

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/valley-girl-brain/202002/what-coronavirus-teaches-us-about-racism-xenophobia-spreads

First-page of Google search results, in other words I didn't even have to try to find articles about this. Do, go on telling us about how wokescolding over wet markets isn't happening. Meanwhile, National Review is over here,

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/03/covid-19-is-the-chinese-governments-curse-upon-the-world/

Also on that first page of Google search results.

Agema:
The second problem is simply the matter of who is saying it.

Yes, I absolutely agree with you there, insofar as talking heads dropping idiot hot takes on both sides and making everyone look the damned fool is absolutely the problem. But, that's a "corporate media" problem, and one that must be rectified by bypassing the middleman and engaging directly with opposition. This is what I do in real life, my form of direct action is speaking with conservatives and right-wingers -- in person -- hearing them out, and offering alternative points of view and options other than right-wing radicalism. This is why i constantly butt heads with people here and on other forums about topics like free speech, radicalism, polarization, and violence -- what I do works.

But I think another way of looking at it is the attraction to your friend of blaming the left, rather than the more psychologically uncomfortable option of facing up to the wholesale purchase of his own party by the oil industry. There's also a certain sense of selfishness to demand that the left drop their ideas and beliefs to help him achieve his belief, where he doesn't have to move an inch.

Is it not equally, if not more, selfish and polarizing to dig one's heels into the sand, and expect the opposition to by some heretofore-unknown and unforeseen variable to simply...come around, accept everything one says as gospel truth, and concede to every last demand? You're not entitled to their attention, or their concessions, and simply saying "I know better than you, do as I say" will do nothing but turn others away from your position. And this is the problem with the left on salient issues, most notably climate change. The left's complete lack of self-awareness at their criminal incompetence in engagement, conversation, and persuasion is utterly staggering.

That's why I constantly say the left would rather be able to say "I told you so" than actually fix anything. Fixing things would require getting off the damn high horse.

More to the point, the part of the left my friend (and I) has a problem with, is technocratic, corporate-friendly, interest group liberalism. He knows damn well who owns and controls the Republican party; he's very unhappy with that, but he's also a staunch tactical voter who, until Trump, was happy voting Republican because he perceives Democrats as a worse alternative due to their organizational and strategic incompetence.

Eacaraxe:

Well then feel free to preserve the status quo if you're happier letting the planet burn to say "I told you so", rather than listening to people who actually talk to conservatives and right-wingers, in person rather than on trash moron-flooded social media, and have input on how progressives might reach out and actually sell the case for transition to renewables to the people they need on their side.

Lord. You don't take disagreements about methodology well, do you?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-51456056

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5ccbJcqlUo

https://www.queensjournal.ca/story/2020-03-12/opinions/racism-over-coronavirus-outbreak-is-senseless/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/03/18/coronavirus-sen-john-cornyn-says-chinese-eating-bats-spread-virus/2869342001/

https://www.eater.com/2020/1/31/21117076/coronavirus-incites-racism-against-chinese-people-and-their-diets-wuhan-market

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/valley-girl-brain/202002/what-coronavirus-teaches-us-about-racism-xenophobia-spreads

First-page of Google search results, in other words I didn't even have to try to find articles about this.

So... a number of articles about the various instances of actual racism that have sprung up in response and spiralled since the outbreak. Nothing saying that merely pointing out the wet market origins and shoddy deregulation in such places is racist.

Now, you're not arguing that abuse and discrimination are reasonable responses. You're also not arguing that they're not happening. What are you arguing, exactly? That the media should just ignore them, or ignore the context?

Silvanus:
You don't take disagreements about methodology well, do you?

I don't when that "disagreement" is about the absolute intractability of one side to even budge on minor points of contention to achieve policy solutions, on an issue which may well determine the fate of human civilization, no.

Now, you're not arguing that abuse and discrimination are reasonable responses. You're also not arguing that they're not happening. What are you arguing, exactly? That the media should just ignore them, or ignore the context?

What I'm arguing, is perhaps you might have paid attention to the sentence in my post you either failed to read, or conveniently ignored, yet simultaneously quoted:

me:
"Both sides" are right, but for all the wrong reasons: global inequity, uneven distribution of wealth and resources, and cultural imperialism are a primary driver for bushmeat consumption and wet markets, and to a certain extent one state or culture ought not interfere in good faith, humane, and safe practices of others, but playing white savior to protect unsafe and inhumane practices does no good and neither does scapegoating.

Silvanus:

Agema:

Like I said, I think this is a pipe dream.

Pun intended?

Oil leave that one for you to decide for yourself: it was never going to raise a barrel of laughs.

Eacaraxe:

Is it not equally, if not more, selfish and polarizing to dig one's heels into the sand, and expect the opposition to by some heretofore-unknown and unforeseen variable to simply...come around, accept everything one says as gospel truth, and concede to every last demand? You're not entitled to their attention, or their concessions, and simply saying "I know better than you, do as I say" will do nothing but turn others away from your position. And this is the problem with the left on salient issues, most notably climate change. The left's complete lack of self-awareness at their criminal incompetence in engagement, conversation, and persuasion is utterly staggering.

It's not that I entirely disagree, but I think the left's lack of flexibility has something to do with a perception that that was what the dull, technocratic, corporate-friendly types of the 90s and 2000s did, who ran various countries where they were in power well, but sold out the left's soul along the way.

Agema:
It's not that I entirely disagree, but I think the left's lack of flexibility has something to do with a perception that that was what the dull, technocratic, corporate-friendly types of the 90s and 2000s did, who ran various countries where they were in power well, but sold out the left's soul along the way.

In retrospect, it's clear what happened during this time period wasn't the technocratic, corporate-friendly left running countries well, but rather being the beneficiary of post-Cold War economic and tech booms, and Western hegemony, that would have occurred with or without them despite generally incompetent, borderline malfeasant, governance. Practically every policy that's bitten Western libdems straight in the ass since the 2008 crisis, can be traced in one way or another back to this time period. 9/11 and the "global war on terror" is merely the capstone to this era of ineptitude and extreme myopia in governance.

At least in the US, but as applies to the UK as well from my understanding of Thatcherism, the "left's soul" was sold in the '80s by way of appropriating neoconservative demagoguery for secondhand and vicarious electoral gains. That period in the US was the genesis of the 'Reagan Democrat' that has plagued the party for forty years since; blue dog Democrats existed decades prior, but before Reagan were a discrete, insular, and powerless faction within the party easily disregarded and whipped into submission.

Eacaraxe:

I don't when that "disagreement" is about the absolute intractability of one side to even budge on minor points of contention to achieve policy solutions, on an issue which may well determine the fate of human civilization, no.

The problem here is that the Republican party during Obama's administration showed that stonewalling and refusing compromise actually works. The right in most of the Western world has since adopted the Republican tactic of not budging and refusing flexibility because it works. Being the other party and being so flexible that you essentially give up your own goals for the sake of some virtue in compromise is not smart, in common parlance that's 'being a doormat'.

Because climate change deniers and people on the payroll of big oil companies will not change their stance just because you approach them with milk and honey. The people on the side of climate change denial overlap almost perfectly with the people who've made it a point of political pride to never compromise with the opposition. If you try to reach common ground with them you risk making a deal with the devil that will still doom us all to irreversible climate change, but you'll also be complicit in ignoring the warnings.

To make an allegory: If a doctor tells you, in no uncertain terms, that you need to quit smoking or you'll be dead in five years, the only viable solution to survive is to stop smoking. Trying to cheat death by cutting down to half or 'only smoking after sex' will likely still kill you. Climate change is one of these either-or situations and if people refuse to give up their cigarettes, we can't really compromise on which cigarette are alright to smoke.

Media is putting its fists on the scale.

Gethsemani:
The problem here is that the Republican party during Obama's administration showed that stonewalling and refusing compromise actually works. The right in most of the Western world has since adopted the Republican tactic of not budging and refusing flexibility because it works. Being the other party and being so flexible that you essentially give up your own goals for the sake of some virtue in compromise is not smart, in common parlance that's 'being a doormat'.

Whataboutism and slippery slope deployment noted.

I'll just tell you what I tell Hillary dead-enders and Biden voters: you keep right on with those decades-old, proven-loser, strategies and refusing to even entertain the notion a change of tact might be necessary and proper to resolve what you argue are existential policy issues. We'll just see where your insistence on pride over policy takes you. You'll be doing it without me and others like me who regard you as complicit by way of hubris, and when your brilliant strategy of doing the same thing over and expecting different results inevitably fails, I'll be blaming you.

Eacaraxe:

Whataboutism and slippery slope deployment noted.

Not when your argument hinges on talking to the opposition in different ways to get them on board. If the opposition is dead set on considering anything you say wrong, there's nothing you can say to make them think you're right. And changing policy to get closer to them is what has been tried with the alt right and far right in Europe. Turns out that the ones who benefited from centrists embracing some of their policies wasn't the centrist, but the parties they tried to stop by doing so.

So your brilliant strategy is dead in the water because it has already been proven not to work. Obama tried and failed. A lot of European centrist parties have tried and are now worse off because all they did was provide legitimacy to those they wanted to stop.

The central question of this primary turns out to be whether the Democrats are smart enough not to nominate a senile rapist in order to try to defeat Donald Trump. Can they do it despite the media's utter failure to report on Joe Biden's cognitive decline and various problems with sexual harassment and assault? Personally, I'd be a never on Biden even without that stuff. But with? This is a no-brainer. Pick a better candidate, holy shit. Just because the Democratic Party often performs like the Washington Generals doesn't mean they have to try to lose.

Eacaraxe:

I don't when that "disagreement" is about the absolute intractability of one side to even budge on minor points of contention to achieve policy solutions, on an issue which may well determine the fate of human civilization, no.

Right. Well, let's look at what policy shifts have been accomplished, and how, with regards to environmental issues; the various species reintroduced, the partial mending of the ozone layer, the various mass-planting initiatives, the reductions in carbon emissions in some sectors, the Paris Accords. These things tend to come about as a result of greater awareness of damage and possible solutions, and public pressure as a result-- they have not come about from a concern about "petrodollars" or other financial arguments. The only actual movement we've made is a result of actual awareness of the genuine dangers.

To be frank, your average voter doesn't give a solitary shit about "petrodollars", left or right. The British Labour Party has been pointing out for ages that British financial support for Saudi Arabia puts us in danger. The argument never makes a dent.

Eacaraxe:

What I'm arguing, is perhaps you might have paid attention to the sentence in my post you either failed to read, or conveniently ignored, yet simultaneously quoted:

me:
"Both sides" are right, but for all the wrong reasons: global inequity, uneven distribution of wealth and resources, and cultural imperialism are a primary driver for bushmeat consumption and wet markets, and to a certain extent one state or culture ought not interfere in good faith, humane, and safe practices of others, but playing white savior to protect unsafe and inhumane practices does no good and neither does scapegoating.

This doesn't really address the question. I asked for instances of the "left" dismissing any concern about wet markets as racism, as you indicated; the links you gave in response referred to various actual instances of racism, abuse and harassment towards Asian people, as if pointing out any instances of racism in the wake of the outbreak is the same thing.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/28/joe-biden-sexual-assault-allegations-why-has-media-ignored-claims

As of right now, a google search for "CNN Biden rape" returns articles from Huffpost, National Review, Reason, dailydot, and someone's medium blog post and nothing else relevant.

edit: Oh, sorry, that wasn't quite correct. At the bottom of the first page under a bunch of irrelevant CNN shit, there's this: https://www.ibtimes.com/sexual-assault-allegations-against-biden-explained-2948104

Seanchaidh:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/28/joe-biden-sexual-assault-allegations-why-has-media-ignored-claims

As of right now, a google search for "CNN Biden rape" returns articles from Huffpost, National Review, Reason, dailydot, and someone's medium blog post and nothing else relevant.

edit: Oh, sorry, that wasn't quite correct. At the bottom of the first page under a bunch of irrelevant CNN shit, there's this: https://www.ibtimes.com/sexual-assault-allegations-against-biden-explained-2948104

Well because there's a very specific outlook pervading Biden supporters right now about it (if they know about it).

image
image

I think part of the problem is that the Left can't wholeheartedly pursue climate change as an issue because they'd have to give up issues like race and wealth, which loses them constituents, and the things they'd have to implement would hurt working class people more and more immediately than it does the rich.

Seanchaidh:
The central question of this primary turns out to be whether the Democrats are smart enough not to nominate a senile rapist in order to try to defeat Donald Trump. Can they do it despite the media's utter failure to report on Joe Biden's cognitive decline and various problems with sexual harassment and assault? Personally, I'd be a never on Biden even without that stuff. But with? This is a no-brainer. Pick a better candidate, holy shit. Just because the Democratic Party often performs like the Washington Generals doesn't mean they have to try to lose.

Unfortunately there's no good candidates still running to switch to.

Specter Von Baren:
I think part of the problem is that the Left can't wholeheartedly pursue climate change as an issue because they'd have to give up issues like race and wealth, which loses them constituents, and the things they'd have to implement would hurt working class people more and more immediately than it does the rich.

This is true only of the corporate types, like Nancy Pelosi.

Specter Von Baren:

Seanchaidh:
The central question of this primary turns out to be whether the Democrats are smart enough not to nominate a senile rapist in order to try to defeat Donald Trump. Can they do it despite the media's utter failure to report on Joe Biden's cognitive decline and various problems with sexual harassment and assault? Personally, I'd be a never on Biden even without that stuff. But with? This is a no-brainer. Pick a better candidate, holy shit. Just because the Democratic Party often performs like the Washington Generals doesn't mean they have to try to lose.

Unfortunately there's no good candidates still running to switch to.

Bernie Sanders is a good candidate and still running.

Silvanus:
Right. Well, let's look at what policy shifts have been accomplished, and how, with regards to environmental issues; the various species reintroduced, the partial mending of the ozone layer, the various mass-planting initiatives, the reductions in carbon emissions in some sectors, the Paris Accords...

I'd have pointed to the prohibition of leaded gasoline and DDT, but hey, your argument, your rules. Ironic you didn't immediately jump to these two as what would be the definitive case examples of your own point, while going straight to the ozone layer. You might do well for yourself to ask what geopolitical event (and raw resource shortage) began in the early '70s, ended in the late '80s, coinciding nicely with that crisis. Bring a few textbooks on organic chemistry, and keep in mind what you use to make plastic.

To be frank, your average voter doesn't give a solitary shit about "petrodollars", left or right. The British Labour Party has been pointing out for ages that British financial support for Saudi Arabia puts us in danger. The argument never makes a dent.

They damned sure used to, and they damned well ought to again. It's rather telling you want to talk about the environmental crisis, but not petrodollars. You'd do well to ask yourself why they don't, in any level of analysis deeper than surface-level, political talking point nonsense.

This doesn't really address the question. I asked for instances of the "left" dismissing any concern about wet markets as racism, as you indicated; the links you gave in response referred to various actual instances of racism, abuse and harassment towards Asian people, as if pointing out any instances of racism in the wake of the outbreak is the same thing.

Ironic, you don't seem terribly interested in recognizing in those articles, criticism of wet markets was specifically cited as one among many "instances of racism in the wake of the outbreak".

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here