Charlottesville

[dualstow]

Rather than accept the result of the democratic process, secessionists decided to break the country apart and start a war to keep it that way.
http://theweek.com/articles/718986/how- ... -civil-war

Jeez, that sounds like a description of the entire left and some of the right these days.

It truly does. Btw, I get the Week in print. Much of it is a bit left even for me, but most of it is reprinted excerpts from both sides of an issue, e.g. New York Times AND Slate AND Nat'l review. For about a buck an issue, it's a nice way to pass the time when the wife *still* isn't dressed and ready for dinner.

[dualstow]

Well, well, well. It's being rumored, the alleged source being the "hard left" Southern Poverty Law Center--that Jason Kessler is a left-wing activist previously associated with Occupy. It'll be interesting to see how this unfolds.

Unfolded -

Jason Kessler posts derogatory tweets about woman killed during Charlottesville riot.

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017 ... yback.html

[dualstow]

#1 you mean.

[Mountaineer]

Where will it end?

"In the wake of the violence that took place in Charlottesville over last weekend, numerous activists and politicians have called for the destruction of more historical monuments, although a significant majority of Americans (62 percent) think the monuments should stay put. Only 27 percent of Americans think these statues should be removed for fear of offending some people. As usual, public opinion’s not stopping liberals from pursuing an unpopular agenda.

Though by no means comprehensive, here’s a list of the monuments that are facing calls for removal or have already been torn down." See link:

http://thefederalist.com/2017/08/17/her ... -tear-far/

[dualstow]

Ha, I thought that I was the only one 'still' waiting for the GF to be ready to leave.

I believe it was the inspiration for Eric Clapton's "Wonderful Tonight."

[farjean2]

I think we've still got a long ways to go before we reach the level of civil unrest we saw in the 60's with the Vietnam war protests and the race riots but things do seem to be heating up quite a bit. What's surprising to me is that there are so many "white nationalists" out there. They seem to have kept mostly silent until now.

I wonder if these things come in cycles and we're due for one.

[Maddy]

Here's a nice writing from 1928, by DuBois:

. . . Well, for what did he fight? State rights? Nonsense. The South cared only for State Rights as a weapon to defend slavery. If nationalism had been a stronger defense of the slave system than particularism, the South would have been as nationalistic in 1861 as it had been in 1812.

No. People do not go to war for abstract theories of government. . .

Says he. Those "abstract theories of government" represent the product of centuries of critical thinking about actual events and about very concrete social and political issues. We go to war over those "abstract theories" because we know, from experience, what happens when power becomes concentrated in a central government.

[farjean2]

Here's a nice writing from 1928, by DuBois:

Robert E. Lee
Lee hesitated and hung his head in shame because he was asked to lead armies against human progress and Christian decency and did not dare refuse.

Pure Bullshit. The Apostle Paul made it very clear that slaves are to submit to their masters and the book of Philemon where he sent a slave back to his master was often quoted for justifying the fugitive slave act. I know you are a Christian so how do you go about reconciling the Bible as the "authoritative word of God" on the subject to the point that you can condemn Mr. Lee for supporting slavery?

[moda0306]

Here's a nice writing from 1928, by DuBois:

. . . Well, for what did he fight? State rights? Nonsense. The South cared only for State Rights as a weapon to defend slavery. If nationalism had been a stronger defense of the slave system than particularism, the South would have been as nationalistic in 1861 as it had been in 1812.

No. People do not go to war for abstract theories of government. . .

Says he. Those "abstract theories of government" represent the product of centuries of critical thinking about actual events and about very concrete social and political issues. We go to war over those "abstract theories" because we know, from experience, what happens when power becomes concentrated in a central government.

Not only is it ridiculous to assert that the gears of war actually start turning over abstract theories than more simple material and power gains to be had, but what's more is that war is the ultimate unchecked collection of power in the central government. Revolution might be more of what you are trying to speak of.

The Civil War wasn't fought by against the federal U.S. government by a bunch of decentralized militias or even independent states, but a Confederation that drafted (read: enslaved) men to go die to protect the imperial interests of the elite political class of the South. The North was pretty much the same thing, but with "slavery" as the thing they eventually pretended they fought the war for rather than "decentralized government."

"Abstract theories" are almost always simply a pretext to get the populace whipped up.

[Mountaineer]

Here's a nice writing from 1928, by DuBois:

. . . Well, for what did he fight? State rights? Nonsense. The South cared only for State Rights as a weapon to defend slavery. If nationalism had been a stronger defense of the slave system than particularism, the South would have been as nationalistic in 1861 as it had been in 1812.

No. People do not go to war for abstract theories of government. . .

Says he. Those "abstract theories of government" represent the product of centuries of critical thinking about actual events and about very concrete social and political issues. We go to war over those "abstract theories" because we know, from experience, what happens when power becomes concentrated in a central government.

Not only is it ridiculous to assert that the gears of war actually start turning over abstract theories than more simple material and power gains to be had, but what's more is that war is the ultimate unchecked collection of power in the central government. Revolution might be more of what you are trying to speak of.

The Civil War wasn't fought by against the federal U.S. government by a bunch of decentralized militias or even independent states, but a Confederation that drafted (read: enslaved) men to go die to protect the imperial interests of the elite political class of the South. The North was pretty much the same thing, but with "slavery" as the thing they eventually pretended they fought the war for rather than "decentralized government."

"Abstract theories" are almost always simply a pretext to get the populace whipped up.

Maddy, Desert, moda0306, very interesting and divergent views. Serious question: What is the source(s) that shape your view, or opinion, and how did you determine the source(s) is/are factual or true?

[moda0306]

For me... Glenn Greenwald, Noam Chomsky, Smedley Butler, Howard Zinn, Eugene Debbs... others but you really can't go wrong there.

At least my views on foreign policy and war.

[Maddy]

Maddy, Desert, moda0306, very interesting and divergent views. Serious question: What is the source(s) that shape your view, or opinion, and how did you determine the source(s) is/are factual or true?

I'm not sure what particular view you're referring to, but the view that people do stand up for principle as opposed to being motivated politically by their own self-interest is supported in spades by the behavior of constitutional conservatives during the last eight and a half years.

It would have been very easy, given the shredding of the constitution, the dismantling of culture, and the nearly complete abandonment of the rule of law that we witnessed during the Obama administration, for constitutional conservatives to have thrown a collective temper tantrum such as the one we are presently witnessing from the Progressive Left. However, the vast majority of conservatives exercised an impressive amount of restraint and did what they have always done--played by the rules--while the other team fouled them time and time again. Amazingly, those rule-of-law conservatives held out for eight extremely demoralizing years, patiently awaiting the opportunity to register their individual vote at the polls. When you think about it, that was a really amazing exercise of character, the backbone of which came from the genuinely-held belief that the principles behind our constitutional form of government do matter, and that to win by violating those principles would be a pyrrhic victory.

Now we're facing a very different sort of overreach from the Left. Violence aimed at law-abiding citizens, the attempted creation of chaos, the quashing of divergent viewpoints, the publication of entirely made-up political narratives, and daily displays of vile, intolerant, and wholly uncivilized behavior. And once again constitutional conservatives are exercising amazing restraint, since the natural impulse of one with the power of law on his side, in the face of such egregiously criminal conduct, would be to forcibly take the criminals into custody and put them in prison--or in a state hospital--for a good long time.

In short, the rule-of-law conservatives have held fast to the principle that even when the country's very foundation is under attack and one side is playing with a double deck, it is imperative that we still adhere to our principles.

[moda0306]

Maddy, Desert, moda0306, very interesting and divergent views. Serious question: What is the source(s) that shape your view, or opinion, and how did you determine the source(s) is/are factual or true?

I'm not sure what particular view you're referring to, but the view that people do stand up for principle as opposed to being motivated politically by their own self-interest is supported in spades by the behavior of constitutional conservatives during the last eight and a half years.

It would have been very easy, given the shredding of the constitution, the dismantling of culture, and the nearly complete abandonment of the rule of law that we witnessed during the Obama administration, for constitutional conservatives to have thrown a collective temper tantrum such as the one we are presently witnessing from the Progressive Left. However, the vast majority of conservatives exercised an impressive amount of restraint and did what they have always done--played by the rules--while the other team fouled them time and time again. Amazingly, those rule-of-law conservatives held out for eight extremely demoralizing years, patiently awaiting the opportunity to register their individual vote at the polls. When you think about it, that was a really amazing exercise of character, the backbone of which came from the genuinely-held belief that the principles behind our constitutional form of government do matter, and that to win by violating those principles would be a pyrrhic victory.

Now we're facing a very different sort of overreach from the Left. Violence aimed at law-abiding citizens, the attempted creation of chaos, the quashing of divergent viewpoints, the publication of entirely made-up political narratives, and daily displays of vile, intolerant, and wholly uncivilized behavior. And once again constitutional conservatives are exercising amazing restraint, since the natural impulse of one with the power of law on his side, in the face of such egregiously criminal conduct, would be to forcibly take the criminals into custody and put them in prison--or in a state hospital--for a good long time.

In short, the rule-of-law conservatives have held fast to the principle that even when the country's very foundation is under attack and one side is playing with a double deck, it is imperative that we still adhere to our principles.

Now your phrase is "stand up," whatever that means. But before you were saying "we go to war" for these principles. While I wouldn't put it past certain individuals to join a cause at great expense for perceived principles (though usually extremely naively), the actual engineers of most wars or just political causes in-general are usually NOT in a similar position. They are careerists who sacrifice very little for the wars or other policies they propose and execute.

But to your broader that 1) Obama was uniquely flippant towards the rule of law, and that 2) "constitutional conservatives" were uniquely principled in their "stand up" against him, I guess I'd ask you a couple things...

- In what major ways was Obama and his admin uniquely flippant towards the rule of law.

- Who are these principled constitutional conservatives? Are there many politicians you would label as such, or are you talking about individual citizens? If the latter, aren't you sort of cherry picking? Wouldn't you also say that there are members of "the left" who take very principled stands and don't resort to violence and have power-decks stacked against their causes as well? Or, put a bit differently, aren't there extremely unprincipled "conservatives" in our government (caughMitchMcConnell) that aren't worthy of praise at all?

Yes, there are very principled people out there... but usually the only principle that can drive big decisions at the government level such as a WAR is rampant careerism and cronyism, and all the profit benefits of neo-Imperialism.

I would also add that if there was every any time where evidence was at its highest that "conservatives" had far fewer principles than they propose they do, it's in the election of the utter buffoon we have in the White House (and I thought the last "conservative" buffoon was bad). Rand Paul, once again, didn't stand a chance, and he's on a very, very short list of what seem to be quasi-principled politicians out there, and if we really had a critical mass of "constitutionalists" out there, Rand would have been far more popular.

[moda0306]

Maddy,

You may have answered me this before, but who are your main philisophical/informational/political-commentary influences? Like actual names of people that you count on for quality analysis of the seemingly unstoppable noise of information and misinformation out there?

[Maddy]

Maddy,

You may have answered me this before, but who are your main philisophical/informational/political-commentary influences? Like actual names of people that you count on for quality analysis of the seemingly unstoppable noise of information and misinformation out there?

Moda,

I took a full year of social philosophy in college, but in all honesty I can't recall more than a few basic themes. We went through the usual cast of characters--Hobbes, Mills, Bentham, Mills, Marx, Feuerbach and many more I'm sure--but I don't think that I ever had an "aha" moment where everything fell into place. However, to this day, certain ideas and constructs from each of them remain with me today as useful constructs.

In terms of actual influences, I'd have to say that those were much more personal. My de facto grandparents came from an Amish background, and their values of honesty, hard work, simplicity, and the importance of community built on a foundation of individual responsibility were hugely formative and have become more so as time has gone on. Throughout my life, I've studied people intently, always wanting to know what makes them tick. I've watched how the people I've known have lived out their lives and have come to my own understanding of what types of values predominate in the lives of the people I most respect and who have made me better for having known them. (They definitely were not all conservative.)

There have been some authors with whom I've felt a particular affinity, one being Harry Browne (I'm thinking here of his book, "How I Found Freedom") for his very down-to-earth and seasoned view of libertarianism. And Dale Carnegie for his very simple, common sense formula for how to get along with people.

And of course, I've read many tens of thousands of published legal cases during the course of my professional life, and have been influenced greatly by the enormous disparity between one judge and another in terms of the intellectual honesty employed in the analysis. I've also had the opportunity to see how quickly the rule of law descends into utter disarray when a judge tinkers even a little with the law in order to achieve what he or she believes is the best result. That experience, more than anything else, has impressed upon me the importance of enduring principles that provide uniformity and evenhandedness in the dispensing of justice, and that prevent the rules governing social relations from becoming arbitrary and unpredictable.

As for the people I rely on for quality political analysis, I like Sean Hannity very much. He strikes me as a very straight shooter.

[Mountaineer]

Maddy, Desert, moda0306, very interesting and divergent views. Serious question: What is the source(s) that shape your view, or opinion, and how did you determine the source(s) is/are factual or true?

Of course I use only the best logic to arrive at all my conclusions.

But seriously, I attempt to test a topic by running it across a lifetime of education and experience; also, I try to seek out several sources that I find to be not overly crazy. I talk to close friends and family a lot. Many of my friends come from a background very different than mine, so I feel that I'm getting some diversity of opinions to choose from. With all that, I am sure I sometimes come to an incorrect conclusion.

I realize I appear to be a left-winger on here, and in this group I surely am, relative to this mostly right-wing group. Unlike Maddy, I don't find either group (left or right) to be largely superior to the other. I see the pendulum swing wildly, with the result being the left having the better ideas in some periods, and the right in others. I try to look across the spectrum for the ideas that make the most sense to me, regardless of where they fall on the left/right continuum. That's how I end up with somewhat radical ideas in both directions, including being against both abortion and the display of confederate symbols on public land (not that those two are in any way close, in terms of importance).

What about you, Mountaineer? The Book of Concord?

Cognitive/Logic knowledge - based on my education which consisted of large doses of science and engineering; the main benefit was to learn how to think independently and go to source material when ever possible; i.e. don't depend on Cliff notes . I value the scientific method for the arenas in which it applies (e.g. chemistry, Newtonian physics, engineering) and do not trust it in the arenas in which it was not originally intended to be used (e.g. biology, social studies, politics, human relations, theology). I try to learn something new every day.

Experiential knowledge - based on interactions with friends, family, and coworkers from and in several different cultures, trial and error, and my study of history; these somewhat can bleed back into the cognitive area too. My experience (and independent thinking) have taught me to be skeptical of most mass media and to assume that most people have an agenda based upon their self-interest and self-benefit until demonstrated otherwise; there are very few truly purposeful people who put the well being of others above their own - the exception is a rock solid marriage/immediate family. I realize that sounds cynical. It really means I just accept and try to understand people (including myself) as we are, flaws and all, and to discern carefully what we jointly can learn from each other, both useful and that which should be discarded.

Revealed knowledge - based on the Word which is the objective external source that distinguishes and defines right and wrong (i.e. morals, not moralism), truth, good and evil, how to live our lives in peace and freedom regardless of world events and economic status, and how a secure future has been assured for me.

I try not to focus too much on left, right, liberal, or conservative and especially try not to get all worked up over things that are not in my control or sphere of influence. In my opinion, they are all just stereotypical labels and the people I know are individuals in community with me and should be treated as such; it is like my congregation - a mix of rich and poor, black and white and brown, Republicans and Democrats and Independents, very intelligent and mentally challenged, tall and short, drinkers and abstainers, men and women and children, deeply involved and occasional seat warmers only - bottom line is all those differences almost never come to the forefront (i.e. are not topics of gossip among us); people are focused on the gifts they receive (the Means of Grace in our terminology). I personally try to remember that everything I have is a gift - every breath, my family, my friends, my faith, my health, and my life. I try to receive those gifts thankfully and tell others about them. I try not to meddle in others' affairs. I often do not do it well; I get back up and remember tomorrow is a brand new day with a brand new start.

[Xan]

Another article, this one from the Atlantic (rated "left center").

Lee is a pivotal figure in American history worthy of study. Neither the man who really existed, nor the fictionalized tragic hero of the Lost Cause, are heroes worthy of a statue in a place of honor. As one Union veteran angrily put it in 1903 when Pennsylvania was considering placing a statute to Lee at Gettysburg, “If you want historical accuracy as your excuse, then place upon this field a statue of Lee holding in his hand the banner under which he fought, bearing the legend: ‘We wage this war against a government conceived in liberty and dedicated to humanity.’” The most fitting monument to Lee is the national military cemetery the federal government placed on the grounds of his former home in Arlington.

To describe this man as an American hero requires ignoring the immense suffering for which he was personally responsible, both on and off the battlefield. It requires ignoring his participation in the industry of human bondage, his betrayal of his country in defense of that institution, the battlefields scattered with the lifeless bodies of men who followed his orders and those they killed, his hostility toward the rights of the freedmen and his indifference to his own students waging a campaign of terror against the newly emancipated. It requires reducing the sum of human virtue to a sense of decorum and the ability to convey gravitas in a gray uniform.

https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/529038/

The vast, vast majority of those lifeless bodies were on the Southern side of the border. Why is that? Because the South fought a defensive war against an invading army. I suppose the invading army bears no responsibility; only Lee?

In no way was there a betrayal of the "country". The country as we now know it is what replaced the pre-war USA. Lee's country was Virginia. If Lee had been a traitor, then Davis certainly was, and yet (despite holding him illegally for years) the feds were never able to find a single charge to prosecute Davis (or anyone) with.

Would you (and this is a serious if hypothetical question, really, Desert) support Canada conquering the US in order to put a stop to abortions? And regardless of your answer, would you say that in the post-war now-part-of-Canada US, anybody who wanted to put up a statue memorializing either a great leader of the defense of the US or a memorial to those who died in her defense, is by definition supporting baby-murder, or at least baby-murderers?

[Xan]

Interesting. I'm not going to say you're wrong. Would you at least, in this scenario, admit that people who did put up such statues are not NECESSARILY baby-murder fans?

[Xan]

Interesting. I'm not going to say you're wrong. Would you at least, in this scenario, admit that people who did put up such statues are not NECESSARILY baby-murder fans?

I would say that it's possible they weren't baby murdering fans. But if they were erecting said statues at precisely the same time as they were trying to functionally reverse some results of the Canadian abortion ban, I might become suspicious.

Fair enough. Thanks for playing along. It's an interesting thought experiment, much like the one you just posed in the other thread.

EDIT: I should point out that in this hypothetical, I've granted more than I believe to be true in the Civil War case: here, Canada's moral imperative is the sole reason for the war. That is definitely not the case for the antebellum North, which greedily wanted to use the federal government to take from the South and give to the North.

[Mountaineer]

The vast, vast majority of those lifeless bodies were on the Southern side of the border. Why is that? Because the South fought a defensive war against an invading army. I suppose the invading army bears no responsibility; only Lee?

In no way was there a betrayal of the "country". The country as we now know it is what replaced the pre-war USA. Lee's country was Virginia. If Lee had been a traitor, then Davis certainly was, and yet (despite holding him illegally for years) the feds were never able to find a single charge to prosecute Davis (or anyone) with.

Would you (and this is a serious if hypothetical question, really, Desert) support Canada conquering the US in order to put a stop to abortions? And regardless of your answer, would you say that in the post-war now-part-of-Canada US, anybody who wanted to put up a statue memorializing either a great leader of the defense of the US or a memorial to those who died in her defense, is by definition supporting baby-murder, or at least baby-murderers?

Xan, Ok, I have pondered some, but am only going to try to answer the second part of your post, the hypothetical. I think it's a really well-posed hypothetical question that does relate pretty well to this topic. I'll have to come back to the first part, after I've studied more regarding the initiation of the Civil War.

Ok, Canada (in this hypothetical situation, having found a moral imperative to cease abortion in North America), decides to attach the United States in an effort to stop abortion in our country. Would I support Canada in such an effort? I think I have to say "yes," but only if I think they have some chance of prevailing. Obviously the Canada that exists today wouldn't have any chance, so I'll postulate a Canada of somewhat superior military capability, similar to the North vs. the South in the Civil War. So yes, I would be forced to support Canada in that invasion. And I would expect you and Mountaineer to join me.

And of course I would not be in favor of putting monuments of, say, general Schwarzkopf (may God rest his soul), up in town squares if he were leading the opposition. (I couldn't think of a more engaging general at the moment).

My response is in the religion thread.

[moda0306]

Scott Adams, how to know you are in a hysteria bubble http://blog.dilbert.com/post/16429762860

Link didn't work.

I heard him on a podcast with Sam Harris recently discussing Trump. While his insights to human motivation are interesting, I've heard people explore the topic of persuasion and motivation far-better than him, and then all you're left with were his dizzyingly frustrating "defenses" of Trump as of late. So I've found him to be of almost zero unique value as some have here. Maybe I'm missing some of his best work...

changed link to http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1642976286 ... ria-bubble

[moda0306]

changed link to http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1642976286 ... ria-bubble

On November 8th of 2016, half the country learned that everything they believed to be both true and obvious turned out to be wrong.

That's some hyperbole for someone trying to temper or at least identify mass hysteria.

One sign of a good mass hysteria is that it sounds bonkers to anyone who is not experiencing it.

Same goes with rational analysis and critical thinking... So what?

3. The Confirmation Bias

Something we are all guilty of... to varying degrees. But the idea that the ANTI-Trump crowd is uniquely guilty of this is laughable. Trump is a walking blob of confirmation bias, as are a critical mass of his devotees.

4. The Oversized Reaction

See my last reaction. You're talking about a man (and avid supporters) whose response to the media was libel laws, ISIS was mass invasion of the M.E. to "take their oil," and that flag-burners should be punished without due process. Once again, Trump is a walking "Oversized Reaction," as are his devotees.

5. The Insult without supporting argument

Holy f'king hell. Do I need to even need to comment on this one? Human-kind is bad at generating supporting arguments for their claims. Trump is absolutely terrible at them. As are his devotees.

So where is the hysteria, truly? Those who think Trump is somewhere between a buffoon and a dangerous neo-fascist, or those who defend him with this drivel... All in all, I agree that different segments of "the Left" and "the establishment" have glaring flaws. But there are ways to address those flaws that aren't leaning on the most buffoonish slime-ball that has ever seen the oval office... as President... you know... the guy who controls the nuclear arsenal while "the apologist right" hand-wrings over confederate statues as educational sources, antifa rabble rousers, and the Russia anti-scandal.

If you want to learn about persuasion, read "Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion." Scott Adams is a joke.

[moda0306]

More...

But if a Republican agrees with you that Nazis are the worst, and you threaten to punch that Republican for not agreeing with you exactly the right way, that might be an oversized reaction.

Well yeah... antifa rabble threatening to "punch nazis" are engaged in an "oversized reaction."

Antifa Rabble...

We're talking a sliver of the population. If that is "mass hysteria," then there are mass hysteria going on all over the place on the right, left, center and "other" in every country.

For the past two days I have been disavowing Nazis on Twitter. The most common response from the people who agree with me is that my comic strip sucks and I am ugly.

Wow you got low-brow insults on Twitter? That's your sign of mass hysteria?

Thank God Trump supporters are too busy laying out rational, scientific arguments for their nuanced policy proposals... otherwise they might get in on the online insult machine.

If you are inside the mass hysteria bubble, I look like a Nazi collaborator.

So for the 10% of the population he's speaking of... I guess I don't know what to say. But what about the people that think he's just a dim-wit trying to profit off of a prediction and some loose knowledge of persuasion? Are we part of the "mass hysteria?"

[moda0306]

Scott Adams is a joke.

Yes. He needs to stick to his comic strip.

I like Dilbert... and hell I'm starting to really, really like The Apprentice, if you get my drift.

[moda0306]

Desert,

I wish I could temporarily rewind history and make Kanye West president for no other reason than to watch many of the same Trump supporters and apologists warning of "mass hysteria" lose their f'ing minds... as half the states secede from the Union over someone who is a "lefty" version of Trump but with fewer ex-wives and who actually built his name/fortune from nothing rather than daddy's money.

Of course, like any rational adult with a degree of self-respect, I would never actually support such a buffoon. It would just be fun to watch for a few months, before I enact my TRUE alternate history, which arrests all previous presidents and collaborators for war crimes, and installs Dan Carlin as benevolent dictator of the U.S.