"parliament" And in case I wasn't clear, I did back to high school civics and tutored an average student who became the best student in his class. His teacher liked what I have to say. "I" got an A.
Another advantage of most parliamentary systems: the separation of the chief executive roles into two separate offices, with the prime minister usually being a political technocrat (a role in which Hillary Clinton would be ideal for), and a ceremonial head of state with limited powers, be it a monarch or an elected president. A big problem with the American system is that we expect one person to fill both roles.
I'd give you a gold star for that, David. But is an elected president really a ceremonial position? Our president has limited powers too. What makes a head of state "ceremonial"?
I am not responsible for how anyone else votes. If I vote third-party, that's all it is, a third-party vote. Donna, you could blame Gore and his lackluster campaign more than a single Nader voter for the results of the 2000 election. And the Supreme Court.
If I vote third-party, even in a non-swing state, it matters. 5% national popular vote in a presidential election gets a third-party access to federal campaign funding. 15% national average in polling gets a candidate into the presidential debates. Meeting either threshold could expose the electorate to ideas they may not have heard of before. It probably is a fantasy to expect to win outright, sure, but third-party candidates effect the national debate. See Sanders impact on what Hillary talked about throughout the primary - should all of the Sanders primary voters have stopped embracing the 'fantasy' immediately and backed Hillary blindly? The focus of her campaign would look quite different now, and to some people on this thread, worse without Sanders' impact.
Providing a marketplace for ideas matters just as much to me as which of these two 'clowns' wins. Optimistically, or naively, I think ideas are important...how's that for unicorns prancing through a field of blue bonnets, farting votes? ;)
Have a good weekend everyone. It's beer:30 time now!
David Cole, were you aware of what Andrew Circle has added here?
Because if you were, it would be a bit like you were not painting the full picture in order to justify a vote for Clinton (or otherwise Trump)..and that would not be a very honest argument for your case. After all, it is not just about this election but about building up a momentum of change for the next élections as well - rather always sliding from this election's lesser evils to next élection's lesser , banging your head blindly against one wall then the opposing one in the same dark tunnel.
I would absolutely vote for getting money out of politics and setting term limits. Make elected officials go back to their communities and thrive in them after voting supposedly in their community's best interests!
But we don't get to vote for those things. We vote for parties who appoint Supreme Court judges who decide that money=speech. Tell me how the upcoming Supreme Court openings - not to mention the current one forgodfuckingssake that shitsmear Mitch Mcconnell is holding hostage goddamit!!! - will be *better* filled by someone who the Right would appoint, someone like Scalia who proudly stated that he believed in the Devil?!
The Right is anti-science, anti-fact, anti-education. The Left simply isn't. You're all educated professional architects - do you want to live in a world where your skills and knowledge are laughed at as being "elite"?
I like the neo-liberal order. It serves me pretty well and is what most immigrants to this country aspire to be a part of. And why not? Its fuckin great.
gwharton, this is one of those things that baffles me. The Right is *demonstrably* anti-science: you've heard of climate change denialism? You've heard of abstinence-only sex ed? You've heard of Creationism? These are all anti-science positions of the Right. What are the parallels on the Left?
gwharton, I guess that it's pretty unsurprising that you'd use the fall from grace of a scientist who, after doing groundbreaking work, also revealed himself to be an ugly racist as your example. There's absolutely no reason to argue that his discovery of the double helix excuses his racism, or proves that racism is somehow rational, and not simply a horrible prejudice. But, you've proved yourself to be pretty horrible too, so I guess we shouldn't be surprised by the extent of your biases.
There is good evidence that, in fact, voters on the left are more likely to believe scientific truths like evolution and human based climate change. No way around it. Sorry dude, you're a dinosaur.
Thank you for bringing an octogenarian into the topic gwharton. I think it's important to view our current political climate within the context of Truman's administration, when James watson was likely at his peak.
I must admit I don't know much about his political views. Does he believe a woman should have the right to her own reproductive decisions, or should the federal government be expanded to include reproductive rights? How has his views on civil rights and voters rights evolved since 1953, when he was credited with helping discover the structure of dna?
I only ask you because it's really hard to find people on the Internet that know everything and make lots of money and all that. I don't think there is widespread support among the scientific community for watson's racist or mysoginist's remarks, but I guess they're pretty popular among the trump crowd?
you guys are arguing over something that doesn't exist now. There is no real Left in your political establishment. (Democrats and Republicans). I don't see equitable distribution of wealth, I don't see limits being placed on profit, I do not see programs for social justice, I do not see the strengthening of labour unions...
I see a psycho warmongering Wall street puppet (sort of like Chuckey) and a racist filthy rich buffoon playing on peoples irrational fears and phobias
Donna, what you are referring to is that the left panders to the semi educated individual that has some self respect, and the right panders to the uneducated, white old men/women side.
The left and the right are the same snake, it's just two headed. Think of it like a theatrical act, where you must create tension and drama. Ill informed people getting up set at other ill informed ppl that have nothing better to do than get their panties in a knot over some BS that isnt even real, while the wizard behind the curtain does what is best for itself, keeping the blinders on the crowd.
The more uneducated (hence why education is literally a dumpster fire here in America),and divide a people are, the easier they are to control.
And many more. Science denialism is not limited to the fringe right. It's pretty mainstream on the left too. Especially with regard to anything having to do with evolutionary biology, behavioral genetics, or economics, subjects that left liberals seem terminally allergic to and shockingly ignorant about.
curtkram, but clearly one cannot perceive the Democrats as being Left. Irrespective of how I or you feel about it. Less Right does not make it Left; that would just be wrong. But obviously the whole worldview is different if someone deems the Democrats leftists. I mean, it would be ridiculous in any country with a healthier culture of leftist parties.
curtkram: James Watson is an octogenarian, yes. He's also a Nobel Prize-winning pioneer in genetic research and co-discoverer of the structure of DNA. A scientists' scientist.
And he was somewhat recently subject to a career-blemishing witch hunt and social ostracism in the media because he had the temerity to discuss subjects that left-wing science deniers find objectionable. So it's relevant now too.
Well you're correct on the anti-GMO and -vaxxers hysteria, gwharton, yes. Definitely left-thinking crazies, though they also align with Libertarians.
And the Dems allow too much religion into politics, too, IMO, because that's not a line they're willing to cross, yet.
My main point is the Left is less afraid to *listen* to science, and consider how it might affect public policy, while the Right is terrified of it. Witness the Right's denial of funding to the CDC if they even want to *research* the idea of gun deaths being related to public health. They're terrified of the outcome.
Though if you're still not willing to accept anthropogenic climate change by now, gwharton, I'm afraid you've proven my point.
There are really two different things being discussed there. On the one hand, we have a political axis which is roughly delineated on one end by an emphasis on social order and community, and on the other by individualism and anti-authoritarianism (I'm trying to characterize them in ways that are non-pejorative...they can both be described in far less flattering terms). This roughly translates into what we think of as Right and Left in an objective sense.
And then we have the relative positions on that axis of allowable discourse in our society - what is sometimes referred to as the Overton Window. Inside the Overton Window, you find positions and beliefs that are considered mainstream and acceptable by the reigning power structure and society in general. Outside the Overton Window, you find positions and beliefs that are often rhetorically characterized as radical, fringe, or extreme. The centroid of the Overton Window lies somewhere on the objective scale of right vs left, but the Window itself represents only a narrow band of the full spectrum of political positions and beliefs possible on that scale.
In the United States, our two main political parties represent the right and left boundaries of the Overton Window as embodied in the attitudes of ruling elite. So, in this sense, the critique that the two parties are really flip sides of the same coin, or two faces of the same oligarchy, is almost certainly true. But there are some substantive differences between them. Those difference are Schelling Points at any moment in time for the constellations of power centers in our society and how they pursue their interests in the political sphere.
If you look at where the American Overton Window is on the total, objective scale of right vs left, however, you notice pretty quickly that the centroid is left of center. Maybe even by a lot. And further, that it has been moving ever more leftward for the past century-plus. There is no denying this. If you compare the party platform of the Democratic Party from the 1960s to the Republican Party platform of today, you will find the Democrats of fifty years ago to the right of modern Republicans.
Those on the left prefer to call this "progress," because that suits their interests and narrative (you see this tendency in the modern tendency on the left to use the utterly chilling phrase, borrowed from revolutionary communism, of "the right side of history"). But really, that's just a self-justification for extending their power and pulling the Overton Window in their direction as hard as they can. There is no "progressive trend" in history, despite the Whig mythology rooted in our political system. There is only victory and defeat. And the left has been winning for a very, very, very long time.
Now, there are those here who will (and have) argued that this is nonsense. That mainstream politics in America is irretrievably right-wing and regressive. From their perspective - on the far left outside of the leftward bound of the present Overton Window - that is absolutely true relative to their position on the political spectrum. But in an objective sense, it's completely false. All they're really saying is that the mainstream is not LEFT ENOUGH for their taste, not that it's actually right-wing in any meaningful way.
In fact, there has been a serious right-wing political movement in the United States in many decades. The last one was probably the Taft Republicans, and even they were not THAT right-wing in an objective sense. The United States has never been a real right-wing nation. It was founded in revolutionary liberalism.
he had the temerity to discuss subjects that left-wing science deniers find objectionable
No. He's not a brave truth teller, he's just a fucking asshole. A Nobel doesn't change that. What's wrong with you, GW? Samples of Watson's bold truth telling:
"Clearly Rosy had to go or be put in her place . . . The thought could not be avoided that the best home for a feminist was in another person’s lab."
"[I am] inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa [because] all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours—whereas all the testing says not really...people who have to deal with black employees find this not true."
“Whenever you interview fat people, you feel bad, because you know you’re not going to hire them.”
AGW is anti-scientific nonsense which is entirely separate from the scientific question of whether or not the global climate is warming (which evidence strongly suggests it is, though there is some ambiguity about how much or how fast). Saying that this observed warming is the fault of human beings and industry is mystical, anti-scientific nonsense for which there is absolutely no scientific basis whatsoever.
So, actually, by defending it you are proving MY point.
Didn't watson sell his Nobel prize? So what are his views on voter's rights and reproductive rights? If something along the lines of black people and women being too stupid to make they're own decisions because 'genetics' then it's no wonder the trump crowd embraced him and the smart people fired him.
Tammuz, the Democrats are trying to do what they can. So are the republicans. When everything works, they meet in the middle. It's not working in this narrow slice of history.
so, now any person who is not a bible-bashing racist creationist with imperial-romantic délusions about being great again = leftist (ie on the side of Marx, Robert Owen, Rosa Luxemburg, Bakunin etc etc)?
GW-arton, would you care to explain why the disciplines that have been most effective in pushing the US to the forefront on the world stage, i.e. STEM disciplines have NOT flourished in any of the Red States?
It is pretty clear the the primary electorate for Donald Dump is the uneducated, uninformed class who just want to change the status quo, not realizing that the status quo is much better than what the asshole Republicans left us with in 2008. I would LOVE for you to dispute this.
Also, what about my point correlating gun owners with their small penises? I would also love to see what bullshit Republican "Science" you come up with for this shit.
OMG gwharton that article was so stupid I lost brain cells reading it. According to you I don't have many to spare so I think I'll stop reading your links.
It's all the retarded fucking labeling that is the cause of our dysfunctional system. Most people believe in a hybrid of views and ideas from various ideologies. This idea that we have to pick a team is ridiculous and anti-intellectual in itself. I like some things the Green Party has to say, I like some libertarian positions...we need to get rid of parties all together. It's stupid.
Ill informed people getting up set at other ill informed ppl that have nothing better to do than get their panties in a knot over some BS that isnt even real
What you refer to as an Overton window is a good thing. It means we can't talk about how it's good to be a pedophIle without fear of being significantly ostracized in society. It's not good to be a pedophile; acting on that desire harms our communities and our society.
you say that window is to the left of center. I suppose in the sense that we can longer openly talk about how we should be able to own black people, maybe that's true. By and large though, that window should be in a place where it's not OK to say we are going to prevent people from entering our country based on religion, or that it's acceptable to fawn over semi-automatic assault rifles. Those are things that hurt our communities and our society.
I think it was bill Clinton (possibly incorrect attribution) who said: democrats fall in love. Republicans fall in line. This was in context to "cause heads," such as when tipper gore was trying to get labels on CDs (a time when I was more aligned with the republicans) or when people were trying to get gay people equal rights to marriage. For a long time there wasn't a consensus among democrats as to which cause should be followed, though apparently that has coalesced now.
On the other hand, republicans have the hastert rule. This is the "conserve" root of conservatism. Is something is broke, don't fix it. Keep things as they are.
that's a big part of the difference between pubs and dems. By the way, hastert is in jail now because he's a pedophile. That's not ok.
Well, the Antarctic ice sheet has never been been thicker or more expansive. NASA estimates that the billions of tons of additional ice itself would decrease the level of the world oceans, absent the melting observed in Greenland. The ice that may melt at the North Pole is largely sea ice, already floating, so it's melting will not raise the level of the world's oceans at all. Whether there is a very slight rise in temperature or a very slight decline depends on how you crunch the numbers. Air pollution, especially in India and China, is something to be concerned about as it is actually making people sick and killing them, and it can largely be corrected. Running around with your hair on fire over carbon dioxide and water vapor and pretending they are pollutants is ludicrous.
It continues to surprise me how ignorant left-wing partisans in the modern world are of the content and history of their own belief system. The left in the USA used to have some intellectual rigor, but that's been gone since the culture wars took over the narrative. All they've got now is social signalling and insults. Shameful.
If you want to know what the core of the left-liberal ideology is in the modern world, it can be summarized as follows:
Autonomy Theory
Self-creation and Self-determinism
Rejection of the Moral Relevance (and even existence) of the Unchosen
Care/Harm Morality
Transactional Relationship Model of Society
Strong Equalitarianism: political, ethical, and ontological
This worldview is so completely dominant in modern western societies that we are swimming in it at all times, like fish in the ocean. It's so ubiquitous that most of us are unaware of it at all unless something challenges it or calls it to our attention, and which point we tend to react with shock and outrage.
I agree that the Overton Window is a necessary function of social regulation. But the way the Overton Window has been moving for the past several decades has put us directly on course to normalizing exactly the sort of things you are arguing should be outside the bounds of acceptable discourse. There are already attempts being made to normalize pedophilia in our society, following the exact same normalization template that was used to normalize homosexuality and is currently being used to normalize transsexuals. They just haven't progressed as far yet.
support for pedophilia has been around for decades. it hasn't gained traction because most all of us know it's wrong. case in point, denny hastert. allen ginsburg too, who is probably not a republican.
support for transsexuals is gaining ground because it's something most of us don't understand, but we're starting to understand that we don't really give a shit when it doesn't hurt anyone else.
also, your theories of 'left-liberal ideology' are not correct. nobody is going to sit and read plato and then develop a political belief based on a theoretical ideal of egalitarianism, or any such philosophy to ideology like that.
we image the world for what it could be. democrats today want a world with strong communities, where we work together to achieve our goals. republicans want to believe in a howard roark sort of world, where they can be selfish and keep everything for themselves. look at the proposed legislation or support of legislation and it almost always comes down to that, with the occasional exception for special interests such as religion.
the philosophy is obviously post-rationalized as a way of trying to defend your desire to be selfish, which in this environment is largely outside the 'overton window'
You're not reading philosophy and developing a coherent ideology. That's obvious. It's a big part of why the left can't defend its ideas anymore and is left with point-and-sputter outrage, sentimental nonsense, and raw exercise of power as its only viable alternatives. They don't think about their beliefs in any kind of serious way, if at all. It's just raw self-righteousness and will-to-power now.
But you have adopted a worldview that is connected to the ideas I outlined. And you absorbed it through a tradition which is essentially a kind of secular millenial pietism. Which is amusingly ironic because of how much you all tend to condemn Christianity.
chatter: The "unchosen" is something about you and/or your relationship with the world and other people that is a pre-existing given and not something you actually chose for yourself. For instance: your family, the nation where you were born, your inheritance, your sex, your eye color, and vast array of other things about you about which you had no choice.
The liberal worldview rejects these things as morally relevant or instrumental, often strenuously and violently. In fact, even acknowledging that they exist is often considered to be morally suspect (as in the case of things like IQ).
And yet, a lot of the most interesting things about people are things about which they had no choice, but are simply given parts of who they are. This leads to a lot of really convoluted, contradictory, and contorted thinking on the part of people who subscribe to this worldview.
that's complete bullshit gwharton. nobody reads philosophy and then develops an ideology. the ideology has to come first. you choose what you want the world to be. there is to much good philosophy out there to say you read it all and decided being a republican is the right way to go - most good and intelligent philosophy will contradict other schools of philosophy.
in the binary choice i created, you either want to be selfish or you want a stronger community. i read some philosophy that would support either ideology, then read more of the philosophy that supported my view of community and humanity because it's what i was interested in. i essentially created an echo chamber to support my preferences in the same way you have. you could say the choice you made is different than 'selfish v. community,' but it's effectively the same end. in fact, i would say 'selfish v. community' isn't how i phrased the question myself, but it's where my ideology lead me.
people like me condemn Christianity because too many people currently professing to be Christian are using their religion as an excuse to condemn people of other religions, which harms our community. i have no problem with those people who align themselves with the christian faith in such a way that does not harm their community. i think most liberals agree (though obviously there are some exceptions).
I'm not talking about a priori thinking about political and moral beliefs, you dolt. I am talking about thinking, period. Actually thinking about what you believe and being willing to both articulate and defend it to other people as a matter of rational conversation and analytic persuasion.
Obviously, people don't think much anymore about anything, as clearly evidenced in this thread. And anti-intellectualism, such as you are displaying in spades in the comment immediately above, has become commonplace on both sides of the political fence in this country.
Lol, you don't believe in man made climate change which has been basically proven by countless studies, but you believe one false correlation made by a clearly biased scientist? How does that happen? James Watsons claims on differences in intelligence between the races relies on a false correlation between Neanderthal DNA and intelligence. It is a 100% fact that Europeans, and Asians have 1-4% Neanderthal DNA, and sub Saharan Africans do not. it is speculated that Neanderthals were possibly more intelligent than Homo sapiens because they had larger brains. This however does NOT mean that Europeans and Asians are more intelligent or that they inherited DNA that dictates intellegence. That's a leap of logic and an assumption likely based on racial bias. His evidence is backed by intellegence testing data that is very imperfect and does not consider environmental factors, cultural differences... We do not even really understand intelligence fully, and measuring it is unreliable.
Climate science is very well sorted out. It's a very basic concept. Do you agree that co2 in the atmosphere raises earths temperature? It's a fact. Do you agree that humans produce co2? It's another fact. Then how can producing more co2 NOT raise earths temperature? I really can't understand that logic.
there isn't one right answer gwharton. your philosophy points to the end you wish to achieve, which is to be selfish and greedy. other philosophies exist. if you were any sort of intellectual you would at least try to be aware of the philosophies and philosophers that disagree with the position you're trying to sell. suggesting that you know everything, by comments such as your previous one, doesn't make you look smart. it makes it look like you stopped learning. do better. you can be as smart as the rest of us and still hold your beliefs if you try.
two clowns from the same circus
tinnt, go back to high school civics. We have a representative democracy (in theory), but it is not a parliamentary system.
But I like flowered fields and unicorns ....:)
"parliament" And in case I wasn't clear, I did back to high school civics and tutored an average student who became the best student in his class. His teacher liked what I have to say. "I" got an A.
Another advantage of most parliamentary systems: the separation of the chief executive roles into two separate offices, with the prime minister usually being a political technocrat (a role in which Hillary Clinton would be ideal for), and a ceremonial head of state with limited powers, be it a monarch or an elected president. A big problem with the American system is that we expect one person to fill both roles.
I'd give you a gold star for that, David. But is an elected president really a ceremonial position? Our president has limited powers too. What makes a head of state "ceremonial"?
I am not responsible for how anyone else votes. If I vote third-party, that's all it is, a third-party vote. Donna, you could blame Gore and his lackluster campaign more than a single Nader voter for the results of the 2000 election. And the Supreme Court.
If I vote third-party, even in a non-swing state, it matters. 5% national popular vote in a presidential election gets a third-party access to federal campaign funding. 15% national average in polling gets a candidate into the presidential debates. Meeting either threshold could expose the electorate to ideas they may not have heard of before. It probably is a fantasy to expect to win outright, sure, but third-party candidates effect the national debate. See Sanders impact on what Hillary talked about throughout the primary - should all of the Sanders primary voters have stopped embracing the 'fantasy' immediately and backed Hillary blindly? The focus of her campaign would look quite different now, and to some people on this thread, worse without Sanders' impact.
Providing a marketplace for ideas matters just as much to me as which of these two 'clowns' wins. Optimistically, or naively, I think ideas are important...how's that for unicorns prancing through a field of blue bonnets, farting votes? ;)
Have a good weekend everyone. It's beer:30 time now!
David Cole, were you aware of what Andrew Circle has added here?
Because if you were, it would be a bit like you were not painting the full picture in order to justify a vote for Clinton (or otherwise Trump)..and that would not be a very honest argument for your case. After all, it is not just about this election but about building up a momentum of change for the next élections as well - rather always sliding from this election's lesser evils to next élection's lesser , banging your head blindly against one wall then the opposing one in the same dark tunnel.
This is all very interesting. Just look how divided and contentious this has all became in our little community.
You are all smart people let's do an experiment. So how do we fix "the system" if we can.
I vote for getting money out of politics and term limits.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_576ae5ade4b0c0252e781b3e
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/gary-johnson-aims-to-offer-voters-a-plan-c-689358915619
Rachel Madow makes a good point....he may actually draw some fiscal conservatives away from trump as well...
I would absolutely vote for getting money out of politics and setting term limits. Make elected officials go back to their communities and thrive in them after voting supposedly in their community's best interests!
But we don't get to vote for those things. We vote for parties who appoint Supreme Court judges who decide that money=speech. Tell me how the upcoming Supreme Court openings - not to mention the current one forgodfuckingssake that shitsmear Mitch Mcconnell is holding hostage goddamit!!! - will be *better* filled by someone who the Right would appoint, someone like Scalia who proudly stated that he believed in the Devil?!
The Right is anti-science, anti-fact, anti-education. The Left simply isn't. You're all educated professional architects - do you want to live in a world where your skills and knowledge are laughed at as being "elite"?
I like Hillary!
I like the neo-liberal order. It serves me pretty well and is what most immigrants to this country aspire to be a part of. And why not? Its fuckin great.
What Left? The democrats? Only if you're politically dyslexic.
The Right is anti-science, anti-fact, anti-education. The Left simply isn't.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Seriously, that's the funniest thing I've read in a day full of hilariously-dumb comments.
Go ask James Watson how "pro-science, pro-fact, and pro-education" the left is.
LOL
gwharton, I guess that it's pretty unsurprising that you'd use the fall from grace of a scientist who, after doing groundbreaking work, also revealed himself to be an ugly racist as your example. There's absolutely no reason to argue that his discovery of the double helix excuses his racism, or proves that racism is somehow rational, and not simply a horrible prejudice. But, you've proved yourself to be pretty horrible too, so I guess we shouldn't be surprised by the extent of your biases.
There is good evidence that, in fact, voters on the left are more likely to believe scientific truths like evolution and human based climate change. No way around it. Sorry dude, you're a dinosaur.
Thank you for bringing an octogenarian into the topic gwharton. I think it's important to view our current political climate within the context of Truman's administration, when James watson was likely at his peak.
I must admit I don't know much about his political views. Does he believe a woman should have the right to her own reproductive decisions, or should the federal government be expanded to include reproductive rights? How has his views on civil rights and voters rights evolved since 1953, when he was credited with helping discover the structure of dna?
I only ask you because it's really hard to find people on the Internet that know everything and make lots of money and all that. I don't think there is widespread support among the scientific community for watson's racist or mysoginist's remarks, but I guess they're pretty popular among the trump crowd?
you guys are arguing over something that doesn't exist now. There is no real Left in your political establishment. (Democrats and Republicans). I don't see equitable distribution of wealth, I don't see limits being placed on profit, I do not see programs for social justice, I do not see the strengthening of labour unions...
I see a psycho warmongering Wall street puppet (sort of like Chuckey) and a racist filthy rich buffoon playing on peoples irrational fears and phobias
Donna, what you are referring to is that the left panders to the semi educated individual that has some self respect, and the right panders to the uneducated, white old men/women side.
The left and the right are the same snake, it's just two headed. Think of it like a theatrical act, where you must create tension and drama. Ill informed people getting up set at other ill informed ppl that have nothing better to do than get their panties in a knot over some BS that isnt even real, while the wizard behind the curtain does what is best for itself, keeping the blinders on the crowd.
The more uneducated (hence why education is literally a dumpster fire here in America),and divide a people are, the easier they are to control.
Tammuz, you don't see much of anything outside what makes you angry
Hello what about my experiment?
Parallels on the left? Many:
And many more. Science denialism is not limited to the fringe right. It's pretty mainstream on the left too. Especially with regard to anything having to do with evolutionary biology, behavioral genetics, or economics, subjects that left liberals seem terminally allergic to and shockingly ignorant about.
curtkram, but clearly one cannot perceive the Democrats as being Left. Irrespective of how I or you feel about it. Less Right does not make it Left; that would just be wrong. But obviously the whole worldview is different if someone deems the Democrats leftists. I mean, it would be ridiculous in any country with a healthier culture of leftist parties.
curtkram: James Watson is an octogenarian, yes. He's also a Nobel Prize-winning pioneer in genetic research and co-discoverer of the structure of DNA. A scientists' scientist.
And he was somewhat recently subject to a career-blemishing witch hunt and social ostracism in the media because he had the temerity to discuss subjects that left-wing science deniers find objectionable. So it's relevant now too.
And the Dems allow too much religion into politics, too, IMO, because that's not a line they're willing to cross, yet.
My main point is the Left is less afraid to *listen* to science, and consider how it might affect public policy, while the Right is terrified of it. Witness the Right's denial of funding to the CDC if they even want to *research* the idea of gun deaths being related to public health. They're terrified of the outcome.
Though if you're still not willing to accept anthropogenic climate change by now, gwharton, I'm afraid you've proven my point.
RE Right vs Left:
There are really two different things being discussed there. On the one hand, we have a political axis which is roughly delineated on one end by an emphasis on social order and community, and on the other by individualism and anti-authoritarianism (I'm trying to characterize them in ways that are non-pejorative...they can both be described in far less flattering terms). This roughly translates into what we think of as Right and Left in an objective sense.
And then we have the relative positions on that axis of allowable discourse in our society - what is sometimes referred to as the Overton Window. Inside the Overton Window, you find positions and beliefs that are considered mainstream and acceptable by the reigning power structure and society in general. Outside the Overton Window, you find positions and beliefs that are often rhetorically characterized as radical, fringe, or extreme. The centroid of the Overton Window lies somewhere on the objective scale of right vs left, but the Window itself represents only a narrow band of the full spectrum of political positions and beliefs possible on that scale.
In the United States, our two main political parties represent the right and left boundaries of the Overton Window as embodied in the attitudes of ruling elite. So, in this sense, the critique that the two parties are really flip sides of the same coin, or two faces of the same oligarchy, is almost certainly true. But there are some substantive differences between them. Those difference are Schelling Points at any moment in time for the constellations of power centers in our society and how they pursue their interests in the political sphere.
If you look at where the American Overton Window is on the total, objective scale of right vs left, however, you notice pretty quickly that the centroid is left of center. Maybe even by a lot. And further, that it has been moving ever more leftward for the past century-plus. There is no denying this. If you compare the party platform of the Democratic Party from the 1960s to the Republican Party platform of today, you will find the Democrats of fifty years ago to the right of modern Republicans.
Those on the left prefer to call this "progress," because that suits their interests and narrative (you see this tendency in the modern tendency on the left to use the utterly chilling phrase, borrowed from revolutionary communism, of "the right side of history"). But really, that's just a self-justification for extending their power and pulling the Overton Window in their direction as hard as they can. There is no "progressive trend" in history, despite the Whig mythology rooted in our political system. There is only victory and defeat. And the left has been winning for a very, very, very long time.
Now, there are those here who will (and have) argued that this is nonsense. That mainstream politics in America is irretrievably right-wing and regressive. From their perspective - on the far left outside of the leftward bound of the present Overton Window - that is absolutely true relative to their position on the political spectrum. But in an objective sense, it's completely false. All they're really saying is that the mainstream is not LEFT ENOUGH for their taste, not that it's actually right-wing in any meaningful way.
In fact, there has been a serious right-wing political movement in the United States in many decades. The last one was probably the Taft Republicans, and even they were not THAT right-wing in an objective sense. The United States has never been a real right-wing nation. It was founded in revolutionary liberalism.
he had the temerity to discuss subjects that left-wing science deniers find objectionable
No. He's not a brave truth teller, he's just a fucking asshole. A Nobel doesn't change that. What's wrong with you, GW? Samples of Watson's bold truth telling:
"Clearly Rosy had to go or be put in her place . . . The thought could not be avoided that the best home for a feminist was in another person’s lab."
"[I am] inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa [because] all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours—whereas all the testing says not really...people who have to deal with black employees find this not true."
“Whenever you interview fat people, you feel bad, because you know you’re not going to hire them.”
Donna,
AGW is anti-scientific nonsense which is entirely separate from the scientific question of whether or not the global climate is warming (which evidence strongly suggests it is, though there is some ambiguity about how much or how fast). Saying that this observed warming is the fault of human beings and industry is mystical, anti-scientific nonsense for which there is absolutely no scientific basis whatsoever.
So, actually, by defending it you are proving MY point.
Didn't watson sell his Nobel prize? So what are his views on voter's rights and reproductive rights? If something along the lines of black people and women being too stupid to make they're own decisions because 'genetics' then it's no wonder the trump crowd embraced him and the smart people fired him.
Tammuz, the Democrats are trying to do what they can. So are the republicans. When everything works, they meet in the middle. It's not working in this narrow slice of history.
so, now any person who is not a bible-bashing racist creationist with imperial-romantic délusions about being great again = leftist (ie on the side of Marx, Robert Owen, Rosa Luxemburg, Bakunin etc etc)?
so, any animal that doesn't miaow is a dog?
this is a circus right here. Round and around and around.
GW-arton, would you care to explain why the disciplines that have been most effective in pushing the US to the forefront on the world stage, i.e. STEM disciplines have NOT flourished in any of the Red States?
It is pretty clear the the primary electorate for Donald Dump is the uneducated, uninformed class who just want to change the status quo, not realizing that the status quo is much better than what the asshole Republicans left us with in 2008. I would LOVE for you to dispute this.
Also, what about my point correlating gun owners with their small penises? I would also love to see what bullshit Republican "Science" you come up with for this shit.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/the-lefts-own-war-on-science/
It's all the retarded fucking labeling that is the cause of our dysfunctional system. Most people believe in a hybrid of views and ideas from various ideologies. This idea that we have to pick a team is ridiculous and anti-intellectual in itself. I like some things the Green Party has to say, I like some libertarian positions...we need to get rid of parties all together. It's stupid.
And of course he posts something from a conservative shit rag. Take your blinder off, Sir.
jla-x, I dont think the Republican party is right about ANYTHING. They are completely irrelevant to modern society.
I hate to quote my self tinttt, but....
Ill informed people getting up set at other ill informed ppl that have nothing better to do than get their panties in a knot over some BS that isnt even real
What you refer to as an Overton window is a good thing. It means we can't talk about how it's good to be a pedophIle without fear of being significantly ostracized in society. It's not good to be a pedophile; acting on that desire harms our communities and our society.
you say that window is to the left of center. I suppose in the sense that we can longer openly talk about how we should be able to own black people, maybe that's true. By and large though, that window should be in a place where it's not OK to say we are going to prevent people from entering our country based on religion, or that it's acceptable to fawn over semi-automatic assault rifles. Those are things that hurt our communities and our society.
I think it was bill Clinton (possibly incorrect attribution) who said: democrats fall in love. Republicans fall in line. This was in context to "cause heads," such as when tipper gore was trying to get labels on CDs (a time when I was more aligned with the republicans) or when people were trying to get gay people equal rights to marriage. For a long time there wasn't a consensus among democrats as to which cause should be followed, though apparently that has coalesced now.
On the other hand, republicans have the hastert rule. This is the "conserve" root of conservatism. Is something is broke, don't fix it. Keep things as they are.
that's a big part of the difference between pubs and dems. By the way, hastert is in jail now because he's a pedophile. That's not ok.
Well, the Antarctic ice sheet has never been been thicker or more expansive. NASA estimates that the billions of tons of additional ice itself would decrease the level of the world oceans, absent the melting observed in Greenland. The ice that may melt at the North Pole is largely sea ice, already floating, so it's melting will not raise the level of the world's oceans at all. Whether there is a very slight rise in temperature or a very slight decline depends on how you crunch the numbers. Air pollution, especially in India and China, is something to be concerned about as it is actually making people sick and killing them, and it can largely be corrected. Running around with your hair on fire over carbon dioxide and water vapor and pretending they are pollutants is ludicrous.
It continues to surprise me how ignorant left-wing partisans in the modern world are of the content and history of their own belief system. The left in the USA used to have some intellectual rigor, but that's been gone since the culture wars took over the narrative. All they've got now is social signalling and insults. Shameful.
If you want to know what the core of the left-liberal ideology is in the modern world, it can be summarized as follows:
This worldview is so completely dominant in modern western societies that we are swimming in it at all times, like fish in the ocean. It's so ubiquitous that most of us are unaware of it at all unless something challenges it or calls it to our attention, and which point we tend to react with shock and outrage.
curtkram,
I agree that the Overton Window is a necessary function of social regulation. But the way the Overton Window has been moving for the past several decades has put us directly on course to normalizing exactly the sort of things you are arguing should be outside the bounds of acceptable discourse. There are already attempts being made to normalize pedophilia in our society, following the exact same normalization template that was used to normalize homosexuality and is currently being used to normalize transsexuals. They just haven't progressed as far yet.
now, what's an Unchosen?
support for pedophilia has been around for decades. it hasn't gained traction because most all of us know it's wrong. case in point, denny hastert. allen ginsburg too, who is probably not a republican.
support for transsexuals is gaining ground because it's something most of us don't understand, but we're starting to understand that we don't really give a shit when it doesn't hurt anyone else.
also, your theories of 'left-liberal ideology' are not correct. nobody is going to sit and read plato and then develop a political belief based on a theoretical ideal of egalitarianism, or any such philosophy to ideology like that.
we image the world for what it could be. democrats today want a world with strong communities, where we work together to achieve our goals. republicans want to believe in a howard roark sort of world, where they can be selfish and keep everything for themselves. look at the proposed legislation or support of legislation and it almost always comes down to that, with the occasional exception for special interests such as religion.
the philosophy is obviously post-rationalized as a way of trying to defend your desire to be selfish, which in this environment is largely outside the 'overton window'
You're not reading philosophy and developing a coherent ideology. That's obvious. It's a big part of why the left can't defend its ideas anymore and is left with point-and-sputter outrage, sentimental nonsense, and raw exercise of power as its only viable alternatives. They don't think about their beliefs in any kind of serious way, if at all. It's just raw self-righteousness and will-to-power now.
But you have adopted a worldview that is connected to the ideas I outlined. And you absorbed it through a tradition which is essentially a kind of secular millenial pietism. Which is amusingly ironic because of how much you all tend to condemn Christianity.
chatter: The "unchosen" is something about you and/or your relationship with the world and other people that is a pre-existing given and not something you actually chose for yourself. For instance: your family, the nation where you were born, your inheritance, your sex, your eye color, and vast array of other things about you about which you had no choice.
The liberal worldview rejects these things as morally relevant or instrumental, often strenuously and violently. In fact, even acknowledging that they exist is often considered to be morally suspect (as in the case of things like IQ).
And yet, a lot of the most interesting things about people are things about which they had no choice, but are simply given parts of who they are. This leads to a lot of really convoluted, contradictory, and contorted thinking on the part of people who subscribe to this worldview.
that's complete bullshit gwharton. nobody reads philosophy and then develops an ideology. the ideology has to come first. you choose what you want the world to be. there is to much good philosophy out there to say you read it all and decided being a republican is the right way to go - most good and intelligent philosophy will contradict other schools of philosophy.
in the binary choice i created, you either want to be selfish or you want a stronger community. i read some philosophy that would support either ideology, then read more of the philosophy that supported my view of community and humanity because it's what i was interested in. i essentially created an echo chamber to support my preferences in the same way you have. you could say the choice you made is different than 'selfish v. community,' but it's effectively the same end. in fact, i would say 'selfish v. community' isn't how i phrased the question myself, but it's where my ideology lead me.
people like me condemn Christianity because too many people currently professing to be Christian are using their religion as an excuse to condemn people of other religions, which harms our community. i have no problem with those people who align themselves with the christian faith in such a way that does not harm their community. i think most liberals agree (though obviously there are some exceptions).
I'm not talking about a priori thinking about political and moral beliefs, you dolt. I am talking about thinking, period. Actually thinking about what you believe and being willing to both articulate and defend it to other people as a matter of rational conversation and analytic persuasion.
Obviously, people don't think much anymore about anything, as clearly evidenced in this thread. And anti-intellectualism, such as you are displaying in spades in the comment immediately above, has become commonplace on both sides of the political fence in this country.
Lol, you don't believe in man made climate change which has been basically proven by countless studies, but you believe one false correlation made by a clearly biased scientist? How does that happen? James Watsons claims on differences in intelligence between the races relies on a false correlation between Neanderthal DNA and intelligence. It is a 100% fact that Europeans, and Asians have 1-4% Neanderthal DNA, and sub Saharan Africans do not. it is speculated that Neanderthals were possibly more intelligent than Homo sapiens because they had larger brains. This however does NOT mean that Europeans and Asians are more intelligent or that they inherited DNA that dictates intellegence. That's a leap of logic and an assumption likely based on racial bias. His evidence is backed by intellegence testing data that is very imperfect and does not consider environmental factors, cultural differences... We do not even really understand intelligence fully, and measuring it is unreliable.
Climate science is very well sorted out. It's a very basic concept. Do you agree that co2 in the atmosphere raises earths temperature? It's a fact. Do you agree that humans produce co2? It's another fact. Then how can producing more co2 NOT raise earths temperature? I really can't understand that logic.
there isn't one right answer gwharton. your philosophy points to the end you wish to achieve, which is to be selfish and greedy. other philosophies exist. if you were any sort of intellectual you would at least try to be aware of the philosophies and philosophers that disagree with the position you're trying to sell. suggesting that you know everything, by comments such as your previous one, doesn't make you look smart. it makes it look like you stopped learning. do better. you can be as smart as the rest of us and still hold your beliefs if you try.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.