# Is it possible to be in a close relationship with our political opposites?



## Guest

I've been reading this today and I'm unconvinced about its conclusions. How do others manage this?

Loathe your loved one's politics? Here's some advice

*Want to throttle someone you know over politics*?

You're not alone.

Two weeks from a US election - or any election for that matter - it feels harder than ever to interact with people who have vastly different views. And as much as we might want to avoid these folks, it's not always possible - or desirable - especially if they are friends or family.

Many of us feel a responsibility to express our political opinions. But we want to coexist peacefully with our loved ones, as well, even if their politics drive us crazy. To get advice on how to keep our relationships healthy, I spoke with Jeanne Safer, a psychologist who has had a private psychotherapy practice in Manhattan for more than 45 years. For four decades, she's been in a mixed political marriage - she is a Democrat and her husband is a Republican and a senior editor at the conservative magazine, "National Review." Their marriage inspired her latest book: "I Love You, But I Hate Your Politics: How to Protect Your Intimate Relationships in a Poisonous Partisan World."

Here are edited excerpts from our interview.

*Is it harder for people with different views to get along these days*?

Dr. Safer: I think so. We're more polarised. The world has become a place where people do not talk across party lines.

But shouldn't we try harder to get along when we're already isolated because of the pandemic?

Yes, absolutely. The last thing you want is to be alienated or less connected. Remember: These people are going to be in your life long after the election.

Why does it bother us so much when someone we love disagrees politically?

Because the disagreement isn't really about politics. It's about psychology - about how we see the world differently. Once a person understands this, it changes the whole dynamic. Psychoanalysis makes the distinction between manifest and latent content. Manifest content is what you think you're talking about. In this case, that is politics. Latent content is what you're really talking about, which is feelings and what the disagreement, or the act of disagreeing itself, stirs up.

We have a fantasy that people who are our intimates are going to be like us in every fundamental way. We wonder: How can somebody important to me not see what I see? And yet there are always going to be significant points of contention in an intimate relationship.

*Should we avoid discussing politics?
*
Yes, if you feel it will lead to an argument. You can have a discussion if you can both do it civilly, without raising your voices. But the key to having a decent political conversation with someone who has opposing beliefs is to listen more than you talk. Because you can only be responsible for how you conduct yourself. You can always say: "We just see this very differently."

What you want to avoid is a political fight in a relationship of any kind. It's just a lose-lose situation - not the disagreement but the fight. It's important that if this is someone you care about and you know what a hot-button issue politics is, that you simply don't talk about it. It's essential to have a certain amount of self-control and know what to avoid in a relationship.

*How do you avoid it*?

If someone starts a political fight with you, take charge. Don't just allow yourself to be buffeted. Say: "Let's not do this. I love you, but this is not something we can talk about fruitfully. Let's not spend our time fighting. Let's enjoy ourselves."

People will thank you for it. Because they're horribly uncomfortable. Nobody wants to spend their time yelling and screaming.

Is it even possible to sway someone's political opinion?

No, no and no. People do change their minds. But not because you tried to force them to. And they are going to be offended if you tell them: "Let me show you the light. Let me show you how you are wrong." You have to accept the premise that you will not change their mind.

What if the other person insists on talking politics, even as you try to avoid it?

If someone insists on discussing it, say something very brief and avoid giving an opinion. Say: "There are a lot of different ways to look at this." And then immediately change the subject.

You have to think about preserving the relationship rather than making a point.
*
What if you still privately feel irritated or disappointed in the person*?

You are going to feel that from time to time. This is part of a relationship. The antidote to that is to focus on what you love about them and what you have in common. You can remind yourself why you care about this person and why this person is a part of your life. And you can do this in advance of getting together. That will set you up to feel well-disposed to them.

*You're in a politically mixed marriage. What lessons have you learned*?

People have a feeling that avoiding things is somehow weakness or hypocrisy. I've learned that it's wisdom and civility.

And there are many things that are more important than politics: how the person treats you; if someone rejoices for your success and grieves for your troubles and backs you up; if you enjoy your time together. These are the things that count.

The thing that really matters is what I call the Chemotherapy Test. When someone has cancer and they're in the hospital getting chemotherapy, they don't ask the political affiliation or views of someone who is standing by their side getting them through it.

*How do you watch election night with someone who has different political views?
*
You don't.

*Is there an upside to having different views from others in your life*?

Yes. It expands your mind. You can learn something from them. It can make you more tolerant and more aware that the world is not just your little bubble. If you limit yourself to people who agree with you, you're going to miss out on a lot of important relationships with people who might be good to you, who will add to your life.

_The Wall St Journal_


----------



## Jacck

Personally, I dont think it is possible to have a deep connection with a person, who has fundamentally different political views, because the value system is simply not mutually compatible. I know such couples, but in all cases, as far as I can be the judge of it, there is little actual love. The couples married for convenience, biological clock was ticking and they grabbed the nearest person available to marry and have children.

Seven Out of Ten Democrats Wouldn't Consider Dating a Trump Voter
https://www.menshealth.com/sex-wome...republicans-dating-habits-pew-research-study/


----------



## Dan Ante

I really do not care what a persons political belief is we are all different and personally I find things that I agree with in all of our local parties and things I disagree with even in the party I vote for, there are of course politicians that I dislike and when ever I see them on TV I tell them what idiots he/she/they are. Its like hating composers music because of their beliefs.


----------



## Eclectic Al

What is a political opposite?

I like to think I am a reasonably moral person, and I have political opinions.
I also like to think people who disagree with my political opinions are also reasonably moral.

To give an example, suppose that two people both accept that attempting to narrow inequality in society to a very low level by using the tax system is likely to reduce the average level of wealth in that society.

Person A might think that that is a price well worth paying, because that is fair.
Person B might thing that it is not a price worth paying, because the overall reduction in wealth will lead to generally worse outcomes (say via an inability to fund as comprehensive a healthcare system).

Neither A nor B seems to me to be "bad", but they may have very opposed positions on how the tax system should be constructed. I don't think they are opposites: I think they are reasonable people with different opinions.

If you say that the issue is that in reality the assumption that narrowing inequality via the tax system will reduce average wealth is invalid, then you have moved away from questions of morality, and you are into questions of economics. Hence, again, you are not really saying either is "bad", but you are challenging technical assumptions about how the world works. Perhaps if you can persuade Person B that the world works differently they will change their opinions on tax: but that doesn't change them from a bad person to a good person; it changes their views on economics.

Now if I (Person C) have a vote, I might cast it in a way which would please Person A or Person B, and I might be doing so for different reasons, and I might like Person A or Person B better personally.

It seems to me that some parts of the public sphere have turned to a reductionist view that there are 2 sides, with those on one side sharing political opinions and also being the good people, whereas those on the other side share political opinions and are the bad people. That seems to me to be ludicrously simplistic. It is also dangerous, because it leaves precious little room for debate and compromise (potentially leading to better outcomes).

Turning to how this plays out in romantic situations, I think the truth is that people's opinions change over time, and a key influence on that will be the people they are close to. Hence, if people with generally divergent political positions stick together, they may find that their views rub the sharp edges off the views of their partner (and vice versa). I think that is a good thing.


Since when did respecting people you disagree with become unfashionable? Let's say 2012. I made that up, but I do think it is fairly recent.


----------



## Jacck

^^ those are technical questions about policy and those are not a problem. I would have no problem respecting a person with different views over policy. What I find hard to swallow is a person supporting a dishonest, lying, corrupt, amoral and evil politician. Imagine someone like Trump, Orban, Putin, Erdogan, but we have our local variety in my country too (our president). If someone supports such a person, I tend to view him either as stupid or as amoral. In any case, I have little respect for him, and respect is needed for any functional relationship.


----------



## Varick

Eclectic Al said:


> I like to think I am a reasonably moral person, and I have political opinions.
> I also like to think people who disagree with my political opinions are also reasonably moral.


That's it in a nutshell right there. Too many people believe that those who do not see things the way they do are BAD people. Not wrong, not foolish, maybe not even naively destructive, but bad, awful, horrible, and maybe even evil. It is a reflection that they see themselves as so noble, moral, and decent, that if someone else doesn't believe the way they do, then they must be a bad person. This itself is a very dangerous mentality and I have seen it break up families everywhere. I see children not talking to their own parents, siblings no longer in contact with each other, friends severing ties. I can't think of a more unwise and foolish mentality to have.

On a personal note, I have had a few friends sever ties and I told them very simply and calmly, "If you ever grow up, let me know, and maybe we can restart our friendship." Most of them I will never hear from again and so be it. I have family members who I love dearly and adore and we just don't talk politics. There are so many more important things in life than politics.

To Jacck's point above, I find it ill advised to get into an intimate relationship with someone who's values are so anathema to yours. That goes for religious beliefs as well. Can it work? Sure. Is it likely? Not very.

V


----------



## Bulldog

I know that religious opposites have loving relationships, so I assume the same holds for political opposites.


----------



## Jacck

Varick said:


> That's it in a nutshell right there. Too many people believe that those who do not see things the way they do are BAD people. Not wrong, not foolish, maybe not even naively destructive, but bad, awful, horrible, and maybe even evil. It is a reflection that they see themselves as so noble, moral, and decent, that if someone else doesn't believe the way they do, then they must be a bad person. This itself is a very dangerous mentality and I have seen it break up families everywhere. I see children not talking to their own parents, siblings no longer in contact with each other, friends severing ties. I can't think of a more unwise and foolish mentality to have.
> 
> On a personal note, I have had a few friends sever ties and I told them very simply and calmly, "If you ever grow up, let me know, and maybe we can restart our friendship." Most of them I will never hear from again and so be it. I have family members who I love dearly and adore and we just don't talk politics. There are so many more important things in life than politics.
> 
> To Jacck's point above, I find it ill advised to get into an intimate relationship with someone who's values are so anathema to yours. That goes for religious beliefs as well. Can it work? Sure. Is it likely? Not very.
> 
> V


I am not a religous person, at least not part of any organized religion (I have my own spiritual beliefs though), and I would have no issues having a relationship with either a believer or an atheist. It is simply a personal matter that is not very important to me. I do not look down on believers and would not mind a spouse going to church every sunday. There would only be friction if that person tried to impose his beliefs on me, ie convert me. 
I would however not enter into relationship with someone who voted for our current president (Zeman). 
https://raamoprusland.nl/dossiers/b...limits-and-opportunities-of-moscow-s-meddling
that to me is a fundamental difference of values.


----------



## philoctetes

Not in California. Even slight differences raise vitriol when over-polarized.

Warning to Bulldog, I'm looking to relocate to ABQ area.


----------



## Strange Magic

There are, actually, bad people out there. Each of us has met, or known, or heard about the acts of bad people. Bad people look the other way, whistle to drown out the more disturbing noises, indulge in Defiant Ignorance of the obvious if ideological strictures prevent acceptance of the humanity and the human of others, especially if long-suppressed.


----------



## philoctetes

Yes, that's how polarization works, shifting from politics to morality in a heartbeat. Warmonger stuff.


----------



## Bulldog

philoctetes said:


> Warning to Bulldog, I'm looking to relocate to ABQ area.


Excellent choice. If you do move forward, let me know, I'll give you my phone number, and I can offer some help concerning the different residential areas of our delightful city.


----------



## SanAntone

Since I am pretty much apolitical, and unaffiliated religiously, I have no trouble ignoring my friend's and family's political and religious views. Makes for pleasant interaction.


----------



## Guest

Varick said:


> That's it in a nutshell right there. Too many people believe that those who do not see things the way they do are BAD people. Not wrong, not foolish, maybe not even naively destructive, but bad, awful, horrible, and maybe even evil. It is a reflection that they see themselves as so noble, moral, and decent, that if someone else doesn't believe the way they do, then they must be a bad person. This itself is a very dangerous mentality and I have seen it break up families everywhere. I see children not talking to their own parents, siblings no longer in contact with each other, friends severing ties. I can't think of a more unwise and foolish mentality to have.
> 
> On a personal note, I have had a few friends sever ties and I told them very simply and calmly, "If you ever grow up, let me know, and maybe we can restart our friendship." Most of them I will never hear from again and so be it. I have family members who I love dearly and adore and we just don't talk politics. There are so many more important things in life than politics.
> 
> To Jacck's point above, I find it ill advised to get into an intimate relationship with someone who's values are so anathema to yours. That goes for religious beliefs as well. Can it work? Sure. Is it likely? Not very.
> 
> V


These are really good comments with which I mostly agree. However, I don't see the 'good' and 'bad' paradigm, because I don't think it comes down to that. I thought the article was very timely and thought-provoking because we are politically polarized today (which I largely attribute to social media and anonymity). People can and do say the most foul things on social media and this is where the notion of 'good' and 'bad' people arises. But those in my life who have very different political opinion? Firstly, I try to avoid the discussion in the first place (I was brought up with the idea that politics, religion and sex were verboten for discussion for the reasons outlined in the article/interview). Having seen some pleasant social experiences go south when politics enters the equation I tend to avoid this.

I also think much depends on the importance of politics for each couple/friendship group. My husband and I are deeply engaged in political discussions and our son has a very high position in Australian politics; were we on opposite sides of the equation it would be *extremely* problematic. If intimates or friends are less occupied with what happens in politics it's very possible for them to shrug their shoulders, agree that many of the players are idiots, and have a nice relationship together. It comes down to the extent of the interest in the game. Our friends comment on our son's job if something important happens in politics, or they see his picture in the newspaper, or they are intrigued by the level of stress and ruthlessness of the game, but I've said to them "I'm not willing to discuss politics per se". (My son isn't a politician but an adviser.)

My husband likes 50s rock and roll and Buddy Holly; that's the extent of our taste differential!!


----------



## Chilham

A client I've worked with for nearly ten years touched the third rail last month. He opened up, "As I'm amongst friends .....", about his political views. They are diametrically opposite to mine. I'm surprised at how difficult I'm finding it to look beyond his politics.


----------



## Guest

Chilham said:


> A client I've worked with for nearly ten years touched the third rail last month. He opened up, "As I'm amongst friends .....", about his political views. They are diametrically opposite to mine. I'm surprised at how difficult I'm finding it to look beyond his politics.


Yes, and what about the comment "as I'm amongst friends". Rather presumptuous but you do hear this from time to time. I would have thought it was a deal breaker, to be honest!!


----------



## Guest

I voted for Obama twice. I would not say that I could not be friends with someone who voted for McCain, or for Romney. They were decent people who had different views from mine on most issues. Trump is another level. He is a blatant racist, con-man, a sociopath whose business successes consist of siphoning money out of failing enterprises. In office his conduct has been disgraceful. I can see how I could respect someone who supports him. Best not to discuss politics at all with anyone you have a professional relationship with.

Where I live, it is a diverse community, but I occasionally see diesel pickup trucks modified to "roll coal" with noisy exhaust and huge Trump banners flying from the bed. Astonishing.


----------



## Guest

Baron Scarpia said:


> I voted for Obama twice. I would not say that I could not be friends with someone who voted for McCain, or for Romney. They were decent people who had different views from mine on most issues. Trump is another level. He is a blatant racist, con-man, a sociopath whose business successes consist of siphoning money out of failing enterprises. In office his conduct has been disgraceful. I can see how I could respect someone who supports him. Best not to discuss politics at all with anyone you have a professional relationship with.
> 
> Where I live, it is a diverse community, but I occasionally see diesel pickup trucks modified to "roll coal" with noisy exhaust and huge Trump banners flying from the bed. Astonishing.


So for you it's a deal-breaker to be on the opposite political side. This is because it's important to you and frames your beliefs about yourself. Essentially, this is why I disagree with the thrust of the article I posted here to start the discussion. If you have skin in the game you're unlikely to value the ideas of your political opposites.

The article suggest that if there are positives in a relationship these can outweigh the political negatives. Surely that depends on the individual and what he/she sees as positive in the first place. If somebody comes and mows your lawn when you're incapacitated and takes the dog, or does other chores for you, but is on the absolute opposite side of the political spectrum I'd advise moderation and avoiding politics altogether. We've had one set of friends for 35 years and lately they've been annoying us with their political comments which we believe are a consequence of them completely changing their ideologies. I think of Groucho Marx, "if you don't like my principles I've got another set that you might like".


----------



## Guest

Christabel said:


> So for you it's a deal-breaker to be on the opposite political side. This is because it's important to you and frames your beliefs about yourself. Essentially, this is why I disagree with the thrust of the article I posted here to start the discussion. If you have skin in the game you're unlikely to value the ideas of your political opposites.


That is the the opposite of what I wrote. I said I would have no trouble maintain a friendship with someone with differing political views. I mentioned Romney vs Obama, McCain vs Obama, I could also have mentioned Kerry vs Bush, Gore vs Bush, or Dole vs Clinton. It is not Trump's politics, to the extent that he has any, that I object to.

With Trump it is not politics, it is the amorality. Has there ever been another U.S. president where perhaps a dozen members of the administration have resigned and denounced the president they worked for as utterly unfit for office? Has there ever been a U.S. president where dozens of members of his own party, particularly former security and intelligence officials, have denounced him as unfit for office?


----------



## Guest

Baron Scarpia said:


> That is the the opposite of what I wrote. I said I would have no trouble maintain a friendship with someone with differing political views. I mentioned Romney vs Obama, McCain vs Obama, I could also have mentioned Kerry vs Bush, Gore vs Bush, or Dole vs Clinton. It is not Trump's politics, to the extent that he has any, that I object to.
> 
> With Trump it is not politics, it is the amorality. Has there ever been another U.S. president where perhaps a dozen members of the administration have resigned and denounced the president they worked for as utterly unfit for office? Has there ever been a U.S. president where dozens of members of his own party, particularly former security and intelligence officials, have denounced him as unfit for office?


And yet there are millions of people who feel the opposite about it to you; therein arises the issue of relationships. Could you continue one with a person who was pro-Trump, given your feelings about the President?


----------



## Strange Magic

One could argue that there are overwhelmingly documented and overwhelmingly obvious behaviors and assertions by a person in politics that are so disturbing and so unprecedented in the previous history of that office that they are clearly unfit--morally, intellectually, psychologically--for the office. And that they thus are an actual menace to good governance. The fact that millions might "feel" the opposite is as nothing, as history tells us over and over--the unpleasantness in Germany and among her neighbors caused by similar "feelings" about Adolf Hitler and his associates provides rich example of an unfortunate enthusiasm for an unworthy figure. As thinking people, we are wise to judge our fellow citizens, even our family members, who, after being shown ample proofs of the particular unfitness of a political figure for office, still cling to that enthusiasm.


----------



## Luchesi

Baron Scarpia said:


> I voted for Obama twice. I would not say that I could not be friends with someone who voted for McCain, or for Romney. They were decent people who had different views from mine on most issues. Trump is another level. He is a blatant racist, con-man, a sociopath whose business successes consist of siphoning money out of failing enterprises. In office his conduct has been disgraceful. I can see how I could respect someone who supports him. Best not to discuss politics at all with anyone you have a professional relationship with.
> 
> Where I live, it is a diverse community, but I occasionally see diesel pickup trucks modified to "roll coal" with noisy exhaust and huge Trump banners flying from the bed. Astonishing.


There are people who care a lot about money and the economy.

There are people who care a lot about people and the social fabric.

There are people who don't think money's that important in the big picture.

There are people who think other people should pull themselves up!

Back when the Republican party was the conservationist party, we all had a little of both views guiding us..


----------



## Guest

Luchesi said:


> There are people who care a lot about money and the economy.
> 
> There are people who care a lot about people and the social fabric.
> 
> There are people who don't think money's that important in the big picture.
> 
> There are people who think other people should pull themselves up!
> 
> Back when the Republican party was the conservationist party, we all had a little of both views guiding us..


So, what are your thoughts about your own relationships with people (or not) who have these diametrically opposed views to your own? Can you enjoy trust and relationships with them?


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> One could argue that there are overwhelmingly documented and overwhelmingly obvious behaviors and assertions by a person in politics that are so disturbing and so unprecedented in the previous history of that office that they are clearly unfit--morally, intellectually, psychologically--for the office. And that they thus are an actual menace to good governance. The fact that millions might "feel" the opposite is as nothing, as history tells us over and over--the unpleasantness in Germany and among her neighbors caused by similar "feelings" about Adolf Hitler and his associates provides rich example of an unfortunate enthusiasm for an unworthy figure. As thinking people, we are wise to judge our fellow citizens, even our family members, who, after being shown ample proofs of the particular unfitness of a political figure for office, still cling to that enthusiasm.


Clearly I've heard those arguments from peers and acquaintances, along with a myriad of other such. My approach is generally to remain silent for fear of escalating a political argument that nobody will enjoy!! Then I change the subject. But I would never presume that anybody was mad or bad for the political views they have.

Jordan Peterson once said that if you find yourself in a political argument with somebody the best thing to do is to say to them, "why do you believe those things"? I won't even go that far. If the person isn't very politically savvy we'll usually end up laughing about any and all politics!! That happened today at the supermarket with the 'check-out' chick; she said "what are your plans for the rest of the day?" and we said we would be watching the US Presidential debate - for interest and entertainment. She raved on about how mad the USA is and I said, "well, I must be mad for taking an interest in it". Since I don't have a horse in that race it's possible to watch from the sidelines without being concerned at the outcome.


----------



## Luchesi

Christabel said:


> So for you it's a deal-breaker to be on the opposite political side. This is because it's important to you and frames your beliefs about yourself. Essentially, this is why I disagree with the thrust of the article I posted here to start the discussion. If you have skin in the game you're unlikely to value the ideas of your political opposites.
> 
> The article suggest that if there are positives in a relationship these can outweigh the political negatives. Surely that depends on the individual and what he/she sees as positive in the first place. If somebody comes and mows your lawn when you're incapacitated and takes the dog, or does other chores for you, but is on the absolute opposite side of the political spectrum I'd advise moderation and avoiding politics altogether. We've had one set of friends for 35 years and lately they've been annoying us with their political comments which we believe are a consequence of them completely changing their ideologies. I think of Groucho Marx, "if you don't like my principles I've got another set that you might like".





Christabel said:


> So, what are your thoughts about your own relationships with people (or not) who have these diametrically opposed views to your own? Can you enjoy trust and relationships with them?


In my sphere of acquaintances, there's friends who are living on small retirement amounts and there are others who have big houses, expensive cars and probably big bills they need to keep up with. They are very different politically. One side worries about a failing economy and crashing equity markets. They fear they will have to downsize (unthinkable with their mindset) because they're living very high. The other side worries that their little bit of money will be worth less and less, and they'll need public assistance.
I get along with both groups. But I'm very aware of why they behave the way they do during political seasons. Therefore, I get along with each and sympathize with each, sharing their concerns for the future, understanding their different views. It's easier to commiserate when you know the people and their families.


----------



## Guest

You are right about it being easier to commiserate when you know the families!! So very true. I guess I'm in the category of people who worry about the equities market because we're self-funded retirees not dependent upon the state. Having said that we have friends who are on government pensions and heroically manage from week to week - god knows how. In the middle there's another large cohort; retired public servants on government-guaranteed Defined Benefits annuities lavishly tied for life to the top tier of their last income, until death where the residual passes to the spouse (whether or not they have their own). The irony is that, more often than not, this cohort is shrill about the self-funded cohort and mostly vote for left wing parties. Not a scintilla of cognitive dissonance, nor any real concern about those on the poverty line. Many of these are my own family and some friends. We never get into a political discussion but a sister-in-law started one during our last election campaign and started attacking self-funded retirees. This caused a strain in the relationship because we felt we were being accused of something when, in reality, theirs is a lavishly funded retirement. They refuse to see this and further discussions are futile.

I have generous friends who are retired and live on meagre earnings without complaint, bearing neither malice nor resentment. Ultimately it comes down to the character of the individuals and their willingness to see the bigger picture.


----------



## Dan Ante

*@Christabel,* Were you a teacher in a private school if so how did the wages compare to state schools?


----------



## Strange Magic

> Christabel: "Clearly I've heard those arguments from peers and acquaintances, along with a myriad of other such. *My approach is generally to remain silent* for fear of escalating a political argument that nobody will enjoy!! *Then I change the subject.* But I would never presume that anybody was mad or bad for the political views they have."


The trouble comes when one finds oneself living at a time when the distinction between Truth and Falsehood has become seriously blurred after decades of erosion of precision of language and also of the importance of personal character. An example: The QAnon phenomenon has become widespread to the point that evangelical pastors are concerned that QAnon is replacing established religion in the minds of many in their flocks. A recent poll asserted that 50% of the adherents of one of our two major political parties either are convinced of the "truth" of the QAnon thesis, or are prepared to be convinced. We may here be seeing examples of madness or badness, too dangerous to ignore.

I cannot recall a time, like today, when Proud Boys, Boogaloo Bois, or private militias--declared a major threat to democracy by our FBI--were so little known to or acknowledged by our president, other than vague declarations that he had heard they were "good people". I also ponder the fact that American society is now saturated with guns, with the number having increased sevenfold since my childhood--is this cause for concern?

We are living in unprecedented times in America today. If there was ever a time to speak out, it is now.


----------



## Triplets

Jacck said:


> Personally, I dont think it is possible to have a deep connection with a person, who has fundamentally different political views, because the value system is simply not mutually compatible. I know such couples, but in all cases, as far as I can be the judge of it, there is little actual love. The couples married for convenience, biological clock was ticking and they grabbed the nearest person available to marry and have children.
> 
> Seven Out of Ten Democrats Wouldn't Consider Dating a Trump Voter
> https://www.menshealth.com/sex-wome...republicans-dating-habits-pew-research-study/


My wife and I are Polar opposites Politically, happily married for 17 years now. I really don't understand people who refuse to be friends or have any truck with people on the other side of the Political Divide. Are Politics so damn important?


----------



## Strange Magic

If how one is governed is important, and if how well your neighbors and your country are doing is important, then politics is important.


----------



## Luchesi

Christabel said:


> You are right about it being easier to commiserate when you know the families!! So very true. I guess I'm in the category of people who worry about the equities market because we're self-funded retirees not dependent upon the state. Having said that we have friends who are on government pensions and heroically manage from week to week - god knows how. In the middle there's another large cohort; retired public servants on government-guaranteed Defined Benefits annuities lavishly tied for life to the top tier of their last income, until death where the residual passes to the spouse (whether or not they have their own). The irony is that, more often than not, this cohort is shrill about the self-funded cohort and mostly vote for left wing parties. Not a scintilla of cognitive dissonance, nor any real concern about those on the poverty line. Many of these are my own family and some friends. We never get into a political discussion but a sister-in-law started one during our last election campaign and started attacking self-funded retirees. This caused a strain in the relationship because we felt we were being accused of something when, in reality, theirs is a lavishly funded retirement. They refuse to see this and further discussions are futile.
> 
> I have generous friends who are retired and live on meagre earnings without complaint, bearing neither malice nor resentment. Ultimately it comes down to the character of the individuals and their willingness to see the bigger picture.


"...retired public servants on government-guaranteed Defined Benefits annuities lavishly tied for life to the top tier of their last income, until death where the residual passes to the spouse (whether or not they have their own)."

They will sometimes say, "anybody could've chosen a career like mine". And they really think that way, but we know all the reasons why it's an ill-founded comeback.


----------



## Flamme

IDRGAF what is ones political leaning or opinion I respect ppl as ppl not as ''political units'' but if some1 nags day-in, day-out about it and tries to swings me on her side all the time I think we might have a problem!!!


----------



## Open Book

Somehow the stakes are higher today. People feel that politics is very important, maybe life-or-death important. 

I'm not sure exactly why that is. Were people within the borders of a nation more similar to each other in the past, less diversity, so less to argue about? At least people had more association with similar people in the past due to racial segregation, class differences, rural vs. urban environment, etc. A more monolithic culture was presented by the TV media in the past. Now we are exposed to more people and more viewpoints in more ways and may find ourselves surprised and even threatened by some of what we hear.


----------



## Flamme

Idk WHO is doing it, but there is some serious effort to balkanize or ''syriaze'' the West, especially US...When I compare the riots and violence of Russia before the revolution and America today it is not really that ''far off''.


----------



## Strange Magic

Global warming? Coronavirus? Militias? Culture (read: Race) Wars? Record inequalities of income and net worth? Strange and previously little-known peoples of strange backgrounds becoming ever-larger parts of the population?

I have been attending to the news all my adult life, but I'm getting the impression that others are just now awakening from a profound slumber...


----------



## Guest

Luchesi said:


> "...retired public servants on government-guaranteed Defined Benefits annuities lavishly tied for life to the top tier of their last income, until death where the residual passes to the spouse (whether or not they have their own)."
> 
> They will sometimes say, "anybody could've chosen a career like mine". And they really think that way, but we know all the reasons why it's an ill-founded comeback.


The reason why I offered that comment is that it speaks to a cohort with no experience or empathy outside its own. My own sister fits this bill and she and her husband spend their time shutting down development in their area. This is one example of a relationship I cannot continue, especially when good and decent people are so desperate for a job and business for viability.


----------



## Flamme

I have always admired the west for its tolerance but not lately...


----------



## Strange Magic

Can we assume from Christabel's assertion that she and her Significant Other ("we") are "not dependent on the state" that they have either renounced Social Security, never qualified for it, or that it forms an insignificant portion of their yearly retirement income? One could then see why there is sensitivity about income sources, amounts, and net worth, with a reluctance to discuss political/economic means and ends.

My observation here in New Jersey is of a large stratum of people, retired and otherwise, doing quite well Thank You even during the pandemic. Powerful motorboats sit at docks along fine summer homes, Large and shiny and seemingly never used for trade pickup trucks bearing large blue flags (like the motorboats and shore homes) sit in the driveways of mini-farms, horse farms, large and attractive homes on multiple acres. There is an air of abundance, satisfaction--a sense that things are exactly as they should be and woe betide those who speak of a huge underclass of third-world Americans who have not and should not be permitted to upset the established order.

Yet it has been demonstrated beyond argument that the social democracies of northern and western Europe that have made an effort through government intervention to (by American standards) greatly lessen income, educational, and net worth inequality, far outstrip America in almost every measure of human health and felicity. And Americans do love "socialism"--let anyone threaten Social Security or Medicare, and they face repudiation and ridicule; it just cannot be labeled as socialism--it should be termed Americanism.

My analysis of American political and economic thought yields the reality of two broad coalitions: There are A) the Haves, the Comfortable, the Ones Who by accident of birth, skin color, education are Doing Well and yet do not look beyond to a country wherein they could not only continue to Do Well but also have the satisfaction and the comfort of knowing that their fellow citizens en masse are also Doing Well. 

And there are B) those who understand that Each Does Well when as many as possible Do Well. There is less disease, discord, dismay in general. Or defensiveness (on the part of those who have much) about either expanding the opportunities of others or who fear that the Proles are growing restless, and may have reason to. Peace of mind and conscience.


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> Global warming? Coronavirus? Militias? Culture (read: Race) Wars? Record inequalities of income and net worth? Strange and previously little-known peoples of strange backgrounds becoming ever-larger parts of the population?
> 
> I have been attending to the news all my adult life, but I'm getting the impression that others are just now awakening from a profound slumber...


There are legions of people not the least interested in politics, though access to mass media and the internet has changed that somewhat.

Last night on a nightly quiz show before the news a woman was asked about a very obvious political appointment in Australia; one that everybody should know. She didn't know the answer and the excuse she provided was "I despise politics completely". I found that comment bewildering but, upon closer inspection, she had issues to deal with in a child being treated for Leukaemia. Other people might say that when the party of their choice isn't in government. Speaking personally, I always respect the democratic process no matter how much I might dislike the ideologies on display. The rotations of government mean that your own party will come around next time anyway. But that cycle means I don't want to lose relationships in the meantime - if I can help it.


----------



## Strange Magic

I entirely share Christabel's appreciation for the democratic process. May indeed my own party come back fully into power in this upcoming US election But this election has rightly been labeled the most consequential in American history since perhaps 1860 and certainly 1932, and we must hope that the machinery of fair and representative democratic election is still capable of yielding accurate results given the incredible strains that have been put upon it. Unlike Australia, where I deduce Christabel lives (is this correct?), the electoral system here in the USA is, at its best, a Chaos, and thus subject to extreme warping and even malice by those whose interests are not aligned with democratic practices or policies.


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> I entirely share Christabel's appreciation for the democratic process. May indeed my own party come back fully into power in this upcoming US election But this election has rightly been labeled the most consequential in American history since perhaps 1860 and certainly 1932, and we must hope that the machinery of fair and representative democratic election is still capable of yielding accurate results given the incredible strains that have been put upon it. Unlike Australia, where I deduce Christabel lives (is this correct?), the electoral system here in the USA is, at its best, a Chaos, and thus subject to extreme warping and even malice by those whose interests are not aligned with democratic practices or policies.


Yes, I'm Australian. Our system here is susceptible to what we call the "gerrymander" (_manipulate the boundaries of an electoral constituency_ so as to favour one party or class). But both of our major parties have managed to achieve government despite that 'gerrymander'. Many governments cry foul when they don't achieve success, but Australians mostly don't want to hear it because in 3 years' time the cycle will be repeated. In fact, I don't think our parliamentary terms are long enough - consequently, too many short term decisions are made.

There are lots of ways in which we can improve the quality of our governments and the engagement of all of the people is a good place to start. As I've said before, one of my sons is a high-ranking adviser in the present Australian government and a couple of friends (who vote for the alternative party) try to bait me about this, telling me that they don't like this or that politician (as though I have some control over it!!!). I usually laugh and say, "he speaks well of you, though".


----------



## Strange Magic

Gerrymandering was perfected in the USA generations ago, and the process of drawing up preposterous electoral units by Governor Gerry of Massachusetts gave us the classic salamander-like Gerrymander of political cartoon fame and appearance. It is a truly pernicious form of thwarting the public will, and yet could be so easily eliminated by a simple computer program. Both major political parties here have practiced gerrymandering, but, as is usual today, the party on the Right has become the most fierce defender and champion of the gerrymander such that US Federal courts have had to intercede to stop the most blatant instances of the practice.


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> Gerrymandering was perfected in the USA generations ago, and the process of drawing up preposterous electoral units by Governor Gerry of Massachusetts gave us the classic salamander-like Gerrymander of political cartoon fame and appearance. It is a truly pernicious form of thwarting the public will, and yet could be so easily eliminated by a simple computer program. Both major political parties here have practiced gerrymandering, but, as is usual today, the party on the Right has become the most fierce defender and champion of the gerrymander such that US Federal courts have had to intercede to stop the most blatant instances of the practice.


Everybody thinks their own party is on the side of the angels; it's in the nature of politics. Right now I believe we have in most democratic countries - of whatever political persuasion - a kind of Ochlocracy. This isn't good.


----------



## Strange Magic

I'd like to see a list of those democratic countries that you perceive as ochlocracies. And how that mob rule expresses itself in the actual governance of those countries. I presume these ochlocratic tendencies are expressed outside of the democratic process. My own perception is that powerful minorities, certainly here in the USA, are currently exercising power outside the boundaries of electoral majorities--the composition of the US Senate and of the US Electoral College are in opposition to the majority will as expressed in the ballot box.


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> I'd like to see a list of those democratic countries that you perceive as ochlocracies. And how that mob rule expresses itself in the actual governance of those countries. I presume these ochlocratic tendencies are expressed outside of the democratic process. My own perception is that powerful minorities, certainly here in the USA, are currently exercising power outside the boundaries of electoral majorities--the composition of the US Senate and of the US Electoral College are in opposition to the majority will as expressed in the ballot box.


Yes, that's true. Powerful minorities - the 'squeaky door' as my late father once described them - pretty much run things. Governments are then forced to pander to those minorities, on both sides of the political spectrum. The situation is worsened by the shrill Twitter mobs now and that has made things worse. In short, the public discourse has coarsened and not the reverse.


----------



## Strange Magic

Here in the USA, the government is itself the literal minority government running things and thus panders to itself--it is the wiling and eager victim of its own pandering. It both fuels and is fueled by an all-pervasive "news" and commentary ecosystem offering a parallel alternate universe of its own unique reality within which governmental decisions are taken.


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> Here in the USA, the government is itself the literal minority government running things and thus panders to itself--it is the wiling and eager victim of its own pandering. It both fuels and is fueled by an all-pervasive "news" and commentary ecosystem offering a parallel alternate universe of its own unique reality within which governmental decisions are taken.


Well, by the sound of it, they are about to be shafted! Take heart; the cycle continues.


----------



## Flamme

I see more ''aggressive intolerance'' from the left side of the spectrum than from right, though...


----------



## Coach G

"Is it possible to be in a close relationship with our political opposites?"

Every psychology book that I ever read that touched upon the subject indicates that, generally, when it comes to long-term relationships, opposites DO NOT attract.

So I'd say that if a couple or even a friendship is characterized by political or religious views that are very different and/or opposed to one another, that they would need to have some other common denominators that would sustain the relationship. 

I can see that on this "Talk Classical" forum there are people of who have a very different bent when it comes to background and points of view be it politics, religion, nationality, ethnicity, social class, and orientation. This might indicate to me that if it weren't for the common denominator of having a deep interest in classical music, most of us would have nothing to do with another. 

So you need common denominators, common interests, and common goals and objectives that serves as the glue that binds the relationship. Case in point: two friends are in their twenties and they have common interests in partying, drinking, chasing women, living in the moment, raising hell, and so forth. Then around age 30, one friend gets married and has children, and then stops partying, drinking, and chasing women. Now his goals, values and interests about life have changed, and he's more focused on being a devoted husband, a good role model for his children, and building a future with his family, and he starts to make new friends that are on that same wave-length. This is how friends drift apart, because they have no common ground.


----------



## Strange Magic

Flamme said:


> I see more ''aggressive intolerance'' from the left side of the spectrum than from right, though...


You're right. Our president and his party open their arms to folks of every color and creed, are receptive to science and rationality, and preach unity and cohesion among all Americans as one people.


----------



## Open Book

Strange Magic said:


> You're right. Our president and his party open their arms to folks of every color and creed, are receptive to science and rationality, and preach unity and cohesion among all Americans as one people.


There's intolerance on the left as well, a refusal to acknowledge and fairly debate opposing views. Instead opposing viewpoints are shut down. There are videos of college campuses where conservative speakers cannot speak for all the catcalls and boos from the audience, starting before they've even begun to speak.


----------



## Flamme

I, who am an anarchist, sincerely doubt that I could ever be, in a relationship with extremes, like nazis, communists or ''anarcho syndicalists'' or extreme proponents of religion, atheism, liberalism, capitalism, as ''quasi'' religion, not an economic model...I think the ''true'' anarchy is NON of those things...


----------



## Luchesi

Open Book said:


> There's intolerance on the left as well, a refusal to acknowledge and fairly debate opposing views. Instead opposing viewpoints are shut down. There are videos of college campuses where conservative speakers cannot speak for all the catcalls and boos from the audience, starting before they've even begun to speak.


People who give political speeches have an agenda. But they don't say that they have one or what it is, so there's that disingenuous tenor.. But... others know what it is, or they imagine how bad it could be. They don't want to hear it again. It's been the same conflicts (in political thinking) for centuries. 'Rich' people want to keep their riches, no matter the consequences - for others or the planet.. 
All this is natural. Will it change in some distant, perfected future? WHY?


----------



## Open Book

Luchesi said:


> People who give political speeches have an agenda. But they don't say that they have one or what it is, so there's that disingenuous tenor.. But... others know what it is, or they imagine how bad it could be. They don't want to hear it again. It's been the same conflicts (in political thinking) for centuries. 'Rich' people want to keep their riches, no matter the consequences - for others or the planet..
> All this is natural. Will it change in some distant, perfected future? WHY?


If they don't want to "hear it again", they should keep quiet so that other people may hear it. Or simply not attend.

They go simply to disrupt the event and prevent the speaker from being heard.


----------



## Bulldog

Flamme said:


> I see more ''aggressive intolerance'' from the left side of the spectrum than from right, though...


That's what you get from extremists at both ends of the spectrum - intolerance, zero respect for those not sharing their views, and eventual dictatorship.


----------



## Flamme

In a strange way it seems the ''antifa'' actually works in UNISON with right wingers and trumpistas giving them more and more excuses for eventual martial law and army patrolling the streets...


----------



## Guest

This thread wasn't mean to be POLITICAL per se; it was meant as a conversation starter about notions of compatibility in relationships and whether this is possible with polar opposite political values. Some good comments so let's keep those going.


----------



## Guest

Coach G said:


> "Is it possible to be in a close relationship with our political opposites?"
> 
> Every psychology book that I ever read that touched upon the subject indicates that, generally, when it comes to long-term relationships, opposites DO NOT attract.
> 
> So I'd say that if a couple or even a friendship is characterized by political or religious views that are very different and/or opposed to one another, that they would need to have some other common denominators that would sustain the relationship.
> 
> I can see that on this "Talk Classical" forum there are people of who have a very different bent when it comes to background and points of view be it politics, religion, nationality, ethnicity, social class, and orientation. This might indicate to me that if it weren't for the common denominator of having a deep interest in classical music, most of us would have nothing to do with another.
> 
> So you need common denominators, common interests, and common goals and objectives that serves as the glue that binds the relationship. Case in point: two friends are in their twenties and they have common interests in partying, drinking, chasing women, living in the moment, raising hell, and so forth. Then around age 30, one friend gets married and has children, and then stops partying, drinking, and chasing women. Now his goals, values and interests about life have changed, and he's more focused on being a devoted husband, a good role model for his children, and building a future with his family, and he starts to make new friends that are on that same wave-length. This is how friends drift apart, because they have no common ground.


Really good points. What about when long-term friends shift their political views and social values and you don't think you have much in common with them anymore? This has happened to us more recently and the strategy has been avoidance.


----------



## Open Book

Christabel said:


> Really good points. What about when long-term friends shift their political views and social values and you don't think you have much in common with them anymore? This has happened to us more recently and the strategy has been avoidance.


Would you still have something in common if it weren't for the politics? If yes, does the politics just seep into everything and sour it regardless?

Maybe your friendship has runs its course, sadly.


----------



## Guest

Open Book said:


> Would you still have something in common if it weren't for the politics? If yes, does the politics just seep into everything and sour it regardless?
> 
> Maybe your friendship has runs its course, sadly.


Good question. The political changes have mirrored other changes; they spend all their days baby-sitting for their grandchildren and increasingly reflect the ideas of that generation rather than our own. I think the friendship has run it's course, even though he keeps phoning my spouse. One thing has become very obvious; they run with the hares and hunt with the hounds. I've always said to the spouse, "do you ever get the feeling they agree with us then agree with their next set of friends?". (I confess we went on holiday with them to the seaside 4 years ago and the spouse complained that I sat with headphones connected to my iPod during a river cruise for the day. Bach was just more important!)


----------



## Open Book

Christabel said:


> Good question. The political changes have mirrored other changes; they spend all their days baby-sitting for their grandchildren and increasingly reflect the ideas of that generation rather than our own. I think the friendship has run it's course, even though he keeps phoning my spouse. One thing has become very obvious; they run with the hares and hunt with the hounds. I've always said to the spouse, "do you ever get the feeling they agree with us then agree with their next set of friends?". (I confess we went on holiday with them to the seaside 4 years ago and the spouse complained that I sat with headphones connected to my iPod during a river cruise for the day. Bach was just more important!)


If they agree with everybody about politics, then they are agreeable people about politics and your politics probably doesn't offend them. Maybe their politics offends you much more and is a deal-breaker for you.

I don't know how much time you spent with headphones that day, but it sounds like the kind of thing young people do with their phones -- tune out people who are right in front of them in favor of what's on the device, be it music or a different set of people. Maybe you are unconsciously trying to distance yourself from your friends because the changes in them annoy you.

If you have grandchildren, too, you must spend time with yours. But maybe you feel your friends spend too much time with the grandchildren and are spoiling them or their children, or that they are ignoring you.

It could be a lot of things, not just the politics. If people are starting to annoy each other, it may be time to split. Which is sad because if we're not young it's hard to make new friends.


----------



## Guest

I used headphones the whole time we toured around Europe; it's something of a custom for me, starting on that tedious plane trip from Australia.

We spend time with our grandchildren - seeing them about once a fortnight - but our friends are with them 5 days a week; 5 children under school age and both of our friends over 70. We don't resent the time our friends spend with their grandchildren, but it's very annoying when we've organized a fancy lunch and they leave early because of baby-sitting. Can't they have one day off??!! (All their children are in highly paid jobs and one daughter has a husband who owns an extremely lucrative pharmacy!!). It's all about the money, sadly. The neighbours over the road have stopped talking to our friends and they cannot understand why - since they seem so easy to get along with. The answer is simple; their home is a creche with kiddy noise/screams emanating from the property 8 hours a day. When you speak to them on the phone (not often!) you cannot hear because of the ear-piercing noise of screaming kids. Most people from 65 and beyond have grandchildren older than pre-school age.

I guess the political and values differences are just a consequence of their new lives as permanent child-minders.


----------



## Dan Ante

Having your headphones on when you are with friends on a trip is just a bit rude IMO, We have a music group consisting of Doctors, Lawyers, Artists, Tradesmen even a Priest and although we have a good idea of each others politics it does not get in the way of our friendship you must have tolerance with those that have different values.


----------



## Open Book

Christabel said:


> I used headphones the whole time we toured around Europe; it's something of a custom for me, starting on that tedious plane trip from Australia.
> 
> We spend time with our grandchildren - seeing them about once a fortnight - but our friends are with them 5 days a week; 5 children under school age and both of our friends over 70. We don't resent the time our friends spend with their grandchildren, but it's very annoying when we've organized a fancy lunch and they leave early because of baby-sitting. Can't they have one day off??!! (All their children are in highly paid jobs and one daughter has a husband who owns an extremely lucrative pharmacy!!). It's all about the money, sadly. The neighbours over the road have stopped talking to our friends and they cannot understand why - since they seem so easy to get along with. The answer is simple; their home is a creche with kiddy noise/screams emanating from the property 8 hours a day. When you speak to them on the phone (not often!) you cannot hear because of the ear-piercing noise of screaming kids. Most people from 65 and beyond have grandchildren older than pre-school age.
> 
> I guess the political and values differences are just a consequence of their new lives as permanent child-minders.


I understand and agree with your last sentence.

I feel the same way about screaming kids dominating adults' lives. I was acquainted with a couple, my in-laws' family. I rather liked them until they had a child. Their little psychopath committed all sorts of mayhem with nary a word from the parents and I withdrew from them. A major life change can bring out a side to people you never knew was there, and it may not be something good, and you may not want to deal with it.

But I wonder if you can wait it out. Maybe things will change when the grandkids enter school and your friends might be less tied down.


----------



## Guest

Open Book said:


> I understand and agree with your last sentence.
> 
> I feel the same way about screaming kids dominating adults' lives. I was acquainted with a couple, my in-laws' family. I rather liked them until they had a child. Their little psychopath committed all sorts of mayhem with nary a word from the parents and I withdrew from them. A major life change can bring out a side to people you never knew was there, and it may not be something good, and you may not want to deal with it.
> 
> But I wonder if you can wait it out. Maybe things will change when the grandkids enter school and your friends might be less tied down.


We're mostly over it and have moved on with friends from more recent years. What has surprised us is that change of attitude to everything, as I stated early. The comfortable feeling of being able to express your views of old with trusted friends is suddenly gone and replaced with a new-generation ideology, wokeness, the whole kaboodle!!


----------



## Guest

Dan Ante said:


> Having your headphones on when you are with friends on a trip is just a bit rude IMO, We have a music group consisting of Doctors, Lawyers, Artists, Tradesmen even a Priest and although we have a good idea of each others politics it does not get in the way of our friendship you must have tolerance with those that have different values.


Tolerance isn't the same as a friendship though, is it. I tolerate the weather, but I'd sooner have it cool and wet more often.


----------



## Jacck

Christabel said:


> We're mostly over it and have moved on with friends from more recent years. What has surprised us is that change of attitude to everything, as I stated early. The comfortable feeling of being able to express your views of old with trusted friends is suddenly gone and replaced with a new-generation ideology, wokeness, the whole kaboodle!!


from my point of view, both of the sides of the culture wars in the Anglo-Saxon world feel toxic. The backwards reactionary conservatives and the fanatical woke leftists. The conservatives are headed towards fascism and the leftists towards communism. Because I actually had some experience with communism, the wokeniss with its attempts at ideological purity and speech and thought control and diversity commisars feels to me like echos of marxism-leninism that I experienced. Both sides are too polarized, too extreme, though at the moment, the right seems more dangerous to me. Maybe you were also too invested in the culture wars. I remember you liked the chief propagandist of Fox Tucker Carlson.

From my experience, politics is best avoided both among professional colleagues and also friends. Or, if you want to talk politics, first test the waters, and if you feel that your friend has opposite views, then just drop the topic and do not continue the conversaton


----------



## Guest

Jacck said:


> from my point of view, both of the sides of the culture wars in the Anglo-Saxon world feel toxic. The backwards reactionary conservatives and the fanatical woke leftists. The conservatives are headed towards fascism and the leftists towards communism. Because I actually had some experience with communism, the wokeniss with its attempts at ideological purity and speech and thought control and diversity commisars feels to me like echos of marxism-leninism that I experienced. Both sides are too polarized, too extreme, though at the moment, the right seems more dangerous to me. Maybe you were also too invested in the culture wars. I remember you liked the chief propagandist of Fox Tucker Carlson.
> 
> From my experience, politics is best avoided both among professional colleagues and also friends. Or, if you want to talk politics, first test the waters, and if you feel that your friend has opposite views, then just drop the topic and do not continue the conversaton


My physician has become my friend; he emigrated to Australia from Poland in 2000 and says the western world daily resembles that regime more and more. He would absolutely agree with your comments about wokeness and communism as he discusses this with me regularly by email.

I like Tucker Carlson, yes, but I wouldn't discuss this with friends because nobody I know watches American news media or reads it - except the one friend I have referred to in previous comments (he's American, as it happens) and then it's only the propaganda of CNN which he swallows chapter and verse. I read Tucker's recent book "*Ship of Fools*" and enjoyed it, passing it on to a sister of mine. There was quite a lot of humour, irony and sarcasm in it. No friend of mine would have heard of this book and I wouldn't bring it up anyway.

No one news media has the monopoly on propaganda; one is a direct mirror reverse of the other. For every action there's an equal and opposite REACTION, according to the laws of physics.

And, as Lionel Shriver says, we mainly read for confirmation bias anyway; hardly anybody reads because they want to change their opinion. Not sure this applies to books, though; mainly media, online podcasts etc. I like to read because I enjoy the opinions of intelligent people from Steven Pinker right through to Douglas Murray, Thomas Sowell and Niall Ferguson; again, none of my friends reads these books and I cannot discuss these with them, except my sister.

If I was ever going to discuss politics with any friend it would be to say the things I've just written and to comment upon the polarized nature of societies today and what may have given rise to this.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Jacck said:


> from my point of view, both of the sides of the culture wars in the Anglo-Saxon world feel toxic. The backwards reactionary conservatives and the fanatical woke leftists. The conservatives are headed towards fascism and the leftists towards communism. Because I actually had some experience with communism, the wokeniss with its attempts at ideological purity and speech and thought control and diversity commisars feels to me like echos of marxism-leninism that I experienced. Both sides are too polarized, too extreme, though at the moment, the right seems more dangerous to me. Maybe you were also too invested in the culture wars. I remember you liked the chief propagandist of Fox Tucker Carlson.
> 
> From my experience, politics is best avoided both among professional colleagues and also friends. Or, if you want to talk politics, first test the waters, and if you feel that your friend has opposite views, then just drop the topic and do not continue the conversaton


Yeah - I think the question of where you see the main threat coming from probably depends on where you live. I agree with you that the problem is with extremes at either end, if indeed they are at opposite ends. I tend to think that extremists of either persuasion have much in common with each other, in that they tend to believe in idealistic solutions with simplistic fervour - and therein lies the danger. A related concern is that social media (which seems to have entranced journalists and thereby has way too much influence on what ought to be more in-depth analysis) provides an ideal forum for simplistic slogans to rule, and nuanced debate doesn't get much of a look in.

On the workplace point, in the very recent past (just the last 5 years or less, I would guess) businesses have increasingly seen it as their business to espouse values unconnected with the manufacture of ping pong balls (or whatever they do). This forces political discussion into the workplace, like it or not, because the values they espouse are frequently not uncontentious. In my own personal experience, I would have been hugely surprised 10 years ago to encounter any expression of political opinions (or other opinions on how society should behave) in the workplace, or even when socialising with work colleagues, but in the past few years businesses have forced socio-political topics into their workplaces and pretty well required employees to express opinions - generally with toxic consequences for work relationships.


----------



## Jacck

Christabel said:


> My physician has become my friend; he emigrated to Australia from Poland in 2000 and says the western world daily resembles that regime more and more. He would absolutely agree with your comments about wokeness and communism as he discusses this with me regularly by email.
> 
> I like Tucker Carlson, yes, but I wouldn't discuss this with friends because nobody I know watches American news media or reads it - except the one friend I have referred to in these comments and then it's only the propaganda of CNN. I read Tucker's recent book "*Ship of Fools*" and enjoyed it, passing it on to a sister of mine. There was quite a lot of humour, irony and sarcasm in it. No friend of mine would have heard of this book and I wouldn't bring it up anyway.
> 
> No one news media has the monopoly on propaganda; one is a direct mirror reverse of the other. For every action there's an equal and opposite REACTION, according to the laws of physics.


Poland is currently ruled by catholic taliban. All that the US conservatives aspire to is happening there. 
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-poland-protests-against-strict-abortion-laws
they passed these laws deliberately during a pandemic, so that people could not protest. The right-wingers control the media, control the judicary system. It is an illiberal, semi fascist, clerical state. Your Polish friend might be also influenced by this right-wing propaganda. 
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/10/poland-polarization/568324/
Poland and Hungary are failed democracies and the worst post-communist states in Europe


----------



## Guest

Eclectic Al said:


> Yeah - I think the question of where you see the main threat coming from probably depends on where you live. I agree with you that the problem is with extremes at either end, if indeed they are at opposite ends. I tend to think that extremists of either persuasion have much in common with each other, in that they tend to believe in idealistic solutions with simplistic fervour - and therein lies the danger. A related concern is that social media (which seems to have entranced journalists and thereby has way too much influence on what ought to be more in-depth analysis) provides an idea forum for simplistic slogans to rule, and nuanced debate doesn't get much of a look in.
> 
> On the workplace point, in the very recent past (just the last 5 years or less, I would guess) businesses have increasingly seen it as their business to espouse values unconnected with the manufacture of ping pong balls (or whatever they do). This forces political discussion into the workplace, like it or not, because the values they espouse are frequently not uncontentious. In my own personal experience, I would have been hugely surprised 10 years ago to encounter any expression of political opinions (or other opinions on how society should behave) in the workplace, or even when socialising with work colleagues, but in the past few years businesses have forced socio-political topics into their workplaces and pretty well required employees to express opinions - generally with toxic consequences for work relationships.


Brilliant comments with which I wholeheartedly agree. My son, in the resources industry in Western Australia, complains of the same thing you have regarding indoctrination and politics in the workplace. But the staff members themselves are mostly on the same page and political arguments are rare; they all agree that politicization in the workplace galls them but just get on with it. They seem to have a wider range of interests, from what I can tell.


----------



## Guest

Jacck said:


> Poland is currently ruled by catholic taliban. All that the US conservatives aspire to is happening there.
> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-poland-protests-against-strict-abortion-laws
> they passed these laws deliberately during a pandemic, so that people could not protest. The right-wingers control the media, control the judicary system. It is an illiberal, semi fascist, clerical state. Your Polish friend might be also influenced by this right-wing propaganda.
> https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/10/poland-polarization/568324/
> Poland and Hungary are failed democracies and the worst post-communist states in Europe


He hasn't ever discussed this, but he's extremely widely read from "The Gulag Archipelago" right through to anything of political or social interest in the modern day. He left Poland 20 years ago and has no regrets, but I take his point about the disturbing similarities in today's repressive society where conformity is the order of the day. One characteristic of his has been commented upon to me by one of his medical colleagues, "the thing I most admire about him is his willingness to think and read widely". I'm proud to call him friend and he's the lone person beyond family with whom I can discuss politics - and vice versa.

I will send him the Atlantic article you've posted tonight and ask him for his comments, but I won't report them here. I note that it discusses the kind of political alienation between intimate people that was the subject of my original idea here in this thread.


----------



## Dan Ante

Christabel said:


> Tolerance isn't the same as a friendship though, is it. I tolerate the weather, but I'd sooner have it cool and wet more often.


No you are correct but tolerance makes life easier, intolerance can cause hate and hate can lead to war. Let's face it life itself is "compromise" as you will know even marriage is compromise and once this is realised you are on the road to a stable marriage.
Even Jesus was tolerant!


----------



## Guest

Dan Ante said:


> No you are correct but tolerance makes life easier, intolerance can cause hate and hate can lead to war. Let's face it life itself is "compromise" as you will know even marriage is compromise and once this is realised you are on the road to a stable marriage.
> Even Jesus was tolerant!


This is true, but what I was meaning to say was that tolerance per se isn't necessarily a virtue. Understanding is a virtue, as is compassion and empathy.


----------



## Strange Magic

Christabel said:


> This is true, but what I was meaning to say was that tolerance per se isn't necessarily a virtue. Understanding is a virtue, as is compassion and empathy.


I agree. Tolerance only works as a shared value or commitment. Germans were unwise to tolerate Nazism, as were Russians to tolerate Bolshevism, both being themselves example of ruthless intolerance. If "wokeness" involves a greater understanding of the hardships largely unknown or acknowledged by a larger White-organized and controlled society, then it is of a different order than the intolerant ideologies of the several fascisms represented by Nazism, Communism, and religious theocracies . Likewise, a greater awareness of the economic inequities that so singularly distort American social harmony and shared well-being is a form of "wokeness" that we need more of, as a replacement for the essentially boneless acquiescence to things-as-they-are perhaps being too eagerly (and lazily) being aired here.

As a side comment, Tucker Carlson represents a nadir of real concern for The General Welfare and for rigorous analysis--a slightly more articulate and slightly less smarmy Mike Pence, but equally steeped in Error, both moral and intellectual.


----------



## Flamme

Jacck said:


> Poland is currently ruled by catholic taliban. All that the US conservatives aspire to is happening there.
> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-poland-protests-against-strict-abortion-laws
> they passed these laws deliberately during a pandemic, so that people could not protest. The right-wingers control the media, control the judicary system. It is an illiberal, semi fascist, clerical state. Your Polish friend might be also influenced by this right-wing propaganda.
> https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/10/poland-polarization/568324/
> Poland and Hungary are failed democracies and the worst post-communist states in Europe


Awww, I liked popland soo much...


----------



## Luchesi

Strange Magic said:


> I agree. Tolerance only works as a shared value or commitment. Germans were unwise to tolerate Nazism, as were Russians to tolerate Bolshevism, both being themselves example of ruthless intolerance. If "wokeness" involves a greater understanding of the hardships largely unknown or acknowledged by a larger White-organized and controlled society, then it is of a different order than the intolerant ideologies of the several fascisms represented by Nazism, Communism, and religious theocracies . Likewise, a greater awareness of the economic inequities that so singularly distort American social harmony and shared well-being is a form of "wokeness" that we need more of, as a replacement for the essentially boneless acquiescence to things-as-they-are perhaps being too eagerly (and lazily) being aired here.
> 
> As a side comment, Tucker Carlson represents a nadir of real concern for The General Welfare and for rigorous analysis--a slightly more articulate and slightly less smarmy Mike Pence, but equally steeped in Error, both moral and intellectual.


People are religious in the sense that they hear an opinion or a superstition and if they like what they hear it will become TRUE for them.

this can be;

an economic theory
a scientific concept
a worldview

Other folks can easily see how to use this ritualistic thinking to manipulate. It's all very natural, predictable and unavoidable.
A thousand years from now it will be the same, but hopefully with education it will be better understood.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Luchesi said:


> People are religious in the sense that they hear an opinion or a superstition and if they like what they hear it will become TRUE for them.
> 
> this can be;
> 
> an economic theory
> a scientific concept
> a worldview
> 
> Other folks can easily see how to use this ritualistic thinking to manipulate. It's all very natural, predictable and unavoidable.
> A thousand years from now it will be the same, but hopefully with education it will be better understood.


The best defence against this is open debate, which is why cancel culture and no platforming are so risky.

Take any issue you feel really strongly about: let's say racism. Children are not born (or so I believe) knowing what is right or wrong regarding matters such as this. If you just tell them that it is wrong, and deny them any possibility of questioning that (or probing it) then you might think that is OK, because you are convinced about what is right (and you are concerned that they could be led into the wrong position by discussion). However, you have now turned opposition to racism into a position which is taught to the young by their elders as a truth that they are required to accept, not a matter which is open to debate. You might think that is fine.

However, in another country their young are taught something that you think should be debated (- perhaps that they should behave in a certain way because the world was created by a benevolent God, whose Son died on a cross to save us from our sins, and that we will receive eternal life in paradise after death if we behave according to the teachings of a particular church). You might feel that that proposition should be one that can be challenged. But people who believe it might disagree with you about that, and not allow debate on these "truths".

Now I happen to take the position that it is not difficult to establish in debate that racial discrimination is not morally acceptable, whereas it is an open question whether the teachings of the Christian religion are true. Equally, precisely how you define racism, detect it, and what you do about it when you find it, are very live issues which need open debate in order to achieve outcomes that may be accepted in a society as just.

However, what I am clear about is that if you take positions on moral issues that you think should be enforced by dictat, and deny the possibility for young people to hear the issues openly debated, then you have no logical defence against people enforcing views you despise: you are behaving in just the same way.


----------



## Luchesi

More primal than that, we believe in what’s been reinforced a few times in our brains, usually because we like the ramifications or we expect they’ll be good for us and society.


If we come to believe that racism is unnatural and unjust, that’s what we’ll ‘believe’. And that’s what will be re inforced into our future. It’s not true, but it doesn’t matter.. This is how all animals ‘learn', I think. Play a trick with a dog, and then change the trick. The dog will go back to the earlier trick.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Luchesi said:


> More primal than that, we believe in what's been reinforced a few times in our brains, usually because we like the ramifications or we expect they'll be good for us and society.
> 
> If we come to believe that racism is unnatural and unjust, that's what we'll 'believe'. And that's what will be re inforced into our future. It's not true, but it doesn't matter.. This is how all animals 'learn', I think. Play a trick with a dog, and then change the trick. The dog will go back to the earlier trick.


That's my point: there is a danger that reinforcement can shape a brain. That's why it is so dangerous. Each generation needs to be taught to think, rather than to accept what they are told - while at the same time, how they think will (of course) be shaped by their experiences to some extent and those will be driven by the norms of the society they live in. Hence, teach people to think, rather than tell them the answer. It's only partially practicable, but it's all we've got.

To come back to the OP, not being willing to have friendly relations with people you don't agree with is a form of no platforming on a micro scale. And I'm against it.


----------



## Luchesi

What are some of the things we accept without thinking them through?

Expend your effort and time and joy into getting and keeping a ‘good' job and then you'll have a happy life someday (maybe).

Marry the girl of your dreams …because you know so much about Life, when you’re that age..

When you’re already well-off continue scrambling for the next deal because more and more and more money will make you happier.

Enter into debates online because eventually people will see things your way and you'll be helping them..


----------



## Jacck

Strange Magic said:


> Likewise, a greater awareness of the economic inequities that so singularly distort American social harmony and shared well-being is a form of "wokeness" that we need more of, as a replacement for the essentially boneless acquiescence to things-as-they-are perhaps being too eagerly (and lazily) being aired here.


in my opinion, the problem with the wokeness is that they have moved from the equality of opportunity to the equality of outcome. That is perverse and is communism. Nobel Prizes are now critized for not being sufficiently diverse etc.


----------



## Luchesi

Jacck said:


> in my opinion, the problem with the wokeness is that they have moved from the equality of opportunity to the equality of outcome. That is perverse and is communism. Nobel Prizes are now critized for not being sufficiently diverse etc.


That's right. Imagine correcting the many wrongs of history. My ancestors were kicked out of Germany towards France, killing many, and then the Huguenots kicked them out of France, on and on..


----------



## Strange Magic

Just getting large populations of the Complacent to recognize and then acknowledge things such as gross inequality of opportunity is itself a Herculean task. To begin now to wring our hands over demands for equality of outlook is to leap far beyond where American society currently is. Defiant Ignorance is the usual nature of widespread public attitude toward so many societal issues. Our political system relies upon that denial.


----------



## Strange Magic

For "equality of outlook" above, read "equality of outcome". It would be good to be able to edit/correct these posts.


----------



## Guest

Jacck said:


> in my opinion, the problem with the wokeness is that they have moved from the equality of opportunity to the equality of outcome. That is perverse and is communism. Nobel Prizes are now critized for not being sufficiently diverse etc.


You've nailed it, but I must say that ordinary people in our own lives seldom talk like this - it's just certain media, academia, big tech and law firms. In short, "the swamp"!!!!


----------



## Luchesi

Strange Magic said:


> For "equality of outlook" above, read "equality of outcome". It would be good to be able to edit/correct these posts.


I can edit. You can't edit? How does it feel to be prejudiced against? lol

The religious people around here have a church (or two) on every crossroad and junction. Yet they feel persecuted by the larger world.


----------



## Guest

Luchesi said:


> That's right. Imagine correcting the many wrongs of history. My ancestors were kicked out of Germany towards France, killing many, and then the Huguenots kicked them out of France, on and on..


In Australia, our country was built upon people being kicked out of the UK and transported for the pettiest of crimes. Isolated by thousands of miles from everything they knew many of them were additionally punished with outright slavery. But, it transpires that they were many times better off than the working class which remained in the UK. This cohort lived with foul living conditions, disease, starvation and privations which are now of historic importance.


----------



## Strange Magic

Christabel said:


> You've nailed it, but I must say that ordinary people in our own lives seldom talk like this - it's just certain media, academia, big tech and law firms. In short, "the swamp"!!!!


I don't understand, then. Is "wokeness" a problem? If so, "ordinary people" are not troubled by it; it afflicts and infects only the "woke", and it then is clear that there are no problems..... Anesthesiologist, you've done your job! Let's return to our primordial sleep, free even of disturbing dreams.


----------



## Luchesi

"The phrase “forty acres and a mule” evokes the Federal government’s failure to redistribute land after the Civil War and the economic hardship that African Americans suffered as a result. As Northern armies moved through the South at the end of the war, blacks began cultivating land abandoned by whites. Rumors developed that land would be seized from Confederates, and given or sold to freedmen. These rumors rested on solid foundations: abolitionists had discussed land redistribution at the beginning of the war, and in 1863 President Abraham Lincoln ordered 20,000 acres of land confiscated in South Carolina sold to freedmen in twenty-acre plots. Secretary of the Treasury Salmon Chase expanded the offering to forty acres per family."


Read history for what happened after that..


----------



## Strange Magic

Christabel said:


> In Australia, our country was built upon people being kicked out of the UK and transported for the pettiest of crimes. Isolated by thousands of miles from everything they knew many of them were additionally punished with outright slavery. But, it transpires that they were many times better off than the working class which remained in the UK. This cohort lived with foul living conditions, disease, starvation and privations which are now of historic importance.


I'll bet there were "woke" folks in the UK back during that era who thought conditions believed to be just and fine could and should be improved. Am I wrong?


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> I'll bet there were "woke" folks in the UK back during that era who thought conditions believed to be just and fine could and should be improved. Am I wrong?


I think you are wrong. Wokeness is a movement of the progressive, affluent middle class. Feminists are demanding equality - but none of them is lining up to lay bricks on construction sites!!

In the UK there were virtually no advocates for those desperately poor, diseased and exploited masses - and this occurred at the beginning of the industrial revolution. Out of this misery arose unions, hospitals, philanthropy, education. I've been watching programs on TV about this quite recently. Dickens described London and its filthy conditions in "Our Mutual Friend" and hypocrisy and exploitation in many of his characters from the other novels. There were, from my recollection at least, few noble characters at all in his novels. And this includes an aristocratic or benevolent class. The goodness to be found in his novels occurred at an individual human level, which was often heroic.

Theodore Dalrymple (pseudonym) has written about the self-fulfilling prophesy which is poverty in the modern UK in his book "Life at the Bottom". He has worked as a prison psychiatrist for decades and his clientele has been the British working class; in this book he describes the cycle of destructive behaviours which keeps people trapped in their depredations. It's sometimes patronizing, but quite an insightful read. This demographic is urgently in need of a circuit-breaker, which many dysfunctional people themselves require. But what form will that take that doesn't smack of state intervention?

Years ago I read "Angela's Ashes" - a terribly disturbing account of poverty and misery which has remained etched onto my brain. Something changes when you have grandchildren; you imagine what it would be like if they didn't have something to eat and the concomitant misery of parents unable to provide food. I remember telling my students in high-school that there could be few real tragedies in life to rival parents unable to find food for their children.

BUT its solution isn't ever simple; cannot be captured in a few bromides or pieties.

George Orwell, in his novel "The Road to Wigan Pier" (highly recommended) wrote "the bourgeois Left disliked the poor and hated the rich". This was written in the 1930s.


----------



## Luchesi

Christabel said:


> I think you are wrong. Wokeness is a movement of the progressive, affluent middle class. Feminists are demanding equality - but none of them is lining up to lay bricks on construction sites!!
> 
> In the UK there were virtually no advocates for those desperately poor, diseased and exploited masses - and this occurred at the beginning of the industrial revolution. Out of this misery arose unions, hospitals, philanthropy, education. I've been watching programs on TV about this quite recently. Dickens described London and its filthy conditions in "Our Mutual Friend" and hypocrisy and exploitation in many of his characters from the other novels. There were, from my recollection at least, few noble characters at all in his novels. And this includes an aristocratic or benevolent class. The goodness to be found in his novels occurred at an individual human level, which was often heroic.
> 
> Theodore Dalrymple (pseudonym) has written about the self-fulfilling prophesy which is poverty in the modern UK in his book "Life at the Bottom". He has worked as a prison psychiatrist for decades and his clientele has been the British working class; in this book he described the cycle of destructive behaviours which keeps people trapped in their depredations. It's sometimes patronizing, but quite an insightful read. Years ago I read "Angela's Ashes" - a terribly disturbing account of poverty and misery which has remained etched onto my brain.
> 
> George Orwell, in his novel "The Road to Wigan Pier" (highly recommended) wrote "the bourgeois Left disliked the poor and hated the rich". This was written in the 1930s.


Every group is wary of every other group because they know 'instinctually' that life is an endless competition.


Young people should be taught that they will get a job and hold on to it - only if they can raise the money for the enterprise. I've noticed that my children and my grandchildren were never taught this in their textbooks. Is it just assumed that they know it because it's such commonsense?


Why will someone give you a job? It's not an emotional decision.


----------



## Luchesi

it's red now?

When I was young I used to Love computers. Now I understand that they're just a box of switches. They're extremely stupid and they're badly programmed.


----------



## Guest

Luchesi said:


> Every group is wary of every other group because they know 'instinctually' that life is an endless competition.
> 
> 
> Young people should be taught that they will get a job and hold on to it - only if they can raise the money for the enterprise. I've noticed that my children and my grandchildren were never taught this in their textbooks. Is it just assumed that they know it because it's such commonsense?
> 
> 
> Why will someone give you a job? It's not an emotional decision.


You answered my comments before I'd finished editing. Perhaps I should use Word and cut and paste in future.

Employment is another complex issue altogether. You've been talking about social/cultural values. That's another discussion.


----------



## Flamme

Some people don't even realize they are extremes...Like we see the obvious nazis, commies, but I saw lots of extremism in liberal circles or in ''anarcho-capitalists'' which is a very popular stance in last few years...


----------



## Strange Magic

Christabel said:


> I think you are wrong. Wokeness is a movement of the progressive, affluent middle class. Feminists are demanding equality - but none of them is lining up to lay bricks on construction sites!!
> 
> In the UK there were virtually no advocates for those desperately poor, diseased and exploited masses - and this occurred at the beginning of the industrial revolution. *Out of this misery arose unions, hospitals, philanthropy, education.*I've been watching programs on TV about this quite recently. Dickens described London and its filthy conditions in "Our Mutual Friend" and hypocrisy and exploitation in many of his characters from the other novels. There were, from my recollection at least, few noble characters at all in his novels. And this includes an aristocratic or benevolent class. The goodness to be found in his novels occurred at an individual human level, which was often heroic.
> 
> Theodore Dalrymple (pseudonym) has written about the self-fulfilling prophesy which is poverty in the modern UK in his book "Life at the Bottom". He has worked as a prison psychiatrist for decades and his clientele has been the British working class; in this book he describes the cycle of destructive behaviours which keeps people trapped in their depredations. It's sometimes patronizing, but quite an insightful read. This demographic is urgently in need of a circuit-breaker, which many dysfunctional people themselves require. But what form will that take that doesn't smack of state intervention?
> 
> Years ago I read "Angela's Ashes" - a terribly disturbing account of poverty and misery which has remained etched onto my brain. Something changes when you have grandchildren; you imagine what it would be like if they didn't have something to eat and the concomitant misery of parents unable to provide food. I remember telling my students in high-school that there could be few real tragedies in life to rival parents unable to find food for their children.
> 
> BUT its solution isn't ever simple; cannot be captured in *a few bromides or pieties.*
> 
> George Orwell, in his novel "The Road to Wigan Pier" (highly recommended) wrote "the bourgeois Left disliked the poor and hated the rich". This was written in the 1930s.


My reading of this entire post is of several paragraphs of bromides, pieties, truisms and platitudes. And ample examples of calling upon _dei ex machinae_ rather than cadres of concerned ''woke" citizens, advocates, scolds, agitators to effect needed change. William Wilberforce, anyone? The Abolitionist movement? Change for the good happens because people make it happen. I suggest you read your post again.


----------



## Strange Magic

While we're recommending things, let me urge all to view Henry Lewis Gates' marvelous series on the brief rise and tragic fall of Reconstruction in the post-Civil War South.


----------



## Chilham

Christabel said:


> ... Feminists are demanding equality - but none of them is lining up to lay bricks on construction sites!! ...


Is that what feminism is?


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> My reading of this entire post is of several paragraphs of bromides, pieties, truisms and platitudes. And ample examples of calling upon _dei ex machinae_ rather than cadres of concerned ''woke" citizens, advocates, scolds, agitators to effect needed change. William Wilberforce, anyone? The Abolitionist movement? Change for the good happens because people make it happen. I suggest you read your post again.


I'm like Brahms: standing on the shoulders of giants.


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> While we're recommending things, let me urge all to view Henry Lewis Gates' marvelous series on the brief rise and tragic fall of Reconstruction in the post-Civil War South.


I am very familiar with the works of this writer from my years at university; one person's work doesn't cancel out all the work and excellent research of others. Everybody has something to say and most intelligent commentators and writers ought to be heard. Nothing of what I wrote involved African Americans or American politics.

I note significant bitterness and anger are always shot through any of your comments. Life is short; try and enjoy each day.


----------



## Guest

Flamme said:


> Some people don't even realize they are extremes...Like we see the obvious nazis, commies, but I saw lots of extremism in liberal circles or in ''anarcho-capitalists'' which is a very popular stance in last few years...


Don't forget the anarcho-syndicalists.


----------



## Guest

Chilham said:


> Is that what feminism is?


In practice, yes.


----------



## Guest

Open Book said:


> ...
> 
> I feel the same way about screaming kids dominating adults' lives. I was acquainted with a couple, my in-laws' family. I rather liked them until they had a child. Their little psychopath committed all sorts of mayhem with nary a word from the parents and I withdrew from them. A major life change can bring out a side to people you never knew was there, and it may not be something good, and you may not want to deal with it.


Your in-law's kid may have a developmental disability. I can say from experience, when you have a special needs child you become increasingly isolated because of attitudes such as you describe.


----------



## Open Book

Baron Scarpia said:


> Your in-law's kid may have a developmental disability. I can say from experience, when you have a special needs child you become increasingly isolated because of attitudes such as you describe.


Not sure I have this right - are you saying the poor child suffered because of _my_ attitude?

That kid may have a problem, but his main problem is parents who stare silently like dopes when he hurts people or damages property. Never once have I seen them try to curb his behavior or shape his character. The words "No" and "Stop" aren't in their child-rearing vocabulary.

I walked away from them to protect my family from that kid. His own aunt was afraid of him.


----------



## Guest

Open Book said:


> Not sure I have this right - are you saying the poor child suffered because of _my_ attitude?
> 
> That kid may have a problem, but his main problem is parents who stare silently like dopes when he hurts people or damages property. Never once have I seen them try to curb his behavior or shape his character. The words "No" and "Stop" aren't in their child-rearing vocabulary.
> 
> I walked away from them to protect my family from that kid. His own aunt was afraid of him.


From what you describe the child may very well have a developmental disability (autism, ADHD) which is not the result of poor parenting, but is an organic brain disorder. No, I'm not saying you caused the disorder, I am saying that the parents of disabled =children often are ostracized by people who blame them for the symptoms of their children's disability. Quite frankly, your conduct, as your describe, strikes me as despicable.


----------



## Open Book

Baron Scarpia said:


> From what you describe the child may very well have a developmental disability (autism, ADHD) which is not the result of poor parenting, but is an organic brain disorder. No, I'm not saying you caused the disorder, I am saying that the parents of disabled =children often are ostracized by people who blame them for the symptoms of their children's disability. Quite frankly, your conduct, as your describe, strikes me as despicable.


This is so over-the-top uncalled-for I think you must be drinking right now.

The parents deserve to be ostracized because they do nothing to help the situation despite being well-educated otherwise intelligent people. They don't care if their kid physically hurts someone. They apparently refuse to see that anything is wrong.

Most people, if they have an autistic child, acknowledge it to others and explain and apologize for the behavior. These people don't care, they are brain dead. They are not unique, there are lots of parents like them who don't parent.


----------



## Guest

Open Book said:


> Not sure I have this right - are you saying the poor child suffered because of _my_ attitude?
> 
> That kid may have a problem, but his main problem is parents who stare silently like dopes when he hurts people or damages property. Never once have I seen them try to curb his behavior or shape his character. The words "No" and "Stop" aren't in their child-rearing vocabulary.
> 
> I walked away from them to protect my family from that kid. His own aunt was afraid of him.


Sadly, this is increasingly a feature of modern life. My grand-daughter, 8, was severely scratched right down the sternum by an out of control kid in her class. Children have to feel safe at school.

But we are diverging from the topic at hand. Perhaps all has been said on this subject anyway.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Christabel said:


> Sadly, this is increasingly a feature of modern life. My grand-daughter, 8, was severely scratched right down the sternum by an out of control kid in her class. Children have to feel safe at school.
> 
> But we are diverging from the topic at hand. Perhaps all has been said on this subject anyway.


The thing that is interesting in this thread (and in many similar ones on TC) is to note which posters reach for insults (sometimes explicit, and often implicit) and which remain polite.

There are a small number who frequently and quickly post insults (often patronising ones), and I have noticed that they seem to be people who share a particular world view.

I'll leave it up to others to consider which suite of beliefs seems to be associated with the idea that one has latitude to be insulting.

I think that does link back to the OP. I have noticed in my encounters that the people who first raise socio-political matters in social gatherings share an outlook, and people who have the "opposed" outlook tend not to be first to raise potentially contentious issues. That second group then either (i) bite their tongues or (ii) engage in debate. If they go for (i) then they are doomed to see the views they disagree with raised repeatedly as though "we nice people all agree about this, don't we" and end up passively accepting this; if they go for (ii) then the relationship may be doomed.

That's why I think it's better not to raise such matters with friends, but I think it's also why some people think it is better to raise them: they are using passive-aggressive tactics to promote their opinions, because they have convinced themselves that those opinions are the only acceptable ones. If friendships break as a result, they think, so be it.


----------



## Chilham

Christabel said:


> In practice, yes.


It really isn't. Defining the volume of women lining-up to become "brickies" as the sole practical measurement of the advancement of gender rights, is pretty wide of the mark.


----------



## Dan Ante

In NZ the number of women entering the trades is amazing I can’t quote figures but it must be high for the press to get hold of it. When I came to NZ a woman was one of the top Jaguar mechanics in the country.


----------



## Strange Magic

Christabel said:


> I am very familiar with the works of this writer from my years at university; one person's work doesn't cancel out all the work and excellent research of others. Everybody has something to say and most intelligent commentators and writers ought to be heard. Nothing of what I wrote involved African Americans or American politics.
> 
> I note significant bitterness and anger are always shot through any of your comments. Life is short; try and enjoy each day.


We here above have an indisputable non-sequitur quickly followed by an urging that I Chill Out. If there ever was a time for significant bitterness and anger, it is now--better to be moved to anger by outrage and injustice than to radiate a bovine placidity interlarded with superciliousness. The status quo is a place of profound rest and comfort for the rested and comfortable. Sleep well.


----------



## Open Book

Eclectic Al said:


> The thing that is interesting in this thread (and in many similar ones on TC) is to note which posters reach for insults (sometimes explicit, and often implicit) and which remain polite.
> 
> There are a small number who frequently and quickly post insults (often patronising ones), and I have noticed that they seem to be people who share a particular world view.
> 
> I'll leave it up to others to consider which suite of beliefs seems to be associated with the idea that one has latitude to be insulting.
> 
> I think that does link back to the OP. I have noticed in my encounters that the people who first raise socio-political matters in social gatherings share an outlook, and people who have the "opposed" outlook tend not to be first to raise potentially contentious issues. That second group then either (i) bite their tongues or (ii) engage in debate. If they go for (i) then they are doomed to see the views they disagree with raised repeatedly as though "we nice people all agree about this, don't we" and end up passively accepting this; if they go for (ii) then the relationship may be doomed.
> 
> That's why I think it's better not to raise such matters with friends, but I think it's also why some people think it is better to raise them: they are using passive-aggressive tactics to promote their opinions, because they have convinced themselves that those opinions are the only acceptable ones. If friendships break as a result, they think, so be it.


I have no idea what you are saying, you are beating around the bush so much. Which set of beliefs are you talking about?

Maybe it would help if you told me whether "despicable" is an insult. As far as I'm concerned that was the first insult thrown in my exchange with Baron Scarpia. No, the reference to my "attitude" was the first insult, thinly veiled.

I agree that politics shouldn't be raised with friends and co-workers but it's so important to some people (of any political persuasion) that they can't refrain. Also one's politics and views seep into and shape behaviors. How people behave and treat other people can certainly can affect friendships. So it may be hard to completely hide one's politics.


----------



## Open Book

Christabel said:


> Sadly, this is increasingly a feature of modern life. My grand-daughter, 8, was severely scratched right down the sternum by an out of control kid in her class. Children have to feel safe at school.
> 
> But we are diverging from the topic at hand. Perhaps all has been said on this subject anyway.


I'm not without understanding that some kids have problems. But I see that many kids' "problems" are exacerbated or even caused by their parents' handling of them, which I can't do much about.

And you have to protect your family. Otherwise you're a Darwin Award contender. Naturally your first concern is for your poor granddaughter.


----------



## Ekim the Insubordinate

Too many people make everything political - and that is sad. There is so much more to life, and basing your relationships on that single parameter is such a poor way to make decisions. Even worse, to push away from familial relations and long-time friends because you don't like their politics. Why would you want to live your life so miserably, to break from anybody who doesn't think in lock-step with you? Are you so insecure in your beliefs that you can't stand being exposed to opposing opinions? And then just stop arguing politics with loved ones. It really doesn't matter that much. 

I'm sure people will throw out the absolutely extreme exceptions, but that is not what most people are like, and I never make decisions based on extreme outliers.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Open Book said:


> I have no idea what you are saying, you are beating around the bush so much. Which set of beliefs are you talking about?
> 
> Maybe it would help if you told me whether "despicable" is an insult. As far as I'm concerned that was the first insult thrown in my exchange with Baron Scarpia. No, the reference to my "attitude" was the first insult, thinly veiled.
> 
> I agree that politics shouldn't be raised with friends and co-workers but it's so important to some people (of any political persuasion) that they can't refrain. Also one's politics and views seep into and shape behaviors. How people behave and treat other people can certainly can affect friendships. So it may be hard to completely hide one's politics.


I was not pointing at you - rather the reverse, to be honest.  I was actually sympathising with you, as one of the challenges with threads like this is that someone will throw in a word like "despicable", and if you are the recipient of that then you have no good choice: you either ignore it (which seems weak) or you challenge it (which can then just result in a slanging match and pretty soon no one can remember who first took the conversation in that direction). I guess it is a standard trolling technique.

Apologies for beating about the bush. I was hoping people might cast their minds back and consider which posters are frequently the first to use words such as "despicable". I have my own view about whether those who first resort to insults come (more often than not) from among those who seem to see themselves as "progressive" or from among those who seem to see themselves as more "conservative".

However, I didn't to bring my view on that into the picture: I just wanted others to reflect on that. Hence the somewhat vague wording.


----------



## Jacck

Ekim the Insubordinate said:


> Too many people make everything political - and that is sad. There is so much more to life, and basing your relationships on that single parameter is such a poor way to make decisions. Even worse, to push away from familial relations and long-time friends because you don't like their politics. Why would you want to live your life so miserably, to break from anybody who doesn't think in lock-step with you? Are you so insecure in your beliefs that you can't stand being exposed to opposing opinions? And then just stop arguing politics with loved ones. It really doesn't matter that much.
> I'm sure people will throw out the absolutely extreme exceptions, but that is not what most people are like, and I never make decisions based on extreme outliers.


you make it sound like opinions are equal. Like science based attitudes towards global warming are somehow equivalent to the disinformation you have been fed on your right wing sources, and that we should therefore respect your opinions. Or you make it sound like support for a democratic candidate is somehow morally equivalent to a support for Adolf Hitler. No, Ekim. Once you adopt certain views and support certain politicians, you will rightly be excommunicated from civilized society. Moral relativism and truth relativism is so much leftist and postmodern.


----------



## Jacck

Friends And Family Members Of QAnon Believers Are Going Through A "Surreal Goddamn Nightmare"
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/janelytvynenko/qanon-families-friends


----------



## Ekim the Insubordinate

Jacck said:


> you make it sound like opinions are equal. Like science based attitudes towards global warming are somehow equivalent to the disinformation you have been fed on your right wing sources, and that we should therefore respect your opinions. Or you make it sound like support for a democratic candidate is somehow morally equivalent to a support for Adolf Hitler. No, Ekim. Once you adopt certain views and support certain politicians, you will rightly be excommunicated from civilized society. Moral relativism and truth relativism is so much leftist and postmodern.


And how did I know someone would throw Hitler into the mix?

Like I said - I don't decide my life based on extreme exceptions. Supporting genocidal maniacs goes a bit beyond politics - that is a whole worldview, and obviously that should be factored in. Quit acting like my statement was that stupid.

Opinions are opinions. There is climate science, and then there is climate politics - two completely different things. People can agree on the science and completely disagree on the political actions that need to be taken, and the political options offered are not synonymous with science.

Like I said, you are conflating politics with morals - not surprising, since you seem to feel that having right-wing opinions is immoral. I have no doubt that you could not have a relationship with someone who wasn't in lock-step with your political ideology. But it is not as impossible as you seem to think it is. There are lots of people who manage it just fine, and still manage to have loving relationships with family members and friends who don't agree with them politically.


----------



## Jacck

Ekim the Insubordinate said:


> And how did I know someone would throw Hitler into the mix?


Hitler was exaggerated, but it clearly shows that morals in not relative. If you support evil, you are either yourself evil, or have no moral compass to recognize evil, or you are a coward and opportunist. 5% of people are truly evil (the psychopaths), then there are some 20% who lean towards evil. Hitler did not do everything by himself. He had his henchmen, the brownshirts, and people in the SS. And there are the 40% who are perhaps not evil themselves, but are confused and cannot recognize evil and so support this evil out of ignorance. Further 30% does recognize the evil, but have no courage to fight it and so enable it out of passivity. And the remaning 5% are dissidents, the truly moral and brave. This is basic sociology in every human society. But only a real crisis will reveal it explicitely.


----------



## Flamme

LOL jacky u would not fare far...In poland


----------



## Ekim the Insubordinate

Jacck said:


> Hitler was exaggerated, but it clearly shows that morals in not relative. If you support evil, you are either yourself evil, or have no moral compass to recognize evil, or you are a coward and opportunist. 5% of people are truly evil (the psychopaths), then there are some 20% who lean towards evil. Hitler did not do everything by himself. He had his henchmen, the brownshirts, and people in the SS. And there are the 40% who are perhaps not evil themselves, but are confused and cannot recognize evil and so support this evil out of ignorance. Further 30% does recognize the evil, but have no courage to fight it and so enable it out of passivity. And the remaning 5% are dissidents, the truly moral and brave. This is basic sociology in every human society. But only a real crisis will reveal it explicitely.


Can you discuss politics without comparing everything to Hitler - the most extreme example out there? Like I said - that goes beyond politics. Those are questions of morality. If you think that everybody on the right is on some part of the Nazi spectrum, then I think the problem might lie not with those you criticize.


----------



## Jacck

Flamme said:


> LOL jacky u would not fare far...In poland


it was criminal to do that during a pandemic. There are thousands people protesting in the streets for the 5th day in a row during a second wave. Their conservative government will not doubt be responsible for some deaths. And I would likely not fare well in Poland. Poland is the most catholic country in Europe. Czech are the most atheist nation in Europe. 








I would not describe myself as an atheist, but I dislike all forms of illiberalism including all kinds of religious illiberalism.


----------



## mmsbls

The thread has strayed from the original intent. It's true that the thread title has the word political in it, but it is not explicitly about politics. Please try to post about relationships between political opposites but not about pure politics. Also please try not to post negatively about other members.


----------



## Open Book

James Carville and Mary Matalin are political consultants on opposite ends of the spectrum who have been married for 26 years.

https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/education/article_02d02290-28c1-11e9-9bd1-5bfe28919a73.html


----------



## Guest

Eclectic Al said:


> I was not pointing at you - rather the reverse, to be honest. I was actually sympathising with you, as one of the challenges with threads like this is that someone will throw in a word like "despicable", and if you are the recipient of that then you have no good choice: you either ignore it (which seems weak) or you challenge it (which can then just result in a slanging match and pretty soon no one can remember who first took the conversation in that direction). I guess it is a standard trolling technique.
> 
> Apologies for beating about the bush. I was hoping people might cast their minds back and consider which posters are frequently the first to use words such as "despicable". I have my own view about whether those who first resort to insults come (more often than not) from among those who seem to see themselves as "progressive" or from among those who seem to see themselves as more "conservative".
> 
> However, I didn't to bring my view on that into the picture: I just wanted others to reflect on that. Hence the somewhat vague wording.


Despicable was probably not the right word, appauling would have been closer to the mark. To make a distinction which I don't think is unimportant, I did not apply to word to the poster, but to a behavior he had described.

I do not know whether or not the child described was special needs/developmentally disabled, but if you consult the advocacy and/or social media postings of special needs parents you will find that being blamed, shunned or harassed for the behavior of a developmentally disabled child is a pervasive problem. As a parent of a special needs child I have encountered people who react with empathy, sympathy, kindness, and I have encountered people who react as Open Book describes. I stand by my characterization.


----------



## Open Book

Baron Scarpia said:


> Despicable was probably not the right word, appauling would have been closer to the mark. To make a distinction which I don't think is unimportant, I did not apply to word to the poster, but to a behavior he had described.
> 
> I do not know whether or not the child described was special needs/developmentally disabled, but if you consult the advocacy and/or social media postings of special needs parents you will find that being blamed, shunned or harassed for the behavior of a developmentally disabled child is a pervasive problem. As a parent of a special needs child I have encountered people who react with empathy, sympathy, kindness, and I have encountered people who react as Open Book describes. I stand by my characterization.


Did you acknowledge to people that your child had a problem and apologize for any antisocial behavior he exhibited?

Did you remove the child when his behavior toward others became aggressive?

Did you show gratitude for people's understanding and support?

These people did none of the above. They did not acknowledge that their child behaved in an abnormal way or that he had any kind of problem. They did not listen to anyone who tried to broach this subject. Their child was perfect.

They would smile and relate something he did that showed him to be extraordinarily smart and superior as we were watching him attempt to destroy his aunt's furniture.

They did and said nothing when in plain view he hit someone as hard as he could in a vulnerable spot.

Dangerous, unlikeable child. Unlikeable parents who would not in any way be influenced by anything I could say or do for them. My presence made no difference and my absence was not missed.

I didn't shun them, I faded away. As I would do with anyone I don't like. You have a right not to associate with people you don't like and who are a danger to your family.


----------



## Luchesi

Jacck said:


> it was criminal to do that during a pandemic. There are thousands people protesting in the streets for the 5th day in a row during a second wave. Their conservative government will not doubt be responsible for some deaths. And I would likely not fare well in Poland. Poland is the most catholic country in Europe. Czech are the most atheist nation in Europe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would not describe myself as an atheist, but I dislike all forms of illiberalism including all kinds of religious illiberalism.


Many people in the US will report that they believe in God, because it's become the polite thing to say. It doesn't raise debates.
If there was a helpful description of God by the pollsters, there would be little agreement. But it's one of the few concepts which can remain strictly a personal view (some people are pleased by that), because nobody knows anything about it.


----------



## Varick

I have a few friends with whom we disagree politically on many things. One friend in particular we both enjoy getting together and discussing issues. We do it calmly and respectfully because we both know that the other is a good decent person. We have a different outlook and see the same thing and come to different conclusions. Every time we leave each other, a deeper bond is actually made because we understand where the other person is coming from. We may disagree with a philosophy of the other, but at least we understand it.

And example is he believes that the "character" of a politician is paramount. I do not, for I find historically zero correlation to how someone conducts themselves personally to how well someone can govern. He understands and agrees with the many historical examples I give on both sides of the political fence that shows great "character" did not mean any kind of competence for good governance and vice versa, yet he still finds it important in a leader. If someone can govern well AND has good character, great! Bonus!

This is but one example on how two good and decent people can see things differently and respect one another's point of view. We have a very good friendship and our discussions/debates have never turned sour, bitter, angry, or resorted to ad hominum attacks. I have a saying when it comes to people I disagree with and we discuss things face to face: I would much rather have clarity than agreement. Let us be clear WHERE and HOW we differ. Small chance we will change each other's minds, but by having clarity I often find many people have less they actually disagree with than they originally thought.

V


----------



## Guest

Open Book said:


> Did you acknowledge to people that your child had a problem and apologize for any antisocial behavior he exhibited?
> 
> Did you remove the child when his behavior toward others became aggressive?
> 
> Did you show gratitude for people's understanding and support?
> 
> These people did none of the above. They did not acknowledge that their child behaved in an abnormal way or that he had any kind of problem. They did not listen to anyone to tried to broach this subject. Their child was perfect.
> 
> They would smile and relate something he did that showed him to be extraordinarily smart and superior as we were watching him attempt to destroy his aunt's furniture.
> 
> They did and said nothing when in plain view he hit someone as hard as he could in a vulnerable spot.
> 
> Dangerous, unlikeable child. Unlikeable parents who would not in any way be influenced by anything I could say or do for them. My presence made no difference and my absence was not missed.
> 
> I didn't shun them, I faded away. As I would do with anyone I don't like. You have a right not to associate with people you don't like and who are a danger to your family.


Maybe it's time to declare a cease fire. I don't know the child or parents you are describing, but your condemnation hit a nerve.


----------



## Strange Magic

How one governs is itself a window upon character.


----------



## Flamme

Im very ''free minded'' and through the years I have come to conclusion that most people who are like that are either fake or people who lost all the boundaries in life...So it is a very thin line. But in any case I prefer it to being a religious zealot or any kind of extremist with the one track mind.


----------



## Luchesi

Strange Magic said:


> How one governs is itself a window upon character.


There's that idealism again. It's not that simple.

OTOH, the feelings we get by being idealistic are healthy for us.


----------



## Bulldog

Strange Magic said:


> How one governs is itself a window upon character.


So true.........................


----------



## Varick

Strange Magic said:


> How one governs is itself a window upon character.


So by that measure, Bill Clinton has great character. He certainly governed well. I guess that also means that Jimmy Carter had horrible character. He certainly didn't govern well.

I could go on and on with example after example of how one has absolutely NOTHING to do with the other.

V


----------



## Flamme

I see too many filthy and decaying spirits around me...Maybe that guy on the ice purified himself...Maybe not...I live in a country that conducted aggression against its neighbors in 90s and got punished severely...Now its in process of dissolution, with ''gods help'' very soon...But people have become basically (ro)bots of the ruling party and a mafia type para-state structure...Thus it is hard to find the third kind of people, between 2, the hypnotized slaves of the system, the people hopelessly in love with false and intoxicating past, that caused all the wars...I live in a northern part of the country which was once part of the civilized Austrian empire but since it under ''serbia'' it is going down at unprecedented rate! Tbh I dont know why the EU is still tolerating the mere existence of a spreader of wars and chaotic destruction!!! anyway the point is I kinda isolated myself from most of the people and am careful what I talk about in any company, because everything is all full of spies and sleazy people! It is kind of a''schadenfreude'' for me to see the total defeat and breaking apart of ''greater serbia'' dream but I dont wanna get hurt by the falling masonry!!!


----------



## Luchesi

Varick said:


> So by that measure, Bill Clinton has great character. He certainly governed well. I guess that also means that Jimmy Carter had horrible character. He certainly didn't govern well.
> 
> I could go on and on with example after example of how one has absolutely NOTHING to do with the other.
> 
> V


The job's too big for anyone. We need a team of experts running things.


----------



## Jacck

Flamme said:


> I see too many filthy and decaying spirits around me...Maybe that guy on the ice purified himself...Maybe not...I live in a country that conducted aggression against its neighbors in 90s and got punished severely...Now its in process of dissolution, with ''gods help'' very soon...But people have become basically (ro)bots of the ruling party and a mafia type para-state structure...Thus it is hard to find the third kind of people, between 2, the hypnotized slaves of the system, the people hopelessly in love with false and intoxicating past, that caused all the wars...I live in a northern part of the country which was once part of the civilized Austrian empire but since it under ''serbia'' it is going down at unprecedented rate! Tbh I dont know why the EU is still tolerating the mere existence of a spreader of wars and chaotic destruction!!! anyway the point is I kinda isolated myself from most of the people and am careful what I talk about in any company, because everything is all full of spies and sleazy people! It is kind of a''schadenfreude'' for me to see the total defeat and breaking apart of ''greater serbia'' dream but I dont wanna get hurt by the falling masonry!!!


the rot infecting much of the post-communist countries comes from Russia. And Serbia is very much considered to be a very close ally of Russia. It took the western democratic societies centuries to build their institutions and culture (just remember all those revolutions to depose the corrupt nobility). It was unreasonable to expect, that in the 1990's Russia would change overnight and become a democratic society (just like it was naive to expect that from Iraq). But there is hope. More and more countries are protesting. Ukraine already freed itself. There are protests in Belarus etc. Improving the situation will take generations, and it cannot be done fast. The progress seems slow in countries like Hungary and Poland or the Balkans, but I am sure the situation will improve and all the countries will join the European Union and become democratic, and that Russia will likely dissolve and slowly become democratic too. I dont hate Russia or the Russian people. I feel deeply sorry for them and the system they have to live in.

I just rewatched the amazing movie Durak, that is a brilliant metaphor for current Russia and any country similar to Russia
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3560686/

the problem is not one corrupt leader, the problem is the whole corrupt system. The corruption is so ingrained in the mentality of the people. And the mentality cannot be changed overnight by any revolution. It can only change gradually over generations, ie decades. So dont lose hope over Serbia, just dont expect changes fast.


----------



## Flamme

Serbia is totally rotten...The western part of serbia until belgrade and border of river sava once was part of hungarian kingdom in Austrohungarian monarchy and a part of Independent State Of Croatia in WW2...I would support even Croatia coming back here it is so dire...


----------



## Strange Magic

Varick said:


> So by that measure, Bill Clinton has great character. He certainly governed well. I guess that also means that Jimmy Carter had horrible character. He certainly didn't govern well.
> 
> I could go on and on with example after example of how one has absolutely NOTHING to do with the other.
> 
> V


Please do! I found your examples so far, "interesting". And indeed windows into character, as they both, intermittently to be sure, governed well. We can discuss this at length, broadening it to include Donald J. Trump and Mitch McConnell, down in the Political Groups where such discussions belong.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Luchesi said:


> The job's too big for anyone. We need a team of experts running things.


The last thing you want is "experts". They run things in the interests of "experts".


----------



## Luchesi

Eclectic Al said:


> The last thing you want is "experts". They run things in the interests of "experts".


I know that that's the deeply in-grained attitude.

It will also be the doom of humankind. 'Just think about what you're saying.


----------



## Dan Ante

Luchesi said:


> I know that that's the deeply in-grained attitude.
> 
> It will also be the doom of humankind. 'Just think about what you're saying.


He is right as I have posted many times
The definition of Expert = X is an unknown property and spurt is a drip under pressure.


----------



## Flamme

When I analyze my partners throughout the years I see some liberal, more conservative, but mostly confused and un(in)formed politically...Like most ppl really are. Ppl just turn how wind blows...


----------



## Eclectic Al

Luchesi said:


> I know that that's the deeply in-grained attitude.
> 
> It will also be the doom of humankind. 'Just think about what you're saying.


I have thought about this quite a lot - and the more I think about it the more I am convinced. Experts are idiots.
Of course, I'm quite expert myself (1st from Oxford, professional qualifications, all that stuff), so it follows that I am an idiot too. At least I know it, though.
I believe in the wisdom of crowds.


----------



## Varick

Luchesi said:


> I know that that's the deeply in-grained attitude.
> 
> It will also be the doom of humankind. 'Just think about what you're saying.


This reverence towards "experts" will certainly be the doom of humankind. "Experts" have expertise in a certain field or subject. They have information that can be helpful and maybe even crucial to understand something. It does not mean they have wisdom when it comes to applying their expertise to *policy*. If that's the case, then only Generals and Admirals should decide whether or not to use the military. After all, they are "experts" in military matters. We don't do that. We have civilians and representatives who use the military "experts" for information so that they may make an informed decision.

Strange how we have a massive increase in child rearing "experts" in the past 4-5 decades, yet in that same amount of time we have children who are more unruly, have more problems following basic healthy behaviors and many more issues.

Strange how we have a massive increase in mental health "experts" (councilors, psychologists, therapists, etc) yet our use of anti-depressants are through the roof (USA consumes approx 80% of all anti depressants made in the world), and we have MORE mental health issues than ever before per capita. These "experts" have policy over local, state, and federal gov't guidelines when it comes to public assistance, education, and workplace policy.

Those are just a few examples of how having "experts" create policy is often a bad idea. Nothing brought this home more than when I was listening to an interview with a Fire Marshall decades ago. He said that all public schools classroom doors should be closed during all classes in case there is a fire. Basically, he advocated for children to be in sweltering hot rooms in hot weather with no cross ventilation in the infinitesimal chance there be a fire (I believe the last person to die in a public school fire in the US was somewhere back in the 1950's).

This Fire Marshall has forgotten what I will ever know about fire. It didn't prevent him from being a complete fool when it came to making policy of whether or not classrooms doors should be open or closed.

Experts are great for information. They are no more or less wise than any mechanic, doctor, plumber, scientist, teacher, etc. Some experts have wisdom, some are wisdom-less. I don't care what area of "expertise" they may have, I don't want them making policy.

V

PS: This is a great book that illustrates my point: https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41rgXKT7cZL._SX329_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg


----------



## Luchesi

Eclectic Al said:


> I have thought about this quite a lot - and the more I think about it the more I am convinced. Experts are idiots.
> Of course, I'm quite expert myself (1st from Oxford, professional qualifications, all that stuff), so it follows that I am an idiot too. At least I know it, though.
> I believe in the wisdom of crowds.


I think perhaps a crowd of experts.


----------



## Luchesi

Varick said:


> This reverence towards "experts" will certainly be the doom of humankind. "Experts" have expertise in a cRE mental health issues than ever before per capita. These "experts" have policy over local, state, and federal gov't guidelines when it comes to public assistance, education, and workplace policy.
> 
> Those are just a few examples of how having "experts" create policy is often a bad idea. Nothing brought this home more than when I was listening to an interview with a Fire Marshall decades ago. He said that all public schools classroom doors should be closed during all classes in case there is a fire. Basically, he advocated for children to be in sweltering hot rooms in hot weather with no cross ventilation in the infinitesimal chance there be a fire (I believe the last person to die in a public school fire in the US was somewhere back in the 1950's).
> 
> This Fire Marshall has forgotten what I will ever know about fire. It didn't prevent him from being a complete fool when it came to making policy of whether or not classrooms doors should be open or closed.
> 
> Experts are great for information. They are no more or less wise than any mechanic, doctor, plumber, scientist, teacher, etc. Some experts have wisdom, some are wisdom-less. I don't care what area of "expertise" they may have, I don't want them making policy.
> 
> V
> 
> PS: This is a great book that illustrates my point: https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41rgXKT7cZL._SX329_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg


There's jerks everywhere. Look at all the obvious jerks in politics.


----------



## Strange Magic

When sick, I go to the doctor. If I need legal advice, I see a lawyer. I certainly go to the dentist when I get a toothache. One of the complaints of conservatives is that the wisdom of the educated, the experienced, the thoughtful, the Wise is too often ignored by the Mob. De Tocqueville observed this phenomenon among Americans more than a century and half ago. Legions of scientists, plus my own observation and readings tell me our planet is in terrible danger, but maybe I should instead listen to the wisdom of the crowd, though I suppose it depends on which crowd.


----------



## Varick

Strange Magic said:


> When sick, I go to the doctor. If I need legal advice, I see a lawyer. I certainly go to the dentist when I get a toothache.


I go to all those experts as well when those situations arise. I want their expertise on specific issues. I don't necessarily trust them making grand sweeping policies for society.



Strange Magic said:


> One of the complaints of conservatives is that the wisdom of the educated, the experienced, the thoughtful, the Wise is too often ignored by the Mob.


Experience I trust, thoughtful I trust, wise I certainly trust. The "educated" I no longer trust. They have proven over the past number of decades that although they may be well educated, they have little to no experience, they are the last thing from "thoughtful" and they certainly have very little to no wisdom. If you want to see a wisdom free zone, visit almost any college or university in the US now. Are there exceptions? Of course. There are always exceptions.



Strange Magic said:


> De Tocqueville observed this phenomenon among Americans more than a century and half ago. Legions of scientists, plus my own observation and readings tell me our planet is in terrible danger, but maybe I should instead listen to the wisdom of the crowd, though* I suppose it depends on which crowd*.


It most certainly does.

V


----------



## Jacck

Varick said:


> This reverence towards "experts" will certainly be the doom of humankind. "Experts" have expertise in a certain field or subject. They have information that can be helpful and maybe even crucial to understand something. It does not mean they have wisdom when it comes to applying their expertise to *policy*. If that's the case, then only Generals and Admirals should decide whether or not to use the military. After all, they are "experts" in military matters. We don't do that. We have civilians and representatives who use the military "experts" for information so that they may make an informed decision.
> 
> Strange how we have a massive increase in child rearing "experts" in the past 4-5 decades, yet in that same amount of time we have children who are more unruly, have more problems following basic healthy behaviors and many more issues.
> 
> Strange how we have a massive increase in mental health "experts" (councilors, psychologists, therapists, etc) yet our use of anti-depressants are through the roof (USA consumes approx 80% of all anti depressants made in the world), and we have MORE mental health issues than ever before per capita. These "experts" have policy over local, state, and federal gov't guidelines when it comes to public assistance, education, and workplace policy.
> 
> Those are just a few examples of how having "experts" create policy is often a bad idea. Nothing brought this home more than when I was listening to an interview with a Fire Marshall decades ago. He said that all public schools classroom doors should be closed during all classes in case there is a fire. Basically, he advocated for children to be in sweltering hot rooms in hot weather with no cross ventilation in the infinitesimal chance there be a fire (I believe the last person to die in a public school fire in the US was somewhere back in the 1950's).


You don't like experts and you think character in politicians is unimportant. I am sure you love a certain MAGA candidate who is the embodiment of anti-expertise, anti-wisdom and anti-virtues. Your opinions about mental health issues are likewise misguided. You cannot separate mental health from the broader society within which it exists. Unrestrained capitalism and greed are one of the main factors for the mental health issues in the USA. The capitalist society creates great inequalities, where you have so called successful people on the top of the pyramid, and a lot of unsuccessful people, who are stressed, anxious and depressed. Another factor is the capitalist healthcare system. Those people pushing the prescriptions of antidepressants are not experts, but greedy pharma companies trying to sell the medicaments and make profit. The doctors are unfortunately part of the greedy corrupt system. The greedy Wallstreet CEOs have stocks in the pharma companies and then pay the campaigns of the corrupt politicians (whose character does not matter to you) to further skew to system to their favor and to the disadvantage of the ordinary people 
https://www.americanprogress.org/is...rma-reaps-profits-hurting-everyday-americans/

that is the result, if you base your whole state ideology and philosophy on the ramblings of a mentally ill woman like Ayn Rand


----------



## Strange Magic

When I select which crowd to listen to concerning AGW, should I rely more on the advice of the educated or of the uneducated? Same question for medical or legal advice. The blanket repudiation of education exhibited above by V is, to put it kindly, bizarre.


----------



## Varick

Jacck said:


> You don't like experts and you think character in politicians is unimportant. *I am sure you love *a certain MAGA candidate who is the embodiment of anti-expertise, anti-wisdom and anti-virtues.


 As Samuel Clemens once said, _"It's not what we don't know that gets us in trouble, it's what we are so sure of that just isn't so."_



Jacck said:


> Your opinions about mental health issues are likewise misguided. You cannot separate mental health from the broader society within which it exists. Unrestrained capitalism and greed are one of the main factors for the mental health issues in the USA. The capitalist society creates great inequalities, where you have so called successful people on the top of the pyramid, and a lot of unsuccessful people, who are stressed, anxious and depressed.


 That's a new one. Silly me, and here I thought it had to do with raising generations to have a lack of resilience, ability to cope with stressors, chemical imbalances, diet, and such. Typical thinking: All human behavior comes down to materialistic economics. Blame the only system (far from perfect) that has raised BILLIONS of people out of poverty and given them a higher standard of living en masse never before IMAGINED, let alone realized. The myopic thinking regarding capitalism never ceases to amaze me.


Jacck said:


> Another factor is the capitalist healthcare system. Those people pushing the prescriptions of antidepressants are not experts, but greedy pharma companies trying to sell the medicaments and make profit. The doctors are unfortunately part of the greedy corrupt system. The greedy Wallstreet CEOs have stocks in the pharma companies and then pay the campaigns of the corrupt politicians (whose character does not matter to you) to further skew to system to their favor and to the disadvantage of the ordinary people
> https://www.americanprogress.org/is...rma-reaps-profits-hurting-everyday-americans/


First of all, we don't have a capitalistic healthcare system. It is such a convoluted, heavily regulated system that one practically needs a degree from MIT to thoroughly understand it all. It has caused a health insurance mess, yet still has created the best health care in the world in terms of medical advancement, techniques, and technology. I'm no fan of big pharma, but it would be intellectually dishonest to deny the reality of MILLIONS (maybe billions?) of people's lives saved because of pharmaceuticals and their quality of life increased. I agree, there are Dr's and politicians who are corrupt. That will never change unfortunately. The best we can do is expose it where it is. But let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. It's not a lump sum bottom line that says big pharma sucks or big pharma is the greatest.



Jacck said:


> that is the result, if you base your whole state ideology and philosophy on the ramblings of a mentally ill woman like Ayn Rand


 Biggest non-sequitur yet. Who ever said 1. I base anything written by Ayn Rand? and 2. she was mentally ill? (see Clemens quote above)


----------



## Varick

There are more and more people in academia itself who are seeing what's going on and realizing what a farce it's become. Even Stephen Pinker called the modern College and University a "laughing stock." So much Peer review has become corrupt, the sciences and STEM are under attack by the SJWs and other areas of academia from the far left. Call it "bizarre" or whatever else you would use when not in polite company all you want. It doesn't change the decrepit state of so called "higher" education. The fact that you are unaware of these things going on (or you choose willful ignorance) is what is "bizarre."

V


----------



## Flamme

> that is the result, if you base your whole state ideology and philosophy on the ramblings of a mentally ill woman like Ayn Rand


Wtf...Like I said, here before my ex polish gf adored her...I found out about that only after we broke up, for some reason, she never told me, although we talked about politics and philisophy a lot...I admit, i dont know much about it, but from what I saw, I dont really like the ''ideology'' of that woman...Or whatever her ramblings were...


----------



## Coach G

re: How one governs is itself a window upon character.



Varick said:


> So by that measure, Bill Clinton has great character. He certainly governed well. I guess that also means that Jimmy Carter had horrible character. He certainly didn't govern well.
> 
> I could go on and on with example after example of how one has absolutely NOTHING to do with the other.
> 
> V


20 years ago, I might have agreed with you. Now I think the answer to the question requires some nuance. What Carter, and his predecessor, Ford, did was bring a sense of honesty and openness to the office of the presidency. It was badly needed at the time after Lyndon Johnson was caught lying about what was going on in Vietnam, and Richard Nixon's lies regarded Watergate. Carter took a stand for human rights around the world that has set a standard to this day, and Carter's concerns about the economy, environment, and so forth, have become prophetic.

While I was a supporter of Bill Clinton while he was in office, my opinion of both Bill and Hillary has gone down over the years. Basically, the two of them are essence of sleazy politicians, opportunistic, and shifty. For those who'd complain about Trump's lies and his demeaning attitudes towards women, it should be remembered that Bill Clinton is the one who set the "boys will be boys" precedent long before Trump came along.

In politics I'm pretty much middle-of-the road. I believe as Confucius said, in taking the middle way. While I think that government programs in general are a problematic way to handle social issues; I also think that there are times when government must step in when there are no viable alternatives. I believe in the sanctity of life, so I go with the Democrats on supporting health care, and opposing the death penalty, but I go with the Republicans when it comes to opposing abortion. I hate war and violence and believe all international conflicts should be solved diplomatically.

That being said, I vote for candidates (and can maintain friendships with people) based more-so on integrity. I can respect and support someone who has different views than my own if I think that their motivation is coming from a place of sincerity, and a system of strong ethics and values.


----------



## Guest

Varick said:


> There are more and more people in academia itself who are seeing what's going on and realizing what a farce it's become. Even Stephen Pinker called the modern College and University a "laughing stock." So much Peer review has become corrupt, the sciences and STEM are under attack by the SJWs and other areas of academia from the far left. Call it "bizarre" or whatever else you would use when not in polite company all you want. It doesn't change the decrepit state of so called "higher" education. The fact that you are unaware of these things going on (or you choose willful ignorance) is what is "bizarre."
> 
> V


Very well said. I'm an admirer of Pinker, but nobody I know has ever read a single book of his. Ergo, "Enlightenment Now" would be off limits at any social gathering amongst my group of friends. And it's a good read!!


----------



## Guest

Flamme said:


> Wtf...Like I said, here before my ex polish gf adored her...I found out about that only after we broke up, for some reason, she never told me, although we talked about politics and philisophy a lot...I admit, i dont know much about it, but from what I saw, I dont really like the ''ideology'' of that woman...Or whatever her ramblings were...


One doesn't have to admire the ideology of a person like Rand but it might be useful to consider a pretty formidable intellect at work. I feel that way about Noam Chomsky - a person whose politics I find odious but who is no slouch in the thinking department.


----------



## Guest

Coach G said:


> re: How one governs is itself a window upon character.
> 
> 20 years ago, I might have agreed with you. Now I think the answer to the question requires some nuance. What Carter, and his predecessor, Ford, did was bring a sense of honesty and openness to the office of the presidency. It was badly needed at the time after Lyndon Johnson was caught lying about what was going on in Vietnam, and Richard Nixon's lies regarded Watergate. Carter took a stand for human rights around the world that has set a standard to this day, and Carter's concerns about the economy, environment, and so forth, have become prophetic.
> 
> While I was a supporter of Bill Clinton while he was in office, my opinion of both Bill and Hillary has gone down over the years. Basically, the two of them are essence of sleazy politicians, opportunistic, and shifty. For those who'd complain about Trump's lies and his demeaning attitudes towards women, it should be remembered that Bill Clinton is the one who set the "boys will be boys" precedent long before Trump came along.
> 
> In politics I'm pretty much middle-of-the road. I believe as Confucius said, in taking the middle way. While I think that government programs in general are a problematic way to handle social issues; I also think that there are times when government must step in when there are no viable alternatives. I believe in the sanctity of life, so I go with the Democrats on supporting health care, and opposing the death penalty, but I go with the Republicans when it comes to opposing abortion. I hate war and violence and believe all international conflicts should be solved diplomatically.
> 
> That being said, I vote for candidates (and can maintain friendships with people) based more-so on integrity. I can respect and support someone who has different views than my own if I think that their motivation is coming from a place of sincerity, and a system of strong ethics and values.


Very well said. That's the sort of thing I was hoping would be discussed in this thread.


----------



## Flamme

Christabel said:


> One doesn't have to admire the ideology of a person like Rand but it might be useful to consider a pretty formidable intellect at work. I feel that way about Noam Chomsky - a person whose politics I find odious but who is no slouch in the thinking department.


From influences I saw in behaviour of that person which may be induced by reading reand I saw, greed, envy, cynicism, egomania...


----------



## Strange Magic

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/28/opinion/trump-boaty-mcboatface.html

An excellent NYTimes editorial on the sometimes very dangerous non-wisdom of crowds, especially when "the crowd" thinks it's being funny. Some examples of disastrous results--some trivial, but the biggest "joke" has given us the worst possible outcome.....


----------



## Flamme

I dont really think being a ''*******'' brings you closer to some deeper truth in life except maybe material pleasures and self indulging w/o thinking of consequences.


----------



## Strange Magic

Interesting reading of history to assert that Bill Clinton set the precedent for "boys will be boys". Grover Cleveland, Warren Harding, FDR, Eisenhower, JFK, just to name a few predecessors.


----------



## Guest

Flamme said:


> From influences I saw in behaviour of that person which may be induced by reading reand I saw, greed, envy, cynicism, egomania...


Yeah, well Chomsky is like that.


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> Interesting reading of history to assert that Bill Clinton set the precedent for "boys will be boys". Grover Cleveland, Warren Harding, FDR, Eisenhower, JFK, just to name a few predecessors.


I'm surprised by the claim about FDR given his major physical impairments. He seemed a pretty good President from what I can tell.


----------



## Flamme

Is he...Idk...His ideology is more about solidarity and understanding of others, opposite of trampling others underfoot for your personal gain...The change was very drastic...Ffrom a kind and caring person to a ''monster'' of sorts, that only cared about her bottom line...I saw some changes in people but this one was a shock to me...


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/28/opinion/trump-boaty-mcboatface.html
> 
> An excellent NYTimes editorial on the sometimes very dangerous non-wisdom of crowds, especially when "the crowd" thinks it's being funny. Some examples of disastrous results--some trivial, but the biggest "joke" has given us the worst possible outcome.....


You make these comments without the slightest trace of irony. Crowds? How about the new tribal system we endure, courtesy of identitarianism?


----------



## Strange Magic

Christabel said:


> I'm surprised by the claim about FDR given his major physical impairments. He seemed a pretty good President from what I can tell.


How one governs is a window into character. Curious that you regard FDR--as do I--as a "pretty good" (read: GREAT) president in that in the minds of legions on the Right, FDR brought the horrors of Socialism to America. And the people loved it, and still do, as long as you call it something else, like "Americanism".


----------



## Strange Magic

Christabel said:


> You make these comments without the slightest trace of irony. Crowds? How about the new tribal system we endure, courtesy of identitarianism?


Is that like Antidisestablishmentarianism?:lol:


----------



## Strange Magic

One thing that Ayn Rand shared completely with Leon Trotsky was an unyielding atheism. Actually, that is probably the only thing about her ideology that repels those on the economic _laissez faire_ Right (who are repelled).


----------



## Flamme

I think its sort of a ''fuel for edginess'' in some ''pro-cap'' circles...Only a ''rebellion'' but a false one, imho...The true FREE man must not accept any ideology as a ''religion''.


----------



## Varick

Christabel said:


> Very well said. I'm an admirer of Pinker, but nobody I know has ever read a single book of his. Ergo, "Enlightenment Now" would be off limits at any social gathering amongst my group of friends. And it's a good read!!


I think his book "The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature" should be required reading in school. It's one of my favorite books that I have ever read. I am a great admirer of Pinker. I don't necessarily agree with all of his conclusions, but he is a formidable and deep thinker.

V


----------



## Varick

Strange Magic said:


> How one governs is a window into character. Curious that you regard FDR--as do I--as a "pretty good" (read: GREAT) president in that in the minds of legions on the Right, FDR brought the horrors of Socialism to America. And the people loved it, and still do, as long as you call it something else, like "Americanism".


Yes, he certainly did bring certain horrors of Socialism to America. Least of all salary caps which we are still reaping the crop of those seeds (see corporate benefits which have raised prices of health insurance through the roof and other taken-for-granted benefits).

And I couldn't agree more, Americans (as do all people) love it and still do. GW Bush got it wrong when he said the universal desire of all people is freedom. The universal desire of people is to be taken care of. Liberty is not an instinct. It's a value that we are not teaching anymore. When it's gone, it is VERY difficult to get back.

V


----------



## Varick

Re: Ayn Rand. Her pure version of capitalism can never work, simply because of a little thing called human nature. Same reason why socialism doesn't work. Strange Magic is correct when he states that Americans will buy almost anything as long as you sell it under a banner such as "Americanism."

Pure systems never work. Someone either earlier on this thread or another thread said they feel about Capitalism the way Churchill described Democracy. I couldn't agree more (for those who don't know, Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst form of Government ever created. Except all the others."). We need safety nets (socialist programs) with a strong free market system (capitalism). The Ayn Rands of the world have some good and solid ideas, but their All-or-nothing mentality doesn't work. Their system would encourage predatory capitalism and the worst of human greed.

V


----------



## Strange Magic

Varick said:


> Yes, he certainly did bring certain horrors of Socialism to America. Least of all salary caps which we are still reaping the crop of those seeds (see corporate benefits which have raised prices of health insurance through the roof and other taken-for-granted benefits).
> 
> And I couldn't agree more, Americans (as do all people) love it and still do. GW Bush got it wrong when he said the universal desire of all people is freedom. The universal desire of people is to be taken care of. Liberty is not an instinct. It's a value that we are not teaching anymore. When it's gone, it is VERY difficult to get back.
> 
> V


So true (in your mind)! The peoples of the western social democracies are leading hellish, brutal lives of want and unutterable despair under the nightmare of Socialism. Meanwhile, we here in America soar far above them in every measure of human felicity, as we strip away regulations and protections painfully adopted over decades....


----------



## Varick

More to the OP: When I look at the intellectual power of the IDW (Intellectual Dark Web), I am comforted. I see people there who are on theoretically opposite sides of the political fence and who are dear and close friends. They have truly deep and meaningful discussions and arguments. I listen and respect pretty much all of them. Maybe because I have always been attracted to Heterodox thinking and ideas. Eric & Bret Weinstein, Sam Harris, James Lindsay, Peter Boghossian, Helen Pluckrose (and others) all on the left. Jordon Peterson, Ben Shapiro, Douglas Murray, Gad Saad (and others) all on the right. Joe Rogan is pivotal because he has interviewed all of these people, often multiple times each and sometimes together. These are people who are all friends and who have disagreements with each other. But there is one thing they pretty much all have in common: They agree on what the actual facts are. We all have a right to our own opinions, but we do not have a right to our own facts.

These are the true intellectual heavy weights of our time. They have umpteen videos, interviews, lectures, and podcasts. Anyone, who is interested in true intellectual thought (not the banal NY Times which - as almost all main stream media - has become just a joke. They have given up ANY semblance of objectivity and journalistic integrity), I would highly recommend seeking some of these people out. I have the most profound respect and admiration to everyone I listed above, even those on the left. Maybe even particularly those on the left. I think Eric Weinstein is one of the greatest and most original minds alive today in the world.

Almost every Youtube video there is of two or more of these people debating, there are hundreds of comments that go something like this: "This is what true debate should look like." "This is so needed: Two people who disagree having an intelligent and respectful debate." People are starved for this kind communication. I highly recommend.

V


----------



## Jacck

Varick said:


> That's a new one. Silly me, and here I thought it had to do with raising generations to have a lack of resilience, ability to cope with stressors, chemical imbalances, diet, and such. Typical thinking: All human behavior comes down to materialistic economics. Blame the only system (far from perfect) that has raised BILLIONS of people out of poverty and given them a higher standard of living en masse never before IMAGINED, let alone realized. The myopic thinking regarding capitalism never ceases to amaze me.


America is the richest country in the world, yet the life of the average person in the US is objectively worse than the life of the average Czech person. Many people live from paycheck to paycheck, having no health insurance, having no money to pay for their kids to go to study etc. I have some relatives who emigrated to the US during the 1990's. They are poor, they can barely afford to fly to Czech republic once in every two years (I could fly there every month if I wanted to), they are uninsured. This poverty in the US is very hard to escape. Social mobility in the US is worse than most OECD countries, likely caused by the steep costs of education. American dream is an illusion. And mental health does reflect that

https://www.absoluteadvocacy.org/me...pitalism-is-feeding-our-mental-health-crisis/


----------



## Luchesi

Varick said:


> Almost every Youtube video there is of two or more of these people debating, there are hundreds of comments that go something like this: "This is what true debate should look like." "This is so needed: Two people who disagree having an intelligent and respectful debate." People are starved for this kind communication. I highly recommend.
> 
> V


That's a helpful post. The problem is as soon as I tune into one of those conservatives I immediately can write an essay about how wrong they are in most everything they say. Why is that? Am I so indoctrinated the other way? Is it because few people can talk off the cuff, on camera? But maybe it's just me and my decades of experience with intelligent people in real life. Online, conservative folks seem simplistic and unaware. While liberals repeat and repeat what we already know (boring). So you get the sad conclusion that no intellectual progress will be made.

I hold out that, in person, these conservatives are impressive thinkers. But their agenda bubbles up and constrains them. Sad. As always within this debate, human nature and the hundreds of thousands of years trumps both sides! That's what we learn from it.. But at least it's something..


----------



## Varick

Luchesi said:


> That's a helpful post. The problem is as soon as I tune into one of those conservatives I immediately can write an essay about how wrong they are in most everything they say. Why is that? Am I so indoctrinated the other way? Is it because few people can talk off the cuff, on camera? But maybe it's just me and my decades of experience with intelligent people in real life. Online, conservative folks seem simplistic and unaware. While liberal repeat and repeat what we already know (boring). So you get the sad conclusion that no intellectual progress will be made.
> 
> I hold out that, in person, these conservatives are impressive thinkers. But their agenda bubbles up and constrains them. Sad. As always within this debate, human nature and the hundreds of thousands of years trumps both sides! That's what we learn from it.. But at least it's something..


You only mentioned conservative thinkers. What about all the liberal thinkers mentioned? I would be interested in some examples of these boring and simplistic conversations.

V


----------



## Luchesi

Varick said:


> You only mentioned conservative thinkers. What about all the liberal thinkers mentioned? I would be interested in some examples of these boring and simplistic conversations.
> 
> V


Sam Harris makes clever quips about God belief. I guess he actually believes he knows what intelligent people think about God. He racks up the strawmen and knocks them down and then he seems so pleased with himself. It's empty. I've never heard him talk about the large subject, which is cosmology. Is it beyond him? He has an audience! Why doesn't he educate them with the latest efforts? It's the same with the others, but not as ruffling to me.

Rich liberals could give half their wealth to liberal causes and charities. Why would that be unthinkable? To me, that's the measure of their disingenuousness.


----------



## Jacck

Varick said:


> You only mentioned conservative thinkers. What about all the liberal thinkers mentioned? I would be interested in some examples of these boring and simplistic conversations.
> V


There are very few intelligent conservatives with anything of value to say. I found Roger Scruton interesting. I also somewhat like Joran Peterson. He usually criticized the same things I criticize - the illiberalism on the left, the out of control political correctness killing free speech, the insane identity politics which is fracturing society, the snowflake behavior of some students who need safe spaces, the insanity of modern feminism with MeeToo online witchhunts etc. On the other hand what is masquarading as conservatism in the US seems to me to be a marriage between corporatist capitalism and fundamentalist religion. The corporate capitalists needed some ideology to justify their greed and convince the low information voters to vote against their self-interest, so they founded all these conservative "think-tanks", which are in essence propaganda instituttes, and which pollute the minds of people with "conservative" ideas justifying the golden shower economics (trickle down economics). This golden shower economics leads the ever increasing inequality, which leads to social instability.

https://www.conservapedia.com/List_of_conservative,_neoconservative_and_libertarian_think_tanks
who do you think finances all these think tanks? ( which are in essence Soviet style propagandists)


----------



## Open Book

Jacck said:


> America is the richest country in the world, yet the life of the average person in the US is objectively worse than the life of the average Czech person. Many people live from paycheck to paycheck, having no health insurance, having no money to pay for their kids to go to study etc. I have some relatives who emigrated to the US during the 1990's. They are poor, they can barely afford to fly to Czech republic once in every two years (I could fly there every month if I wanted to), they are uninsured. This poverty in the US is very hard to escape. Social mobility in the US is worse than most OECD countries, likely caused by the steep costs of education. American dream is an illusion. And mental health does reflect that
> 
> https://www.absoluteadvocacy.org/me...pitalism-is-feeding-our-mental-health-crisis/


I agree with what you say about conditions in the U.S. and that they mentally and physically stress a lot of people and they should change.

Seems strange to even talk about social mobility in OECD countries when there is almost no need for mobility. If you already get health care and education free that is a huge amount of wealth and there is not much real need to move up. Only if you want a better home and more luxuries.

But there's one other thing to consider, and this is where the hardcore conservatives espouse unchecked capitalism. They claim it produces more benefits to humankind than any other system ever has. When you tell them people in the U.S. are too poor they will reply that they are richer than people in the past were because of the benefits produced by capitalism.

Do they have a point? It does seem that most technological and medical innovations, the things that continually improve our lives, originate in the United States, or am I wrong? Is my world view just too small?


----------



## Open Book

Jacck said:


> America is the richest country in the world, yet the life of the average person in the US is objectively worse than the life of the average Czech person. Many people live from paycheck to paycheck, having no health insurance, having no money to pay for their kids to go to study etc. I have some relatives who emigrated to the US during the 1990's. They are poor, they can barely afford to fly to Czech republic once in every two years (I could fly there every month if I wanted to), they are uninsured. This poverty in the US is very hard to escape. Social mobility in the US is worse than most OECD countries, likely caused by the steep costs of education. American dream is an illusion. And mental health does reflect that
> 
> https://www.absoluteadvocacy.org/me...pitalism-is-feeding-our-mental-health-crisis/


The comparison of you and your relatives' ability to afford travel is interesting. Should they be able to afford what you can afford? Do they have the same education level as you, which is high? Or are they working class? In the Czech Republic are working class people just as wealthy and able to afford plane tickets as more educated people with jobs that have tougher requirements?


----------



## Jacck

Open Book said:


> The comparison of you and your relatives' ability to afford travel is interesting. Should they be able to afford what you can afford? Do they have the same education level as you, which is high? Or are they working class? In the Czech Republic are working class people just as wealthy and able to afford plane tickets as more educated people with jobs that have tougher requirements?


There is difference of education. I am an M.D., my cousin was a waiter. He makes a living in the US reconstructing houses, he has some small company. He is definitely not doing that great, because his family (my uncle) had to send him some money. In those 30 years, he has been back here just 3 times. The reason why I think the average Czech is doing better than the average American is the social safety net - free healthcare, free education, 2 years of paid maternal leave, 5 weeks of fully paid holidays, pension system etc. There is also much less social inequality here than in the US. Look at this map
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_inequality-adjusted_HDI
Czech Republic is more developed than the US according to this
The Czech doctors are not as highly paid as the US doctors. The basic salary in a hospital (ie for 40 hours) is just maybe twice the average salary (but of course most hospital doctors work 60-70 hours), while the US doctors are making maybe 10 times the average. But at least we dont have to deal with high costs of insurace because of a culture of litigation and moral injury
https://lissarankin.com/doctors-are-suffering-from-moral-injury-whats-the-solution/


----------



## Coach G

Strange Magic said:


> Interesting reading of history to assert that Bill Clinton set the precedent for "boys will be boys". Grover Cleveland, Warren Harding, FDR, Eisenhower, JFK, just to name a few predecessors.


Grover Cleveland was said to have fathered a child out-of-wedlock while he was young and single and he took responsibility for supporting the child and the mother. He remained a bachelor well into middle age when he married his much younger wife while he was president. The alleged affair that Dwight Eisenhower was supposed to have had Kay Summersby is only supported by Summersby's own account. FDR's long-time affair with Lucy Mercer was said to have been part-and-parcel of FDR and his wife, Eleanor, hitting upon some kind of working relationship that ceased to be romantic. While Harding and JFK were almost certainly out-and-out womanizers, I'm not talking about cheating on the wife and treating women as disposable commodities, as reprehensible as that is. When it comes to what Clinton has done, and Trump has bragged about doing, is to demonstrate a pattern of predatory behavior based upon a power imbalance.


----------



## Guest

Jacck said:


> There are very few intelligent conservatives with anything of value to say. I found Roger Scruton interesting. I also somewhat like Joran Peterson. He usually criticized the same things I criticize - the illiberalism on the left, the out of control political correctness killing free speech, the insane identity politics which is fracturing society, the snowflake behavior of some students who need safe spaces, the insanity of modern feminism with MeeToo online witchhunts etc. On the other hand what is masquarading as conservatism in the US seems to me to be a marriage between corporatist capitalism and fundamentalist religion. The corporate capitalists needed some ideology to justify their greed and convince the low information voters to vote against their self-interest, so they founded all these conservative "think-tanks", which are in essence propaganda instituttes, and which pollute the minds of people with "conservative" ideas justifying the golden shower economics (trickle down economics). This golden shower economics leads the ever increasing inequality, which leads to social instability.
> 
> https://www.conservapedia.com/List_of_conservative,_neoconservative_and_libertarian_think_tanks
> who do you think finances all these think tanks? ( which are in essence Soviet style propagandists)


Your comments reveal why it's just not possible nowadays for people on the opposite side of the political spectrum to any longer live together. The language is peppered with hatred, resentment and ad homs, which isn't good for your own well-being let alone the society as a whole.

"Low information voters" = your fellow human beings. As Alan Dershowitz said within the last days to Dave Rubin, "I cannot speak to anyone who lives in Martha's Vineyard anymore or my own family. They believe they own the truth and the truth is what they speak and they have no tolerance for anybody else who doesn't speak their truth: I am now considered a fascist and a nazi". What a zinger and from a Democrat!! He speaks factually and this is where we are now; conventional religion pitted against the new religious theology of ideological truth.

The more things change the more they remain the same!!


----------



## DeepR

How can anyone who is moderate and reasonable even have "political opposites". The people I know have partially similar views and partially different views, but even those different views are usually still moderate and reasonable. 
Those aren't opposites.
The fact that people are thinking in terms of political opposites just shows how polarized the US political situation is.
Opposites can only really exist at the far ends of the political spectrum. And while they are opposites in certain aspects, in some ways they are dangerously alike, when they've become radicals and extremists.


----------



## Guest

DeepR said:


> How can anyone who is moderate and reasonable even have "political opposites". The people I know have partially similar views and partially different views, but even those different views are usually still moderate and reasonable.
> Those aren't opposites.
> Opposites can only really exist at the far ends of the political spectrum. Radicals and extremists. And while they seem opposites in certain aspects, in some ways they are dangerously alike, sadly, much more than they will ever realize.


It used to be called 'the sensible centre' way back when.....sadly things are so polarized now that one has to be wary before starting any kind of conversation at all about society, culture or politics. In short, if you value your friends don't say a word.

In my experience it's the trades classes - the 'low information voters' - who are getting on with life, their small businesses, raising their families, going to the pub and pursuing their sporting interests. These are the happy people of today; they look on as spectators to what is unfolding in the culture wars and think the world is nuts. Right now these same people are out busy building houses in our area and I never had such an appreciation of them as I do now; down-to-earth, fair dinkum Aussies!! And with a great sense of humour.

Come on down!!


----------



## DeepR

The US seems very polarized indeed. Moderation and nuance is hard for people. 
I really detest some of the things I've seen, heard and read from both the US (far) left and the US (far) right.
The internet and especially social media are part of the problem. Groups of people creating and believing in their own realities. A hotbed for extremism and sometimes even complete lunacy.


----------



## Strange Magic

> Coach G: "...I'm not talking about *cheating on the wife and treating women as disposable commodities*, as reprehensible as that is. When it comes to what Clinton has done, and Trump has bragged about doing, is to demonstrate a pattern of predatory behavior based upon a power imbalance."


You draw a very fine distinction here that may take a powerful electron microscope to differentiate.


----------



## Guest

DeepR said:


> The US seems very polarized indeed. Moderation and nuance is hard for people.
> I really detest some of the things I've seen, heard and read from both the US (far) left and the US (far) right.
> The internet and especially social media are part of the problem. Groups of people creating and believing in their own realities. A hotbed for extremism and sometimes even complete lunacy.


You've really nailed this!!! Trouble is, it has permeated everyday life in people who already felt aggrieved. "The common good" is gone and been replaced by "it's my way or the hi-way"!! In Australia we call it "the bubble".


----------



## Strange Magic

> Christabel: ""Low information voters" = your fellow human beings. As Alan Dershowitz said within the last days to Dave Rubin, "I cannot speak to anyone who lives in Martha's Vineyard anymore or my own family. They believe they own the truth and the truth is what they speak and they have no tolerance for anybody else who doesn't speak their truth: I am now considered a fascist and a nazi". What a zinger and from a Democrat!! He speaks factually and this is where we are now; conventional religion pitted against the new religious theology of ideological truth."


I cannot wait to read the esteemed Dershowitz on the QAnon phenomenon, especially if it blossoms into full-scale violence post-election.


----------



## Jacck

Christabel said:


> Your comments reveal why it's just not possible nowadays for people on the opposite side of the political spectrum to any longer live together. The language is peppered with hatred, resentment and ad homs, which isn't good for your own well-being let alone the society as a whole. "Low information voters" = your fellow human beings. As Alan Dershowitz said within the last days to Dave Rubin, "I cannot speak to anyone who lives in Martha's Vineyard anymore or my own family. They believe they own the truth and the truth is what they speak and they have no tolerance for anybody else who doesn't speak their truth: I am now considered a fascist and a nazi". What a zinger and from a Democrat!! He speaks factually and this is where we are now; conventional religion pitted against the new religious theology of ideological truth.
> The more things change the more they remain the same!!


who do you think is creating these culture wars and why? Did the culture wars come into being spontaneously, or are they deliberately engineered? By whom and why? Who benefits if the population is distracted by culture wars and topics like LGBT marriage or abortions? Occupy the people with culture was, so they do not pay attention to what is actually happening.


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> I cannot wait to read the esteemed Dershowitz on the QAnon phenomenon, especially if it blossoms into full-scale violence post-election.


I guess he's been pretty busy observing Antifa which, after all, isn't really just 'an idea'. Professor Dershowitz IS esteemed and successful; he has the runs on the board as a Democrat. I'd be listening to him if I was one of them myself.


----------



## Guest

Jacck said:


> who do you think is creating these culture wars and why? Did the culture wars come into being spontaneously, or are they deliberately engineered? By whom and why? Who benefits if the population is distracted by culture wars and topics like LGBT marriage or abortions? Occupy the people with culture was, so they do not pay attention to what is actually happening.


Mate, that comment is so undergrad. Do some reading on this topic from really intelligent people and you'll learn. But I have the feeling you don't want to hear anything that clashes with your 'truth'. Again, another reason why polar opposites cannot be friends anymore.


----------



## Varick

I'm pretty politically informed but I still have no idea what this QAnon thing is. I suspect (and I may be wrong) that it is another Left strawman like all these white supremacists and neo nazis we apparently have running all around the US. Funny, I'm a white guy and have traveled all over the US. I saw some white supremacist/neo nazis once in my life and it was only because I happened to stop by a road side convenience store in the middle of nowhere in Western PA years & years ago. I've never personally met one in all my travels. And if there was ever someone who "looked like" he could be one, it's me: White, blue eyes, shaved head, with a goatee. I could look like the poster boy to these scumbags. And yet... never met one.

I have a feeling (again, I could be wrong) that this QAnon thing is similar. Much ado about nothing. I hear about the Proud Boys and how they are a racist group. I did some (barely) surface inquiry into them and found that 20% of them are black and they have a good number of hispanics in there as well and I believe either the founder or head of the Proud Boys is black. Wow, that must be some kind of racist organization that tolerates and allows other races in their ranks.

I have asked multiple conservative friends of mine and no one seems to know about QAnon. But it's all I hear about from the left. And they talk about how QAnon COULD be violent. Meanwhile, we have had MONTHS & MONTHS of violence all over our country and ALL of it is from the left, but that hardly gets a mention. There MIGHT be this "Alt-Right" group (that again, no one I know on the right knows anything about) that MIGHT become violent and it's "STOP THE PRESS!!!!!" Without these lies to feed off of, the left dies. Not liberals, but the left.

V


----------



## Jacck

Christabel said:


> Mate, that comment is so undergrad. Do some reading on this topic from really intelligent people and you'll learn. But I have the feeling you don't want to hear anything that clashes with your 'truth'. Again, another reason why polar opposites cannot be friends anymore.


like here?
How everything became the culture war


----------



## Guest

Jacck said:


> like here?
> How everything became the culture war


You could try reading Steven Pinker, Douglas Murray and others; they've written LONG books about the topic - as have others. But only if you want to learn something, of course.


----------



## Guest

Varick said:


> I'm pretty politically informed but I still have no idea what this QAnon thing is. I suspect (and I may be wrong) that it is another Left strawman like all these white supremacists and neo nazis we apparently have running all around the US. Funny, I'm a white guy and have traveled all over the US. I saw some white supremacist/neo nazis once in my life and it was only because I happened to stop by a road side convenience store in the middle of nowhere in Western PA years & years ago. I've never personally met one in all my travels. And if there was ever someone who "looked like" he could be one, it's me: White, blue eyes, shaved head, with a goatee. I could look like the poster boy to these scumbags. And yet... never met one.
> 
> I have a feeling (again, I could be wrong) that this QAnon thing is similar. Much ado about nothing. I hear about the Proud Boys and how they are a racist group. I did some (barely) surface inquiry into them and found that 20% of them are black and they have a good number of hispanics in there as well and I believe either the founder or head of the Proud Boys is black. Wow, that must be some kind of racist organization that tolerates and allows other races in their ranks.
> 
> I have asked multiple conservative friends of mine and no one seems to know about QAnon. But it's all I hear about from the left. And they talk about how QAnon COULD be violent. Meanwhile, we have had MONTHS & MONTHS of violence all over our country and ALL of it is from the left, but that hardly gets a mention. There MIGHT be this "Alt-Right" group (that again, no one I know on the right knows anything about) that MIGHT become violent and it's "STOP THE PRESS!!!!!" Without these lies to feed off of, the left dies. Not liberals, but the left.
> 
> V


There's an old saying in psychology; when somebody is accusing you they're really telling you all about themselves!! I must say no kind of extremist talk would ever come into conversations with people I know; they understand, as I do, that polar extremes eventually cancel themselves out by squeezing the majority back into the centre. A kind of gravity, if you will. The kind of arguments that are likely to create divisions are of the type mentioned a few comments back about the 'trickle down' economy, culture wars, feminism - but these are unlikely to occur in any interactions I have anyway. When you get to a certain stage in your life (cough) you are more concerned about social stability and cohesion, stable economies which can thrive, employment and freedom of speech.


----------



## Open Book

Jacck said:


> There is difference of education. I am an M.D., my cousin was a waiter. He makes a living in the US reconstructing houses, he has some small company. He is definitely not doing that great, because his family (my uncle) had to send him some money. In those 30 years, he has been back here just 3 times. The reason why I think the average Czech is doing better than the average American is the social safety net - free healthcare, free education, 2 years of paid maternal leave, 5 weeks of fully paid holidays, pension system etc. There is also much less social inequality here than in the US. Look at this map
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_inequality-adjusted_HDI
> Czech Republic is more developed than the US according to this
> The Czech doctors are not as highly paid as the US doctors. The basic salary in a hospital (ie for 40 hours) is just maybe twice the average salary (but of course most hospital doctors work 60-70 hours), while the US doctors are making maybe 10 times the average. But at least we dont have to deal with high costs of insurace because of a culture of litigation and moral injury
> https://lissarankin.com/doctors-are-suffering-from-moral-injury-whats-the-solution/


I like hearing what Europeans have to say about their part of the world.

There's no doubt about the appeal of a safety net. If you have your your health you have almost everything. It's hard to deny people health care any more than you could deny them food. But it costs and someone has to pay for it.

Are there very rich people in your country who escape paying taxes like in the U.S.? Isn't it the upper middle class like doctors who have suffered most from having to finance the safety net? In the U.S. it is feared that the upper middle class who are not millionaires (or at least not multi-millionaires) would bear the brunt of financing universal health care if we ever get it. The very rich will not pay.

Everyone wants to get more but no one wants to risk giving up what they have.

Just wondering, do doctors in your country buy their own private malpractice insurance under your system?


----------



## Jacck

Open Book said:


> I like hearing what Europeans have to say about their part of the world.
> There's no doubt about the appeal of a safety net. If you have your your health you have almost everything. It's hard to deny people health care any more than you could deny them food. But it costs and someone has to pay for it.
> Are there very rich people in your country who escape paying taxes like in the U.S.? Isn't it the upper middle class like doctors who have suffered most from having to finance the safety net? In the U.S. it is feared that the upper middle class who are not millionaires (or at least not multi-millionaires) would bear the brunt of financing universal health care if we ever get it. The very rich will not pay.


the taxes would have to go up. Most people in Europe pay several hundred euros a month to finance this safety net, and those who earn more pay more, so you end up with 40% of your salary going to taxes and the upper middle class pays the most. Yes, the rich try to avoid paying and try to move their companies to various offshore tax havens. But if there was an actual political will to make them pay their fair share, it could be done. Unfortunately they use their riches to corrupt the political class to skew the system. One of the reasons why the rich in the UK supported brexit was that the EU wanted to regulate the tax havens. So they teamed up with the Russians. 
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/n...est-tax-havens-are-british-territories/30/05/



> Just wondering, do doctors in your country buy their own private malpractice insurance under your system?


if you work in a hospital, your dont have to worry about it, because the hospital is insured for malpractice. If you are private, you have to negotiate your own insurance with an insurance company.


----------



## Dan Ante

I will tell you of my experience with private health insurance, at the age of approx 34-5 I took advantage of a special deal only to find out as the years passed that various things were taken off the list of covered items e.g Dental work was the first that I remember then bit by bit as the years past the ins cover was re written and all ways in favor of the ins co, when I needed to get my hearing checked over ( I lost hearing in one Ear) I was told that it was not covered, Funeral ins stops when you reach 80. So getting fed up with the Ins Co I cancelled, and am saving over NZ$700/mth which pays for an odd job man to do some jobs that I can no longer do.


----------



## Strange Magic

Our friend Varick does not read much, one might deduce: From the Philadelphia Inquirer.,,,,

"Last week, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to condemn the online conspiracy movement QAnon. It should have been an easy vote considering that *the FBI has labeled QAnon a domestic terrorist threat*. And for the majority of the 435 House members, it was. But troublingly, 18 representatives voted against the resolution. More concerning: Two of the 17 Republican "nay" votes came from Pennsylvania.

Rep. Scott Perry, from south-central Pennsylvania, and Rep. Mike Kelly, from northwest Pennsylvania, voted no on a resolution that "condemns QAnon and rejects the conspiracy theories it promotes." Perry did not respond to a request for comment, but Kelly explained in an email to this board: "Congress need not spend its time condemning Americans for speech it doesn't like." Last year, both Kelly and Perry voted in favor of a resolution condemning anti-Semitic speech that came in response to comments by Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota."

The Trump Administration's FBI has been issuing warnings about the domestic terror threat posed primarily by Right organizations, "militias", etc. for months, seemingly unread by either the president or Varick. Meanwhile the sale of guns and ammunition continues to soar here in the good old USA, while Vladimir Putin smiles...


----------



## Strange Magic

FBI Chief Wray on the Boogaloo phenomenon, another movement Varick is not well-informed about, it seems.....

"Boogaloos is considered a right-leaning, anti-government movement that started online and reportedly has connections to white supremacy and advocating for a second civil war. Wray said Boogaloos, like Antifa, is more of a movement or an ideology than a group itself.

Self-identifying members of Boogaloos have been charged in connection with the shooting death of a federal agent in California, as well as providing support from Minnesota to Hamas, a militant Islamic Palestinian nationalist movement, lawmakers and Wray said.

“I think one of the things that a lot of people don't understand about people who subscribe to this sort of Boogaloo thinking is that their main focus is just dismantling, tearing down government, and they're less clear on what it is they think they're going to replace government with,” Wray said. “I'm not even sure they would all agree with each other.”

Foreign adversaries including China and Russia have tried to “sort of piggyback on a lot of the unrest activity that has been occurring,” Wray said.

Wray said he expressed concerns about misinformation on social media about the infectiousness of the coronavirus or about treatments, cures or vaccines, but that the FBI isn’t the “truth police.”


----------



## Strange Magic

And now a little FBI something about The Proud Boys.....

"The FBI now classifies the far-right Proud Boys as an “extremist group with ties to white nationalism”, according to a document produced by Washington state law enforcement.

The FBI’s 2018 designation of the self-confessed “western chauvinist group” as extremist has not been previously made public.

Who are the Proud Boys, 'western chauvinists' involved in political violence?

The Proud Boys was founded by the Vice Media co-founder Gavin McInnes. McInnes has insisted that his group is not white nationalist or “alt-right” but the Proud Boys have a history of misogyny and glorifying violence. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) lists them as a hate group.

The document also says: “The FBI has warned local law enforcement agencies that the Proud Boys are actively recruiting in the Pacific north-west”, and: “Proud Boys members have contributed to the recent escalation of violence at political rallies held on college campuses, and in cities like Charlottesville, Virginia, Portland, Oregon, and Seattle, Washington.”


----------



## Chilham

Varick said:


> I'm pretty politically informed but I still have no idea what this QAnon thing is. I suspect (and I may be wrong) that it is another Left strawman like all these white supremacists and neo nazis we apparently have running all around the US. Funny, I'm a white guy and have traveled all over the US. I saw some white supremacist/neo nazis once in my life and it was only because I happened to stop by a road side convenience store in the middle of nowhere in Western PA years & years ago. I've never personally met one in all my travels. And if there was ever someone who "looked like" he could be one, it's me: White, blue eyes, shaved head, with a goatee. I could look like the poster boy to these scumbags. And yet... never met one.
> 
> I have a feeling (again, I could be wrong) that this QAnon thing is similar. Much ado about nothing. I hear about the Proud Boys and how they are a racist group. I did some (barely) surface inquiry into them and found that 20% of them are black and they have a good number of hispanics in there as well and I believe either the founder or head of the Proud Boys is black. Wow, that must be some kind of racist organization that tolerates and allows other races in their ranks.
> 
> I have asked multiple conservative friends of mine and no one seems to know about QAnon. But it's all I hear about from the left. And they talk about how QAnon COULD be violent. Meanwhile, we have had MONTHS & MONTHS of violence all over our country and ALL of it is from the left, but that hardly gets a mention. There MIGHT be this "Alt-Right" group (that again, no one I know on the right knows anything about) that MIGHT become violent and it's "STOP THE PRESS!!!!!" Without these lies to feed off of, the left dies. Not liberals, but the left.
> 
> V


You've not experienced it, so it's all lies.

Fair enough. I'm persuaded.


----------



## Strange Magic

Christabel said:


> There's an old saying in psychology; when somebody is accusing you they're really telling you all about themselves!! *I must say no kind of extremist talk would ever come into conversations with people I know; they understand, as I do, that polar extremes eventually cancel themselves out by squeezing the majority back into the centre.* A kind of gravity, if you will. The kind of arguments that are likely to create divisions are of the type mentioned a few comments back about the 'trickle down' economy, culture wars, feminism - but these are unlikely to occur in any interactions I have anyway. When you get to a certain stage in your life (cough) you are more concerned about social stability and cohesion, stable economies which can thrive, employment and freedom of speech.


I guess the German unpleasantness of 1933 onward was all just a dream.......


----------



## Luchesi

Christabel said:


> There's an old saying in psychology; when somebody is accusing you they're really telling you all about themselves!! I must say no kind of extremist talk would ever come into conversations with people I know; they understand, as I do, that polar extremes eventually cancel themselves out by squeezing the majority back into the centre. A kind of gravity, if you will. The kind of arguments that are likely to create divisions are of the type mentioned a few comments back about the 'trickle down' economy, culture wars, feminism - but these are unlikely to occur in any interactions I have anyway. When you get to a certain stage in your life (cough) you are more concerned about social stability and cohesion, stable economies which can thrive, employment and freedom of speech.


 "I must say no kind of extremist talk would ever come into conversations with people I know;…"

That's good, because, for example, even mild debating online (in such an unnatural state) accelerates aging and organ damage. Online debating is equivalent to smoking a pack a day. This to me is a curious scientific topic. Due to millions of years of natural selection individuals who are stressed out about relationships or squabbling between groups are written off (they're shunned and they die). This harsh outcome is afterall good for the survival of the species. And there's a feedback effect so that if you are perceived as unlikable you will internalize the negatives you expereince, and then those negatives will reinforce your unlikable behavior, on and on.

In the bigger picture all this is because we can't survive to reproduce on our own. We're curious creatures and 'evolution' has no interest in individuals. We need other people in order to have a high probability of reproducing our genes, in natural selection terms.


----------



## Varick

Strange Magic said:


> And now a little FBI something about The Proud Boys.....
> 
> "The FBI now classifies the far-right Proud Boys as an "extremist group with ties to white nationalism", according to a document produced by Washington state law enforcement.
> 
> The FBI's 2018 designation of the self-confessed "western chauvinist group" as extremist has not been previously made public.
> 
> Who are the Proud Boys, 'western chauvinists' involved in political violence?
> 
> The Proud Boys was founded by the Vice Media co-founder Gavin McInnes. McInnes has insisted that his group is not white nationalist or "alt-right" but the Proud Boys have a history of misogyny and glorifying violence. *The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) lists them as a hate group.*
> 
> The document also says: "The FBI has warned local law enforcement agencies that the Proud Boys are actively recruiting in the Pacific north-west", and: "Proud Boys members have contributed to the recent escalation of violence at political rallies held on college campuses, and in cities like Charlottesville, Virginia, Portland, Oregon, and Seattle, Washington."


Wow, a hate group that has absolutely ZERO credibility calls another group a hate group. If anyone is dumb enough to give the SPLC any credibility, then they deserve to believe the lies that are spewed by such a despicable organization as the SPLC.

V


----------



## Strange Magic

I notice that our friend Varick has chosen to ignore the input of the Federal Bureau of Investigation on the threats posed by the several Right groups discussed above--very careful, that. Two possibilities: A) Varick is not current on the day's events and thus has not heard of or been following the almost universally-expressed concerns of not only the FBI but also well-informed people on the Right end of the spectrum (_National Review_ folks, for instance; Republican senators), hence his wondering dismissal of talk of the possibility of Right White Supremacist and/or QAnon violence, should the election disappoint. B) The other possibility I leave to the imagination.......


----------



## Varick

The FBI has declared QAnon a domestic Terror threat (and maybe deservedly so), but they haven't declared ANTIFA, who has actually done domestic terrorism, burned buildings, committed violence, started riots is VERY well funded and VERY well organized, have training seminars on how to attack people (see Project Veritas reports on this. An organization who has infiltrated Google, Facebook, Twitter, and many other companies and organizations stated it was the hardest by far, organization to infiltrate they have ever done. Their recruitment techniques and security are up to scale to that of the FBI & CIA. I guarantee, very few people here know/knew these facts, so you see, you can't know everything about everything.), a Domestic Terror Organization. There is something truly rotten in Denmark.

And for those who are comprehensively challenged, I am not defending QAnon (like I said, I still know very little about them. If they are scumbags, then I want them stopped. I don't care what side of the political fence someone or a group is on. Scumbags need to be stopped, PERIOD!) or even the Proud Boys (although I do find it odd that a "racist" group with "ties to white nationalists" has 20% black members, and a considerable latin make up. I don't care WHAT you're ideology is, if you have a modicum of intelligence, that HAS to strike you as a bit bizarre. Things that make you go Hmmmm?).

I also find it funny that our Gov't agencies do nothing to stop these ANTIFA scumbags when they are rioting and looting, but when a group like the Proud Boys stand up to them (because our Law Enforcement has been told by our spineless politicians who run these cities to stand down and do nothing), that it's the groups like Proud Boys who "escalate the violence." Again, I don't care what side of the political fence one is on, if you have a SHRED of an instinct of justice and fair play, I don't see how you don't scratch your head over these glaring contradictions. 

This is the state of our media. The lengths of their mendacity. Their DELIBERATE cover ups of truth and reality. We are BATHED in lies every day by our media. Trump lies, there is no question about it, but the man also has told some potent truths. One of them was how our media IS a threat to our democracy. It took me years to come to terms with this very uncomfortable truth because I always thought brain washing via media could only happen in totalitarian countries and regimes. I never though it could happen where there was a free press like here in the west. But I was wrong. The level of brain washing that happens on a daily basis by our media and sense making apparatus in our country is staggering. Our Big Tech companies who run our social media are no better and may even be worse. 

I have always said that I don't care that ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, PBS, NY Times, Wash. Post, LA Times, Chicago Tribune, etc, Our Public School System, our colleges and universities, Hollywood, Time Magazine, Newsweek, Goggle, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc are all on the left and drive a leftist agenda. What drives me crazy is that NONE of them have the intellectual honesty or integrity TO ADMIT IT!

V

PS: And no, neither I or Trump is or EVER has advocated "silencing" our media. I believe in free speech, even if that speech is filled with lies. We should have a right to spread lies, even if it's from our media. But when truths to counter those lies are called "misinformation" and "lies" and that becomes our basis to censor such speech, we are in BIG trouble.


----------



## Strange Magic

Varick, why not simply google QAnon and inform yourself? Such long screeds fail to convince when they are preceded by announcements that you are not well informed on the subject. 

Trump has declared that the Press are "the Enemy of the People".


----------



## Varick

Strange Magic said:


> Varick, why not simply google QAnon and inform yourself? Such long screeds fail to convince when they are preceded by announcements that you are not well informed on the subject.


I will, but I could be 10 times more informed about them than you and it still would not convince. And one doesn't have to be well informed about specific group when discussing the overall bigger picture that one group happens to be part of.

One can talk about structures of symphonic form accurately without ever hearing a Mahler Symphony.



Strange Magic said:


> Trump has declared that the Press are "the Enemy of the People".


 Well, when a group or organization who states they are telling you facts and truths, when in reality they are often telling you the exact opposite and hundreds of millions of people rely on these organizations to tell them the truth and they aren't getting it, well, then, why wouldn't you consider said group an "enemy?" I certainly would.

To clarify, if there is a hurricane, or earthquake somewhere in the world and I am reading or watching a report on the richter scale measurements, how many people died and injured, how much damage was done and related issues, Yes, I pretty much assume I am getting accurate information.

But the moment there is any political issue or even aspect involved, that's where their credibility goes right out the window. They haven't earned nor deserve the public's trust. There is good reason why so few people trust our media, yet they keep doubling, tripling, and quadrupling down on their lies again and again and again. They deserve our contempt.

V


----------



## Jacck

Varick said:


> But the moment there is any political issue or even aspect involved, that's where their credibility goes right out the window. They haven't earned nor deserve the public's trust. There is good reason why so few people trust our media, yet they keep doubling, tripling, and quadrupling down on their lies again and again and again. They deserve our contempt.


then where do you get your news from? Are the right-wing media or so called alternative media more trustworthy? Or do you trust Facebook or Twitter?


----------



## Strange Magic

My own opinion, based on years of discussing Trumpism down in the Political Groups, is that Trumpism has become a form of religious ecstasy, with the concomitant rejection of much of the outside world (especially of information) shared by others. Observers of the QAnon phenomenon also see QAnon as another form of religious ecstasy, quite similar to Trumpism, with every indication that the two are merging. As I have read and noted, even some evangelical pastors are concerned that members of their flocks have been wandering from the religious precepts they previously professed and instead are embracing QAnon as a "faith".


----------



## Varick

Jacck said:


> then where do you get your news from? Are the right-wing media or so called alternative media more trustworthy? Or do you trust Facebook or Twitter?


It's a good and fair question: One of my mainstays is Realclearpolitics.com They collect from both left and right sources that have both accurate news reporting. They also post commentary as well from both sides. I still read a great deal from both left and right sources. Often between two articles from each side, you can garner what was not stated in either and/or what bordered on vagueness or suggestion instead of actual fact.

I also go to sources that have proven again again to be accurate in the facts stated. The New Republic still has good stuff that is on the left just as National Review has good stuff on the right. I filter through many news sources, but I try to avoid the extremes on either side such as Vox and The Nation (even the Nation has something good now and then)(on the left) and American Spectator (on the right) to give a few examples.

V

PS: I don't follow Facebook or Twitter. I follow news on how they censor and suppress views and information THEY deem unworthy (often factual information), but I hardly ever use these outlets. That will change (I don't see how to avoid it unfortunately) when I start my podcast.


----------



## Jacck

Varick said:


> PS: I don't follow Facebook or Twitter. I follow news on how they censor and suppress views and information THEY deem unworthy (often factual information), but I hardly ever use these outlets. That will change (I don't see how to avoid it unfortunately) when I start my podcast.


do you think it is so wrong to censor lies in a situation, when your enemies like Russia are waging information war? For example the Russians planted some emails on a forgotten notebook, that allegedly belonged to Hunter Biden. This "news" was so toxic that even Fox News did not want to touch it. And the Russian trolls and US counterparts then spread this "news" over Facebook, Twitter etc. Is is wrong to stop these lies for the sake of freedom of expression? Personally, I think the media should be much more tightly regulated and made responsible for their content.


----------



## Strange Magic

Here is realclearpolitics' Matt Taibbi on QAnon, who seems to neither endorse nor repudiate the cult; rather, Taibbi, in his usual fashion, chooses to use the QAnon controversy to further defend his belief that just about anything--true, false, completely made-up, or clearly the plant of idiots, psychopaths, or hostile foreign governments or criminal gangs--is just fine in the media, anywhere, any time. His faith in the ability of today's mass public to tease out the truth is truly touching, while at complete variance with today's reality, just as it was in Germany in 1933. Trump's own FBI considers QAnon a threat; it would have been refreshing to have Taibbi denounce QAnon as dangerous lunacy and to advise rigorous fact-checking as a minimum requirement for any medium propagating QAnon nonsense. But instead Taibbi retreats behind a curious defense of the First Amendment that permits him to "rise above" directly dealing with the veracity of QAnon's claims or the danger of mass belief in such claims. Here is Taibbi:

"In rough terms, QAnon is a gospel spun by “Q,” ostensibly a current or former government official, who keeps the public appraised of an epic secret battle between good and evil, undertaken in political shadows. The villains are a globalist pedophile ring involving the mega-rich, Hollywood actors, and the Clintons (among many others), while Donald Trump leads the army of the righteous. 

As Seventh-Day Adventists waited for the second coming, Q followers wait for the “storm,” a day when America-defenders led by Trump will round up the evildoers in a series of mass arrests. 

The movement went into overdrive three years ago when Trump, in characteristically head-scratching fashion, appeared to tease the concept in front of baffled pool reporters.

“You know what this represents?” he asked. “The calm before the storm.”

“What storm, Mr. President?”

“You’ll find out.”

Q was launched three years ago, in the wake of scandal involving its prequel movement, the Pizzagate theory about pedophile Democrats abusing kids in the basement of a Washington, D.C. pizzeria. Since that case there have been a series of incidents tied to Q followers that make the case for that “offline harm” reporters are always talking about. For instance, an Illinois woman named Jessica Prim traveled to New York in possession of a “dozen illegal knives,” apparently with a plan to kill Joe Biden. “Have you heard about the kids?” Prim supposedly asked through tears, while being arrested. 

QAnon followers have been tied to a range of other acts, from the trivial (a man raising a Q flag above his Cornish castle) to the deadly serious (a 24 year-old accused of shooting and killing a Gambino mob figure in Staten Island). A chorus of people complaining they’ve lost friends and family members to the cult-like movement is among the most upsetting parts of the Q story. It’s not uncommon to hear about marriages thrown on the rocks after one member goes down the Internet rabbit hole and begins to see the other as “part of the narrative.”"


----------



## Varick

Jacck said:


> do you think it is so wrong to censor lies in a situation, when your enemies like Russia are waging information war? For example the Russians planted some emails on a forgotten notebook, that allegedly belonged to Hunter Biden. This "news" was so toxic that even Fox News did not want to touch it. And the Russian trolls and US counterparts then spread this "news" over Facebook, Twitter etc. Is is wrong to stop these lies for the sake of freedom of expression? Personally, I think the media should be much more tightly regulated and made responsible for their content.


Maybe it wouldn't be wrong if they were lies. However, there is no evidence that the Russians planted these emails. Ratcliffe (Director of National Security) even confirmed this: the emails on it _"is not part of some Russian disinformation campaign."_ If it was, I'd have to hand it to the Russians: Creating a fake hard drive with 11,000 emails - many personal to Hunter's family - and 1000's of photos, including family pics and some homemade porn. And then they planted it in a little PC repair shot in Wilmington, DE. I gotta say, that is SOME detailed work to "frame" someone that may or may NOT derail a campaign.

But even then, I have my doubts whether they should stop. You and I do agree on one thing though: The media SHOULD be made responsible for their content. Again, I get a little perplexed though, thinking about how that could happen WITHOUT infringing on their rights of free speech.

I will tell you what is wrong: Shutting down videos of Doctors, scientists, and others in the medical profession on Facebook and YouTube talking about their successes, tests, studies, and results of hydroxychloroquine, or how we should open up our societies and stop the lock downs which they say are having far more devastating effects than they are preventing. Agree or disagree with these notions, there are THOUSANDS of well qualified people making these statements. But the Facebooks, Twitters, YouTubes have THEMSELVES deemed this as false information.

I'm sorry, but I get very scared by very few things. But here's one of them: Anyone or any group who feels that THEY are qualified or worthy to decide what constitutes "lies," "misinformation," or "hate speech" to the point where THEY should have the power to suppress or censor said speech is a SCARY individual or group and should be the VERY LAST person or group allowed to do so! History has shown with crystal like clarity how that ends up!

V

PS: I just checked (because I don't follow them either), Fox News has plenty of stories regarding the Hunter Biden laptop.


----------



## Flamme

Some people '''love'' the opposites, consider it a ''challenge''...


----------



## Jacck

Varick said:


> Maybe it wouldn't be wrong if they were lies. However, there is no evidence that the Russians planted these emails. Ratcliffe (Director of National Security) even confirmed this: the emails on it _"is not part of some Russian disinformation campaign."_ If it was, I'd have to hand it to the Russians: Creating a fake hard drive with 11,000 emails - many personal to Hunter's family - and 1000's of photos, including family pics and some homemade porn. And then they planted it in a little PC repair shot in Wilmington, DE. I gotta say, that is SOME detailed work to "frame" someone that may or may NOT derail a campaign.


the whole Trump administration and by extension the whole GOP have became totally untrustworthy. Radcliffe is a Trump loyalist and that is likely his only real qualification. 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...9c43d4-5ca7-11ea-9055-5fa12981bbbf_story.html

Michael Hayden, a retired U.S. Air Force general and former director of the CIA and the National Security Agency, had this to say about Ratcliffe: 

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1318209029282385921"This idiot is abusing his office by politicizing it. The head of the intelligence community should be hands off on politics. This is reprehensible! Vote for Trump and you'll get more of it. We will be just like Russia or China. A tin pot dictatorship."



> But even then, I have my doubts whether they should stop. You and I do agree on one thing though: The media SHOULD be made responsible for their content. Again, I get a little perplexed though, thinking about how that could happen WITHOUT infringing on their rights of free speech.


I read that you something called the fairness doctrine in the past and the Republicans dismantled it, thus paving way for sorry state of the media today
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Fairness-Doctrine



> I will tell you what is wrong: Shutting down videos of Doctors, scientists, and others in the medical profession on Facebook and YouTube talking about their successes, tests, studies, and results of hydroxychloroquine, or how we should open up our societies and stop the lock downs which they say are having far more devastating effects than they are preventing. Agree or disagree with these notions, there are THOUSANDS of well qualified people making these statements. But the Facebooks, Twitters, YouTubes have THEMSELVES deemed this as false information.


hydroxychloroquine is quackery. Trump promoted it to raise the stocks of the companies making it. No serious doctor today would dare to promote it
https://www.covid19treatmentguideli...roxychloroquine-with-or-without-azithromycin/

I read some EU report that blamed Russia for spreading COVID disinformation and stoking the anti-mask protests in the EU. We also had here couple of doctors arguing against lockdowns and masks etc (a narcisst heart surgeon and a narcissist stomatologist). They undermined the trust of the public and thanks to them we now have the worst outbreak in the world. Doctors from intensive care units made videos and told them to finally STFU. And they did finally STFU.


----------



## Varick

Jacck said:


> the whole Trump administration and by extension the whole GOP have became totally untrustworthy. Radcliffe is a Trump loyalist and that is likely his only real qualification.
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...9c43d4-5ca7-11ea-9055-5fa12981bbbf_story.html
> 
> Michael Hayden, a retired U.S. Air Force general and former director of the CIA and the National Security Agency, had this to say about Ratcliffe:
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1318209029282385921"*This idiot is abusing his office by politicizing it. The head of the intelligence community should be hands off on politics.* This is reprehensible! Vote for Trump and you'll get more of it. We will be just like Russia or China. A tin pot dictatorship."


That's rich, of someone accusing someone else of politicizing the intelligence community and other Gov't agencies after the Russian Collusion Hoax perpetrated on the American public for over two years and using the IRS to suppress Conservative organizations from gaining tax-exempt status.



Jacck said:


> I read that you something called the fairness doctrine in the past and the Republicans dismantled it, thus paving way for sorry state of the media today
> https://www.britannica.com/topic/Fairness-Doctrine


Sorry, but dismantling the Fairness Doctrine (my, how the left manipulates language. They are true masters of it) did not pave the way in any way, shape, or form for the sorry state of the media today. The Fairness Doctrine was about forcing talk radio to have someone left of center on for every hour they broadcast someone right of center. The entire idea was a joke. Where is there a "Fairness Doctrine" for ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, LA Times, Wash. Post, St. Louis Dispatch, Time Magazine, Public Schools, colleges and universities, etc???? Basically, the left was upset that they were not in control of EVERY major media outlet in this country. AM Talk Radio was the ONLY place the left had no ground in. And when they tried it with "Air America" in the free and open market of talk radio, they failed miserably and went out of business. It's no wonder, anyone in the US had 20-30 main stream outlets for leftist content. They had ONE outlet for Conservative content: Talk Radio (then later came Fox News). There was no market for Left wing talk radio, they had every other market already taken. At least Talk Radio outright ADMITTED they were conservative. You don't even have that level of honesty in the left/main stream media.

And they had the AUDACITY to call it a "*Fair*ness Doctrine." Good Lord!

This is what the left does all the time: If they don't have complete control in the game, they change the game. We don't like the fact that the electoral college works and two of our guys lost the popular vote: Solution: Dismantle the electoral college. We don't like the fact that this will be the first time in over 60 years (Most American's lifetime) the Supreme Court will have a conservative majority. Solution: If The Dems get control of the White House and Senate, PACK THE COURT!!!! They are the biggest bunch of cry baby losers. If they don't win the game, change the game! They are despicable. And you say the GOP is untrustworthy? Maybe, but they can't come close to the Dems.



Jacck said:


> hydroxychloroquine is quackery. Trump promoted it to raise the stocks of the companies making it. No serious doctor today would dare to promote it
> https://www.covid19treatmentguideli...roxychloroquine-with-or-without-azithromycin/


Is that why THOUSANDS of Doctors promote it, have used it to cure TENS OF THOUSANDS of patients with it, how when N.E. Journal of Medicine (NEJM) and The Lancet (England's version of the NEJM) came out with articles about how dangerous hydroxychlorquine was, within a week, they both pulled them because those studies were complete frauds. The Editor of The Lancet even apologized and said he was embarrassed that he even allowed that article to be published in his journal? There are two reasons why there is this pushback against it 1. the Orange man in the White House said it was good. It is COMPLETELY political. At worst, hydroxychloroquine does nothing. It has been a safe drug used for decades for Lupus patients, malaria, and a few other conditions. 2. The "triple" pronged attack against Covid (Hydroxych., zinc, and azithromycin comes to about $20 a dose. NO ONE is getting rich off that formula. So, let's wait until we get a "vaccine" that costs hundreds or thousands per dose. NOW we can make some REAL money. So let's bash hydroxych. and make sure it doesn't see the light of day.



Jacck said:


> I read some EU report that blamed Russia for spreading COVID disinformation and stoking the anti-mask protests in the EU. We also had here couple of doctors arguing against lockdowns and masks etc (a narcisst heart surgeon and a narcissist stomatologist). They undermined the trust of the public and thanks to them we now have the worst outbreak in the world. Doctors from intensive care units made videos and told them to finally STFU. And they did finally STFU.


Is that why almost 1,000 doctors in Belgium (That's a lot of doctors for one country. Belgium isn't exactly a HUGE country) wrote an open letter to their politicians and public health officials against the lockdown. Is that why over 30,000 Medical professionals have signed the Great Barrington Declaration written and organized by 3 of the top epidemiologists and virus researchers from Harvard, Stanford, & Oxford? And getting more signatures by the day. They didn't STFU and thank god they didn't. They just got censored by the media and social media.

V


----------



## Strange Magic

It would be useful and more convincing if Varick would supply any links to reputable medical journals, sources, experts, studies that asset any of the claims he makes in the above post for hydroxychloroquine. Any links at all.


----------



## Varick

And my Lord Russia is a busy country. Creating fake hard drives like the one found in Hunter's laptop, manipulating US elections, controlling Trump (My favorite - the man has been 20X harder on Russian in his first 2 years than Obama even DREAMED of being in 8), spreading COVID misinformation all over the EU. Is there any running water left in Russia? It would be something having time to do all those things and maintain basic infrastructure. They are something, those pesky Russians!

V


----------



## Varick

Strange Magic said:


> It would be useful and more convincing if Varick would supply any links to reputable medical journals, sources, experts, studies that asset any of the claims he makes in the above post for hydroxychloroquine. Any links at all.


I don't have links because most of what I've learned is from interviews and videos from YouTube (often pulled and closed down soon after I watched). However, I'll give you some names:

- Dr. Joseph Varon, Cheif Medical Officer. Houston's United Memorial Medical Center
- Dr. Vladimir Zelenko from Lennox Hill Hospital
- Dr. Brian Tyson in California
- Henry Ford Institute

To name a few off the top of my head. I'm not even advocating the stuff, but saying it is harmful is just outright false. You wanted me to search about QAnon (and I am and will be continuing to do so). Do some searches yourself. I don't care if you find the vast majority of articles against it. There is still enough (plenty) of Dr's who have and are still using it.

I work in hospitals every day. I visit 2-4 every day for work. I talk with Dr's & Nurses, and other health practitioners. Almost in every hospital I have spoken with Dr's and nurses in, they all have said the same thing: The majority of Dr's and Nurses who are in constant contact with Covid Patients are taking it THEMSELVES as a prophylactic. Not so much in the past few months, but definitely when it came out and during the summer. I'm just getting over my second week of isolation from having Covid myself. I am taking the 3 pack (Hydroxich. zinc, and azithromycin), by the third day, my symptoms greatly reduced. By the 4th day, my smell and taste came back and by the 5th day I was feeling about 90% better.

I have no dog in this race. I'm a pretty healthy person. I juice, I eat healthy, I exercise, I take supplements every day and have since I was a child. Maybe this would have been the result anyway without the 3 pack. But to call it quackery, or deny medical professionals to give their medical experience and opinions about this stuff is just wrong. What ever happened to "follow the science?" Only science SOME believe in? Since when has science EVER been "settled?" That goes against everything the scientific method is about.

V


----------



## Guest

Great comments, Varick, as usual.


----------



## Strange Magic

I am disappointed at the lack of shareable, reputable sources other than hearsay and YouTube videos. Medical truth should be made of sterner stuff.


----------



## Guest

Here's a medical truth: Americans have the world's highest rates of obesity, diabetes, arteriosclerotic disease and high blood pressure. That makes them VERY susceptible to serious health complications like Covid-19.

Highest demographic of people dying of Covid? Over 65-70 years.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm#AgeAndSex

Current life expectancy USA: 78.54 years as of circa 2010.

YOU DO THE MATH.


----------



## Strange Magic

Could not agree more. USA health statistics are horrible. Probably in part due to the fact that a large percentage of the American population live in third-world conditions and have one of the least efficient, most expensive healthcare delivery systems in the developed world. Thank you for adding your voice to the many decrying the current situation!


----------



## Strange Magic

I've done my usual research on strange claims, this time by Varick. Dr Joseph Varon appears to be a serious medical doctor in Houston TX, working hard against COVID and frustrated by public stupidity. Several newspaper accounts testify to his dedication but say nothing of his enthusiasm for hydroxychloroquine. Dr. Vladimir Zelenko is another kind of fish, this time rotten:

Winner of the Skeptical Scalpel Award: "Our next second-place awardee is Dr. Vladimir “Zev” Zelenko, family practitioner and major proponent of the use of hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and azithromycin to treat COVID -19. Among his claims is that he treated anywhere from 300 to 1450 COVID-19 patients. Of 405 high risk patients treated early in the course of their illnesses, there were “2 deaths, four on respirators. The rest recovered fully.” Those are mighty impressive numbers, but no one else has seen the data. It should come as no surprise that the fact checking website Snopes was unable to substantiate his claims.

After community leaders in the town where he practiced criticized him for spreading misinformation, Zelenko decided to leave his practice—destination unknown."

I'll work up Dr. Brian Tyson next. Stay tuned.


----------



## Strange Magic

Note: the Skeptical Scalpel Awards are issued by Physician's Weekly.com

Dr. Brian Tyson appears also to be a serious doctor (family medicine) and a True Believer in hydroxychloroquine. Here is an account of his public efforts against COVID. The assertion that he was told to "stop testing" is interesting. I assume he means stop testing hydroxycholoroquine; stop prescribing it. This probably as no study showed that it was effective.

"Dr. Tyson is a board-certified family medical physician. He has 14 years of experience with hospital and emergency rooms. 

“We looked the coronavirus head on. We saw over 20,000 patients in person,” said Dr. Tyson. According to him, he treated 1,900 positive patients whose age ranged from 11-months to 90-years old.

“We treated this virus early. We treated this virus aggressively. We only had one hospitalization and zero deaths. Zero deaths, because we were not going to stand by and allow people to die without treatment,” Dr. Tyson said. 

“We were at the heart of the pandemic due to our large Hispanic and diabetic population.” Dr. Tyson said Imperial Valley shares an international border in the south with Mexicali, Mexico which has a population of 1.5 million residents. 

“We were told to stop testing. We were told to stop prescribing. But we didn’t. We continued to treat patients,” said Dr. Tyson. “We sent them home with treatment. We re-evaluated and every one of them survived.”

Finally, he said we can go back to school, to work, to life, and to being American again. “We do not need to let fear take away our freedom.” 

These three doctors I looked at just demonstrate that there are to be found enthusiasts for just about anything in medicine--the Internet is full of "Doctors say, Don't Eat This, Take That, etc." without any serious studies backing them up, just a personal enthusiasm. That is the case with hydroxychlorolquine. But it is exciting to invent a vast conspiracy to withhold this Wonder Drug from the public.....


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> Could not agree more. USA health statistics are horrible. Probably in part due to the fact that a large percentage of the American population live in third-world conditions and have one of the least efficient, most expensive healthcare delivery systems in the developed world. Thank you for adding your voice to the many decrying the current situation!


I won't 'decry' the situation because people make personal choices and I won't subscribe to the blame game; that old mantra gets nobody anywhere. Without personal human agency and choices people are just like the characters in "Soylent Green" - eating green stuff fed to them by the government. News scoop 1: even poor people can have human dignity about the things they choose to do. Recommended reading: Theodore Dalrymple "*Life at the Bottom*". He has huge experience with this demographic in his role as a UK prison psychiatrist. It's sobering stuff. *Many people,* he says, who live in public housing don't know how to use an oven because they buy McDonalds every day instead of eating properly or LEARNING how to cook. News scoop 2: McDonalds is dearer than buying cheap cuts of meat and basic vegetables.

If millions of Americans live in third world conditions (I don't know as I don't live there) what in the name of all that's holy are you doing still wanting many millions more impoverished people from Mexico coming into your country? These people will work for lower wages, and working class wages (indeed some middle class too) largely are built on a supply and demand equation - exactly the same as real estate prices. Creating many more mouths to feed from the same-sized pie; you don't have to be a rocket scientist to know that the people get *LESS*, not more. My 11 year old grandson would know this!! At some point self-preservation has to kick in here for the American people. But a shrill minority which runs things won't even let the discussion be had.

Debt is also a huge drag; not only on the national psyche but on the government's ability to spend more freely on important infrastructure and projects. We have the same in Australia, with burgeoning national debt. Some people don't care about it; I most certainly do because I don't want my children and their children effectively becoming indentured slaves to pay back debt.

These are all complex problems that require co-operative solutions; above all, they require governments with ticker enough to address them. Or, to at least have an understanding of *how* to fix them. It's very hard trying to run a country with the huge amount of white noise surrounding governments. In my experience in life if you're going to eat an elephant you can't eat it all up at once.

I've come back to edit this and add a podcast which might be of interest: it is long!!


----------



## Strange Magic

Christabel, your essays from Oz, far away, are fascinating. And long. And reflect an insularity of outlook befitting an islander. I'll paraphrase the above as a message to the American disadvantaged to lift themselves up from misery by their own bootstraps. Re Australia: being an island country certainly helps Australians to fend off the invading hordes more effectively than we poor souls here in the USA. Perhaps you could instruct us on how to saw off our neighbors. I think a good idea for the USA is to bring up the countries to our south to our quite low standards and to eliminate our thirst for illegal drugs. A choice: hide behind walls and seas, or attempt to solve problems and help others. A good dose of female equality to both raise up women and children and to put a brake on population growth would also help. Religious fanaticism would have to be tinkered with in order to accomplish that, however. Everybody has much to do--time to get started.


----------



## Strange Magic

An interesting concept, quite possibly new to Australians, is that of the "food desert" here in the USA. Things clearly are much better managed in Oz, or initial conditions are profoundly different, in that food deserts are unknown there, and that's a plus. Here are the opening paragraphs of Wikipedia's informative entry on food deserts:

"A food desert is an area that has limited access to affordable and nutritious food, in contrast with an area with higher access to supermarkets or vegetable shops with fresh foods, which is called a food oasis. The designation considers the type and quality of food available to the population, in addition to the accessibility of the food through the size and proximity of the food stores.

In 2010, the United States Department of Agriculture reported that 23.5 million people in the U.S. live in "food deserts", meaning that they live more than one mile from a supermarket in urban or suburban areas and more than 10 miles from a supermarket in rural areas.

Food deserts tend to be inhabited by low-income residents with reduced mobility; this makes them a less attractive market for large supermarket chains. Food deserts lack suppliers of fresh foods, such as meats, fruits, and vegetables. Instead, the available foods are often processed and high in sugar and fats, which are known contributors to the proliferation of obesity in the U.S."

What this situation needs for solution are strong bootstraps and a healthy population to pull up on them energetically.


----------



## Jacck

The Answer to Extremism Isn't More Extremism
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/10/left-and-right-are-radicalizing-each-other/616914/


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> An interesting concept, quite possibly new to Australians, is that of the "food desert" here in the USA. Things clearly are much better managed in Oz, or initial conditions are profoundly different, in that food deserts are unknown there, and that's a plus. Here are the opening paragraphs of Wikipedia's informative entry on food deserts:
> 
> "A food desert is an area that has limited access to affordable and nutritious food, in contrast with an area with higher access to supermarkets or vegetable shops with fresh foods, which is called a food oasis. The designation considers the type and quality of food available to the population, in addition to the accessibility of the food through the size and proximity of the food stores.
> 
> In 2010, the United States Department of Agriculture reported that 23.5 million people in the U.S. live in "food deserts", meaning that they live more than one mile from a supermarket in urban or suburban areas and more than 10 miles from a supermarket in rural areas.
> 
> Food deserts tend to be inhabited by low-income residents with reduced mobility; this makes them a less attractive market for large supermarket chains. Food deserts lack suppliers of fresh foods, such as meats, fruits, and vegetables. Instead, the available foods are often processed and high in sugar and fats, which are known contributors to the proliferation of obesity in the U.S."
> 
> What this situation needs for solution are strong bootstraps and a healthy population to pull up on them energetically.


You need to listen to the podcast I gave you; they discuss what happens when the Left goes unchecked. (Dr. Weinstein is a self-declared Left liberal.) It has zero to do with insularity. On the contrary, Australians are more savvy when it comes to political geography and politics in general than most Americans. Blaming the government for all your ills has a definite sell-by date. But your undergrad ideologies are unlikely to be bent in any way, shape or form. I'm wasting my time talking to you but others here might read it and agree, or at least think about these important issues. Judging by the private messages I get here I'd say they are.

I was in the USA in the early 1970s and absolutely flabbergasted by the (sometimes rubbish) food that was consumed, and in such abundant servings. Watch the cooking shows on TV and you'll see what I mean; the American food is high in fat and sugar, just for starters.


----------



## Guest

Jacck said:


> The Answer to Extremism Isn't More Extremism
> https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/10/left-and-right-are-radicalizing-each-other/616914/


But this is inevitable when conservatives and the Left stop talking to each other; this is discussed at length in the podcast I posted here between Dr. Bret Weinstein and Douglas Murray. Here are two people demonstrating what was the main idea behind this thread in the first place; that people from both sides of the political spectrum can discuss issues respectfully, but this is less likely in more highly-charged personal relationships.

In the UK the Labour party has had to 'sack' Jeremy Corbyn; this is the man they wanted to be Prime Minister. Why? His rampant anti-semitism (on the rise in Europe - didn't see that coming!!).


----------



## Jacck

Christabel said:


> But this is inevitable when conservatives and the Left stop talking to each other; this is discussed at length in the podcast I posted here between Dr. Bret Weinstein and Douglas Murray. Here are two people demonstrating what was the main idea behind this thread in the first place; that people from both sides of the political spectrum can discuss issues respectfully, but this is less likely in more highly-charged personal relationships.
> 
> In the UK the Labour party has had to 'sack' Jeremy Corbyn; this is the man they wanted to be Prime Minister. Why? His rampant anti-semitism (on the rise in Europe - didn't see that coming!!).


as far as I can be the judge of it, in the US the radicalization started on the right. People like Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh started it with their hate mongering, demonizing of the left etc
https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2020/07/07/newt-gingrich-republican-party
Neither Clinton nor Obama were the marxist demons that the right tries to make then into. They were both quite moderate. Both Bush jr and Trump are pretty extremist.


----------



## Flamme

I don't think it is even possible to be with someone who is totally opposite of you, only in a case, one of you throws away his own beliefs and embraces the worldview of another...Otherwise its the never ending stream of fights, quarrels and conflicts...Marriage is in itself difficult in these times even without these ''differences''.


----------



## Guest

Jacck said:


> as far as I can be the judge of it, in the US the radicalization started on the right. People like Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh started it with their hate mongering, demonizing of the left etc
> https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2020/07/07/newt-gingrich-republican-party
> Neither Clinton nor Obama were the marxist demons that the right tries to make then into. They were both quite moderate. Both Bush jr and Trump are pretty extremist.


You would say that as a person of the Left, of course!! Obama had 8 years to right the wrongs and sat on his hands, except for Obamacare. In short, much went wrong on his watch and continued to go wrong. But he loved the sound of his own voice and came to Australia to lecture us about the Great Barrier Reef. We wanted to say to him, "haven't you got your own problems to be getting on with?".

No society is perfect; if you're looking for that you exhaust yourself. Watch the podcast; both men discuss the woeful American education system. Surely this is a problem in preparing people for the global economic realities. We have similar problems here with education which has, at a school level initially, become fertile ground for propaganda. Our literacy and numeracy rates are now below that of Kazakhstan. But they sure know all about 'invasion' of aboriginal Australia by white settlers!! Wash/rinse/repeat.

The traditional institutions of church, state and corporations have shaken the trust of the people to the core; the answer to that is DIALOGUE and keeping what works and regulating the rest - not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Conservatives have been very poor at policing their institutions in the past but the current overreach and hatred isn't the answer either.

And nobody has yet answered my question about why you want millions of impoverished Mexicans et al in your nation when your own people are living on the streets? The people en mass are not going to take such foolishness seriously. Well, let me reframe that; no people who will grow and thrive will take it seriously.


----------



## Chilham

Christabel said:


> ... Obama had 8 years to right the wrongs and sat on his hands, except for Obamacare. In short, much went wrong on his watch and continued to go wrong....


Such as? ...............


----------



## Jacck

Christabel said:


> You would say that as a person of the Left, of course!! Obama had 8 years to right the wrongs and sat on his hands, except for Obamacare. In short, much went wrong on his watch and continued to go wrong. But he loved the sound of his own voice and came to Australia to lecture us about the Great Barrier Reef. We wanted to say to him, "haven't you got your own problems to be getting on with?".
> 
> No society is perfect; if you're looking for that you exhaust yourself. Listen to the podcast; both men discuss the woeful American education system. Surely this is a problem in preparing people for the global economic realities. We have similar problems here with education which has, at a school level initially, becomes fertile ground for propaganda. Our literacy and numeracy rates are now below that of Kazakhstan. But they sure know all about 'invasion' of aboriginal Australia by white settlers!! Wash/rinse/repeat.
> 
> The traditional institutions of church, state and corporations have shaken the trust of the people to the core; the answer to that is DIALOGUE and keeping what works and regulating the rest - not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Conservatives have been very poor at policing their institutions in the past but the current overreach and hatred isn't the answer either.
> 
> And nobody has yet answered my question about why you want millions of impoverished Mexicans et al in your nation when your own people are living on the streets? The people en mass are not going to take such foolishness seriously. Well, let me reframe that; no people who will grow and thrive will take it seriously.


Obama made several serious mistakes. First, he should have investigated and prosecuted people from the Bush administration. Second, he should have investigated and prosecuted those banksters responsible for the financial crisis of 2008. But he only really had two years to do anything, after that Moscow Mitch was blocking everything he did.


----------



## Guest

Chilham said:


> Such as? ...............


Did somebody mention 'income inequality'? Why did the people vote for a President who offered them jobs and bringing industry back to the USA? Does that provide any hints at all?


----------



## Guest

Jacck said:


> Obama made several serious mistakes. First, he should have investigated and prosecuted people from the Bush administration. Second, he should have investigated and prosecuted those banksters responsible for the financial crisis of 2008. But he only really had two years to do anything, after that Moscow Mitch was blocking everything he did.


"Investigation" and "prosecution" - two lovely words from the old soviet project!! But HOW does that provide people with jobs?


----------



## Jacck

Christabel said:


> "Investigation" and "prosecution" - two lovely words from the old soviet project!! But HOW does that provide people with jobs?


They say that young people today increasingly distrust democracy and sociologists see the main reason in 2008, when the banksters went unpunished.


----------



## Flamme

Its such a dreadful time for any kind of relationship, whether friendly or emotional...People show their worse faces...I feel it started before covid, I saw such outbursts since spring last year. Withoit a visible reason or ''provocation'' I saw many go off the deep end literally stab you in the back when you needed them the most..


----------



## Varick

Christabel said:


>


This one was next on my list to watch/listen to. I am big fan of both these men. Truly great minds and intellects, and on different sides of the political fence. I have always wanted to meet Eric and Bret and tell them they are not "radicals" or "leftists" or "progressives." They are "Liberals." They think way too clearly to be leftists. They are both classic liberals, and it blows my mind that as intelligent as they both are, they haven't connected these dots together yet. Classic liberalism is a wonderful thing, and is at direct odds with leftism. The problem is, that most classic liberals have no idea that they have 1000X more in common with modern American conservatism than they do with leftism.

V


----------



## Bulldog

Jacck said:


> Obama made several serious mistakes. First, he should have investigated and prosecuted people from the Bush administration. Second, he should have investigated and prosecuted those banksters responsible for the financial crisis of 2008. But he only really had two years to do anything, after that Moscow Mitch was blocking everything he did.


In those two years, Obama's big mistake was in trying to get bilateral support from the Republicans, and it never happened. To a significant degree, he squandered the two years.


----------



## Bulldog

It amazes me that we have a member from Europe and one from Australia who think they have the ills of the United States figured out.


----------



## Kieran

I've never fallen out with anyone over their politics or faith, regardless of if it's diametrically opposed to mine. And no, that doesn't mean I'd tolerate hard left nuts or far right loons, or terrorists. I mean, within my circle, there are none of those, but I know some very strongly opinionated people of all sides, who I might disagree with til the end of the earth, and I enjoy to get into it with them - then get in the next round of drinks, if it's my twist.

If a person can't listen and disagree civilly, then they might be the actual problem, not their friends or close ones...


----------



## Varick

Kieran said:


> I've never fallen out with anyone over their politics or faith, regardless of if it's diametrically opposed to mine. And no, that doesn't mean I'd tolerate hard left nuts or far right loons, or terrorists. I mean, within my circle, there are none of those, *but I know some very strongly opinionated people of all sides, who I might disagree with til the end of the earth, and I enjoy to get into it with them - then get in the next round of drinks, if it's my twist.
> 
> If a person can't listen and disagree civilly, then they might be the actual problem, not their friends or close ones...*


Bingo! Couldn't have said it better myself!

V


----------



## Chilham

Christabel said:


> Did somebody mention 'income inequality'? Why did the people vote for a President who offered them jobs and bringing industry back to the USA? Does that provide any hints at all?


I was expecting a list, but don't worry.


----------



## Flamme

Bulldog said:


> It amazes me that we have a member from Europe and one from Australia who think they have the ills of the United States figured out.


As many have pointed out before there is TOO MUCH American politics seeping through every topic...I don't even pretend I have the answer...


----------



## Varick

Bulldog said:


> It amazes me that we have a member from Europe and one from Australia who think they have the ills of the United States figured out.


I don't think that automatically discounts them, their ideas, or opinions. I have met plenty the foreigner who knows more about what's going on in the US than most Americans (I would place the aformentioned in that group). I've been in many countries and met natives that knew less than I did about their country. Being well informed nowadays is no longer a herculean task. Never has mankind had this level of information literally SECONDS away at any moment.

V


----------



## Bulldog

Varick said:


> I don't think that automatically discounts them, their ideas, or opinions. I have met plenty the foreigner who knows more about what's going on in the US than most Americans (I would place the aformentioned in that group). I've been in many countries and met natives that knew less than I did about their country. Being well informed nowadays is no longer a herculean task. Never has mankind had this level of information literally SECONDS away at any moment.


Understood, but reading about the country and/or playing a visit is far different than actually living here for decades. I would simply ask that folks from other countries concentrate on fixing the major problems in their own neck of the woods.


----------



## Strange Magic

Christabel, I am sponsoring you for honorary but full American Right Wing membership and participation, antipodean chapter. Please join us down in the Political Groups where we can have a full exchange of views. Again, I applaud your scathing condemnation of the American diet, and have passed on your thoughts to the POTUS, a gourmet, while eating my Vegemite sandwich.



> Christabel: "You need to listen to the podcast I gave you; they discuss what happens when the Left goes unchecked. (Dr. Weinstein is a self-declared Left liberal.) It has zero to do with insularity. On the contrary, Australians are more savvy when it comes to political geography and politics in general than most Americans. Blaming the government for all your ills has a definite sell-by date. But your undergrad ideologies are unlikely to be bent in any way, shape or form. I'm wasting my time talking to you but others here might read it and agree, or at least think about these important issues. Judging by the private messages I get here I'd say they are."


The above is a remarkable non-sequitur to my post about food deserts--I intend to treasure it as such and refer to it as an example. And your eagerness for me to listen to your recommended podcasts and perhaps, with Varick, attend to select YouTube videos, is noted, but I'm mostly a reader of serious authorities and experts--call me old-fashioned.

I'm not sure I blame the government for all of our ills--that seems more a Right impulse: Universally Bad Government, Always Good Private Enterprise--I think there is enough blame to go around here. For me, one of the greatest Lost Opportunities was the failure of Ronald Reagan, The Great Communicator, to seriously address the nation's ills--instead he jettisoned honest Tax and Spend economic policies for the aptly-named Voodoo Economics of Borrow and Spend, linked of course to massive tax cuts for the already rich. Except for a brief interlude under Clinton, the rest is history. But, as you are an outsider, and likely quite young, I do not expect this to be familiar territory for you. I remember it like it was yesterday: my undergrad enthusiasm and intellectual energy!

I close this post by commiserating with all Australians on the toll that AGW is taking on the Great Barrier Reef and the catastrophic wildfires. We're undergoing our own fire and hurricane pandemics as well as the COVID crisis, and salute Australia for its enlightened appreciation for what science and the scientists are telling us. If only that was the case here!


----------



## Strange Magic

Christabel said:


> Did somebody mention 'income inequality'? Why did the people vote for a President who offered them jobs and bringing industry back to the USA? Does that provide any hints at all?


Rhetorical questions! Much preferred to clearly stating a position and supplying some documentation. Less work. We're familiar with this shortcut/short circuit down in the Political Groups.


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> Rhetorical questions! Much preferred to clearly stating a position and supplying some documentation. Less work. We're familiar with this shortcut/short circuit down in the Political Groups.


Facts are not the Left's strong suit anyway. Sadly, as Thomas Sowell has said, "the Left doesn't like facts because they find these emotionally unsatisfying".

I supplied 'documentation' to you about the cohort dying from the pandemic and you batted it away.

But relax; your man will make it to the White House and all will be well again. Peace, harmony and economic prosperity to all just around the corner. What's not to love?

We had an election in an Australian state overnight and the people voted overwhelmingly in what was essentially a Covid-19 themed election. Our federal government has paid the states to shut Australians out of Queensland, Victoria and Western Australia; some of those states have one case each right now!!

Talking to a Lefty is like having a conversation with a television set. To that end, no further contributions from me on this topic as it's like banging your head against a brick wall; it's nice when you stop!! And I don't like punching below my weight.


----------



## Jacck

Christabel said:


> Facts are not the Left's strong suit anyway. Sadly, as Thomas Sowell has said, "the Left doesn't like facts because they find these emotionally unsatisfying".


I wonder how many people who use the word fact could actually define it in an exact manner. The word fact is problematic even in hard sciences. Your right-wing facts are just claims that your political camp accepts as being true, while the other camp does not necessarily accepts them as being true. But to prove the truthfulness of a fact is an extraordinarily hard undertaking. The search for truth is very difficult, as every scientist knows.

My personal opinion about the matter is that most people lack the ability to think in probabilistic and conditional terms. Maybe a certain level of intelligence (IQ>120?) is required to be able to do that? My level of education is well above average, I am able to follow scientific papers, yet even I find it very hard to find truth about such matters as global warming. So I will read the different experts and the different perspectives and at the end of it, I will conclude that I am not really sure about it. I am uncertain and I think in conditional and probabilistic terms, weighting various possibilities etc. Stupid people suffer from no uncertainty. They think they know so called "facts" (which are just claims that they tend to believe without any evidence or just based on authority or their own prejudice).


----------



## Strange Magic

r


Christabel said:


> Here's a medical truth: Americans have the world's highest rates of obesity, diabetes, arteriosclerotic disease and high blood pressure. That makes them VERY susceptible to serious health complications like Covid-19.
> 
> Highest demographic of people dying of Covid? Over 65-70 years.
> 
> https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm#AgeAndSex
> 
> Current life expectancy USA: 78.54 years as of circa 2010.
> 
> YOU DO THE MATH.


Christabel puts great weight upon this post of hers and says I "batted it away". What is the explicit point the post is making, how is it relevant, and, if relevent, to what other point was it related or relevent? I certainly did not and do not contest the facts--I agreed with them: Americans have poor diets and all the ills associated that she lists. She chooses now to leave the discussion in a huff and a dither and also, if I do not mistake, a High Dudgeon, and who knows why?


----------



## Strange Magic

It is conceivable that Christabel is referring to--and possibly endorsing--the POTUS' assertion that doctors are, at best interpretation, inflating COVID fatality numbers. Of course, to broaden the insinuation upon hearing the POTUS' own words, these doctors may be either allowing COVID patients to die, or are perhaps murdering them. I don't think he will receive a big share of the healthcare workers' vote, though there is a tame physicians group that support's or POTUS every utterance and assertion.

https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/89351

"President Trump's claim that physicians inflated the COVID-19 death count for financial gain sparked backlash from medical organizations and doctors who called his assertions a smear on the medical profession.

Responses came after Trump commented at a Wisconsin campaign rally last weekend that doctors in the U.S. were attributing deaths to COVID-19 when they were actually due to preexisting conditions such as heart disease or cancer, because it increases their reimbursements.

"You know some countries, they report differently," Trump said in a speech. "If somebody's sick with a heart problem, and they die of COVID they say they die of a heart problem. If somebody's terminally ill with cancer and they have COVID, we report them [as COVID-19]."

He added that "doctors get more money and hospitals get more money," telling the audience to "think about this incentive."

*The accusation provoked an immediate response from healthcare professionals.

Among those protesting: the American Medical Association (AMA), the American College of Physicians (ACP), the American College of Emergency Physicians, the Council of Medical Specialty Societies, the Society for Hospital Medicine, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.*

"Let's be clear physicians are not inflating the number of COVID-19 patients," the American Medical Association said in its statement. The tweet highlighted a study published in JAMA that showed there were 220,000 excess deaths in the U.S. this year, more than two-thirds of which were COVID-related.

Jacqueline Fincher, MD, president of the ACP, said in a press release that "to suggest that physicians would misstate the cause of death for financial gain is false, and represents a reprehensible attack on our profession and ethics."

Referring to the president's statements as "junk news," Ashish Jha, MD, dean of Brown University School of Public Health, said on Twitter that the federal CARES Act did provide some additional funding for patients with a COVID-19 diagnosis so that hospitals could buy more PPE. However, he added that false coding could get physicians "fined or jailed."

"Doctors aren't taking random deaths, calling them COVID deaths," Jha said. "That's fraud."


----------



## Jacck

Strange Magic said:


> "President Trump's claim that physicians inflated the COVID-19 death count for financial gain sparked backlash from medical organizations and doctors who called his assertions a smear on the medical profession.
> Responses came after Trump commented at a Wisconsin campaign rally last weekend that doctors in the U.S. were attributing deaths to COVID-19 when they were actually due to preexisting conditions such as heart disease or cancer, because it increases their reimbursements.
> "You know some countries, they report differently," Trump said in a speech. "If somebody's sick with a heart problem, and they die of COVID they say they die of a heart problem. If somebody's terminally ill with cancer and they have COVID, we report them [as COVID-19]."
> He added that "doctors get more money and hospitals get more money," telling the audience to "think about this incentive."


we have similar morons in my country. They argue that people die "with COVID" and "not from COVID", implying that only the old and sick die and they would have died anyway. The most silly ones see it as some sinister complot, going into conspiratorial thinking, that there is a global conspiracy of doctors with the media and the state to inflate the number of deaths to scare the people etc. Trump likely only repeats what he reads on twitter. I would not be suprised if Russia was again behind spreading these memes.


----------



## DaveM

Christabel said:


> Facts are not the Left's strong suit anyway...


The right in the U.S. has 'alternative facts' [per Kellyann Conway 2017]


----------



## Chilham

Christabel said:


> Facts are not the Left's strong suit anyway. Sadly, as Thomas Sowell has said, "the Left doesn't like facts because they find these emotionally unsatisfying".
> 
> I supplied 'documentation' to you about the cohort dying from the pandemic and you batted it away.
> 
> But relax; your man will make it to the White House and all will be well again. Peace, harmony and economic prosperity to all just around the corner. What's not to love?
> 
> We had an election in an Australian state overnight and the people voted overwhelmingly in what was essentially a Covid-19 themed election. Our federal government has paid the states to shut Australians out of Queensland, Victoria and Western Australia; some of those states have one case each right now!!
> 
> Talking to a Lefty is like having a conversation with a television set. To that end, no further contributions from me on this topic as it's like banging your head against a brick wall; it's nice when you stop!! And I don't like punching below my weight.


Good grief. ..................


----------



## Alinde

_We had an election in an Australian state overnight and the people voted overwhelmingly in what was essentially a Covid-19 themed election. _

Well, despite what they say about us, we weren't stupid enough not to re-elect a government which has kept us as safe as Jacinda has kept New Zealand.

But I really wanted to remark that, in personal relationships, I've found that ignoring the opinions of otherwise attractive people with whom you disagree about fundamental moral and social questions will always end in tears.


----------



## Alinde

Strange Magic said:


> I'll bet there were "woke" folks in the UK back during that era who thought conditions believed to be just and fine could and should be improved. Am I wrong?


There were radicals - Cobden, Bentham, Mill and others of course but I think that, what with the example of the French Revolution and Napoleon, it wasn't till after the Reform Act of 1832 that social reforms began to be implemented. I'm certainly open to correction.

Footnote: I was amused that an early ancestor (who was the miller of Benenden in Kent) was attracted by advertised opportunities down here. His letters home survive. Alas :"Sydney is a horrid wicked place worse than any place I ever heard talk of at home. I would not live here for any money"


----------



## Strange Magic

Alinde said:


> _We had an election in an Australian state overnight and the people voted overwhelmingly in what was essentially a Covid-19 themed election. _
> 
> Well, despite what they say about us, we weren't stupid enough not to re-elect a government which has kept us as safe as Jacinda has kept New Zealand.
> 
> But I really wanted to remark that, in personal relationships, I've found that ignoring the opinions of otherwise attractive people with whom you disagree about fundamental moral and social questions will always end in tears.


In line with this, the current situation here in the USA is so fraught that, to cohere with or otherwise endorse, *other than through pure ignorance*, the persons or the utterances or the policies of today's Right, especially the POTUS himself, is to be to some degree complicit in what may turn out to be a fatal, final erosion of both rationality and decency in this country. Multitudes of Republicans and conservatives have fled the current administration in revulsion and horror, while our current Attorney General cannot state categorically that it is illegal to vote twice, this after the POTUS jokingly(?) suggested that his minions attempt to.

So I share Alinde's notion that ignoring the foul, noisome, retrograde opinions of attractive people will indeed end in tears. Those opinions should be early factored into any contemplation of where a relationship is, is going or might go.


----------



## Jacck

Strange Magic said:


> In line with this, the current situation here in the USA is so fraught that, to cohere with or otherwise endorse, *other than through pure ignorance*, the persons or the utterances or the policies of today's Right, especially the POTUS himself, is to be to some degree complicit in what may turn out to be a fatal, final erosion of both rationality and decency in this country. Multitudes of Republicans and conservatives have fled the current administration in revulsion and horror, while our current Attorney General cannot state categorically that it is illegal to vote twice, this after the POTUS jokingly(?) suggested that his minions attempt to.


you live in historic times. The transformative impact of the Trump presidency on the US will be bigger than the 9/11. It is a societal tectonic shift. A new order will emerge out of the turbulence and chaos.


----------



## Guest

Christabel said:


> But relax; *your man* will make it to the White House and all will be well again.


Oh dear, you start a thread about living with one's political opposites and then go on to use *divisive language*. Talk about being hoisted on 'yer own petard... Priceless!! :lol: By the way, did you know that petard comes from the French verb _péter_, meaning to fart? A _pétard_ in today's French means what Brits would call a "banger" (a small firework); I hope to be throwing a few _pétards_ in your general direction soon after 3 November. 



Christabel said:


> *To that end, no further contributions from me on this topic as it's like banging your head against a brick wall; it's nice when you stop!! And I don't like punching below my weight*.


Well hark at Lady Muck!


----------



## Guest

TalkingHead said:


> Oh dear, you start a thread about living with one's political opposites and then go on to use *divisive language*. Talk about being hoisted on 'yer own petard... Priceless!! :lol: By the way, did you know that petard comes from the French verb _péter_, meaning to fart? A _pétard_ in today's French means what Brits would call a "banger" (a small firework); I hope to be throwing a few _pétards_ in your general direction soon after 3 November.
> 
> Well hark at Lady Muck!


Take the rest of the week off!! Oh, wait.....


----------



## bz3

Jacck said:


> Obama made several serious mistakes. First, he should have investigated and prosecuted people from the Bush administration. Second, he should have investigated and prosecuted those banksters responsible for the financial crisis of 2008. But he only really had two years to do anything, after that Moscow Mitch was blocking everything he did.


Obama was a lackey of international finance. Why or how would anyone expect him to investigate or prosecute his bosses?


----------



## bz3

Strange Magic said:


> I notice that our friend Varick has chosen to ignore the input of the Federal Bureau of Investigation on the threats posed by the several Right groups discussed above--very careful, that. Two possibilities: A) Varick is not current on the day's events and thus has not heard of or been following the almost universally-expressed concerns of not only the FBI but also well-informed people on the Right end of the spectrum (_National Review_ folks, for instance; Republican senators), hence his wondering dismissal of talk of the possibility of Right White Supremacist and/or QAnon violence, should the election disappoint. B) The other possibility I leave to the imagination.......


Really makes one think that the government considers terrorists those people who are generally a bunch of boomers on the internet that believe our nation's elites are inundated with pedophile rings - especially in light of the fact that numerous pedophile rings have not only been confirmed to exist in recent years but actually were inundated with the nation's elites (NXIVM, Jeffrey Epstein).


----------



## Jacck

bz3 said:


> Obama was a lackey of international finance. Why or how would anyone expect him to investigate or prosecute his bosses?


I am not sure he had any direct bosses, but maybe there were some money connections between the banks and the democratic party and they wanted to keep their donors or something like that. Not prosecuting the banksters was a mistake, that undermined people's faith in democracy and justice. Look at Iceland
Iceland Sentences 29th Banker To Prison, US Bankers Still Collecting Bonuses


----------



## Chilham

Bulldog said:


> Understood, but reading about the country and/or playing a visit is far different than actually living here for decades. I would simply ask that folks from other countries concentrate on fixing the major problems in their own neck of the woods.



View attachment 145559


.........................


----------



## Guest

TalkingHead said:


> I hope to be throwing a few _pétards_ in your general direction soon after 3 November.


* Further to my post #269*: Well, in light of current events over in the USA, I've just bought a few boxes of _pétards,_ which I now gleefully throw in your general direction.


----------



## Guest

And here's an article for the delectation of our resident _amateur_ psychoanalyst from down-under, written by a _qualified_ psychologist (Mary Trump, niece of The Donald) who predicts how the fellow will now act _going forward_:
*
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...ncle-donald-all-he-has-now-is-breaking-things
*


----------



## Bulldog

I'm skeptical of comments of Mary Trump. She has an axe to grind - *she wants her money.*


----------



## Jacck

Bulldog said:


> I'm skeptical of comments of Mary Trump. She has an axe to grind - *she wants her money.*


but she is right. If you wound a person with a narcissistic personality disorder, he experiences a narcissistic rage


----------



## Flamme

I talked again with some young friend form Poland and he is all panicky because of Results...I tried to calm him down but it was impossible...


----------

