Peterkin

On 11/18/2024 at 4:14 PM, raphaelh42 said:

For those who don't believe in free will, like me, do you feel guilty sometimes, do you drag some guilty feelings since long time?

Of course; everyone except sociopaths have a conscience. Rejecting the idea of free will is a purely intellectual exercise - theoretical. In practice, we act and think as if we did control our actions; feel and are affected as if we were responsible for what we had done. And since we know only what we can do, not what we will do, we think as if we had meaningful decisions to make.

We may be intellectually aware of how all the billions and trillions or past events led inevitably to the present moment, but we don't experience life that way. We are formed by our biology, animal instincts and early nurture and all that we learn through life through interaction with members of our society and the environment. We absorb the world-view, morals and values of our culture. While we may be able to put all that aside in favour of pure logic in an essay, we can't do it in our living rooms, public squares and work-places.  

You live as if you had a will and a conscience, whatever words you substitute.  

40 minutes ago, raphaelh42 said:

when taking this choice, you could still do it later, but you know when you couldn't do anymore,

A stroke or fall downstairs can render you helpless in a second, at any age. In that case, if you don't want to live in that condition, you'd need assistance. Governments Countries that allow medical assistance generally set conditions and limits. 

11 hours ago, raphaelh42 said:

If you know you will cause your own death, and when, could that help to enjoy the life more...

I doubt it. While I absolutely believe that neither church nor state should have the power to take away people's control of their on bodies, their own lives, there is only so much we can control. 

Our circumstances are affected by so many external factors, we have only a limited range of choices. We don't decide whether we're born healthy or compromised, talented or dull, rich or poor, into the dominant or a minority ethnic/religious group. We don't decide our formative environment or early education. Even in the most fortunate circumstances, external conditions may change from one day to the next: a political coup, a tornado, an inflamed appendix, a traffic accident, a wrongful conviction or frustrated mugger can take the power of decision out of our hands.

Deciding that you will shoot yourself on a certain date in the future may give you an illusion of control. If that makes you happy, sure, make the decision - you or your neighbour or your government or a random tile falling off a roof can always change your mind.     

23 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Having the internet could help with gathering large flashmobs and organizing mass strikes.  

Until the regime takes absolute control of social media - which they're half-way to accomplishing already. In the US, too, mobility is more of an issue than in the Arab countries: trucks laden with flags and machine guns can patrol the highways and prevent planned gatherings. Much depends, too, on which side local police forces and state militias take. Without them, the revolution has very poor odds. 

On 11/13/2024 at 5:42 PM, StringJunky said:

Looking at the incoming US administration as an example. Does one have to passively accept that a democratically elected government that turns out to be subversive, seeks to undo the checks and balances of its country's Constitution, remodelling it to create a long term dictatorship and leader beyond the normal time limit, have the ethical right and mandate to do so?

Ethical right doesn't come into it; nobody has the power to issue mandates. The UN is not going to send a peacekeeping force to prevent either oppression or civil unrest in the DUSA.

If the majority of voters knowingly elects such a government, and the armed forces recognize its authority, the minority of voters and majority of citizens will passively accept it, one way or another. How knowingly this election happened, I'm not sure. While Trump voters had plenty of evidence from his own mouth and by his own actions, of exactly what he is and what kind of president he intends to be, I don't think most of them understand the issues, the policies or the regime; they don't appreciate the extent of its agenda. Many still believe in The Constitution,  in checks and balances, the legal system and Santa Claus. 

There will be no meaningful resistance until the present supporters become opposers through bitter experience. There will be a great many casualties in the interim. (I wonder when the current statistics on sexual assault and domestic violence will be tallied and published - if ever.) 

12 hours ago, TheVat said:

Funding for NPR comes from dues and fees paid by member stations, underwriting from corporate sponsors, and annual grants from the publicly funded Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

What Corporation for Public Broadcasting? This is no longer a threat to funding; it's an existential threat. T***p has been threatening to revoke licenses and close schools. It all depends on how much damage he can do before the Ides of March and what V***e's real agenda is.

2 hours ago, iNow said:

Which brings us back to our exchange about getting news from NPR versus TikTok and X. Those getting information from the latter overwhelmingly voted Trump whereas those getting news from traditional sources overwhelmingly went Harris. ✌️

By this time next year, there will be no NPR or PBS.

1 hour ago, geordief said:

Are you talking about Canada?

I am not sure I follow your point.

You don't think the "working class" seek to better their economic situation?

That they remain "working class" even when they succeed in this?

Are you talking about their self image ?

Not Canada alone; UK and Australia, I think too, but it was most pronounced in the US. 

My point was that group identity comprises far more than economic situation. I recall when working people had some pride in their skills, in their social organizations and mutual support, anchored in the unions and the communities. Yes, they fought for better wages, working conditions, benefits, safety and job security; trade unions offered scholarships and bursaries for the most promising children of their members and often held lecture series and discussion groups.

"That they remain "working class" even when they succeed in this?" It wasn't a pejorative: it was a description of people of people who work with their hands and produce real things. Winning at negotiation, improving their standard of living or broadening their knowledge didn't shift them into a different category.

Welders and dock-workers, streetcar conductors and orderlies did not hob-nob and certainly did not identify, with lawyers, accountants, executives and surgeons. (Nor vice versa, as you probably know.) When one of the workers' children got a degree and got a white collar job, he (and later, she) would move out of the neighbourhood and change their manners, customs and speech to fit in with lawyers, executives, etc. They would join the middle class.

In between, there is a layer of more or less socially mobile self-employed tradesmen and crafters, as well as foremen and supervisors promoted from the shop floor as a buffer between labour and management. Some skilled, clerical and technical workers fit into this group, which was never clearly defined. 

From FDR's  and Truman's presidencies to JFK's, the Democratic Party lost interest in the working class and was instead deeply engaged in civil rights (which alienated much of the South) and foreign affairs (which alienated the classes most affected by the draft).

A vacuum of attention and representation into which Nixon-Reagan-Bushes whoomed, deregulating business, finance, industry, kneecapping unions, and inflaming the resentments and disappointments of working men, all the while pointing the blame-stick at 'liberal elites'.      

1 hour ago, MSC said:

Information does the rounds through this clusterfuck of piping and bad faith hijackers, that would make any plumber quit working on fixing that project and bring it all down and start from scratch. 

Appropriately, the ad that popped up when I clicked on this thread was a picture of badly damaged underground pipes.

All of that, yes. The working-class has been systematically disappeared over the last half century. It was done by a center-drifting left as well as the rightward-shifting right. It was intentional on both sides, for different reasons: the right wanted to deprive the proletariat of its solidarity; the left mistakenly assumed that everyone aspires to the middle class. That was their single greatest strategic error, failing to realize that class identity was not experienced as a tax bracket - back then.

Working people didn't understand exactly who took away their voice, their dignity and power, but they sure didn't see the Democrats acknowledging or addressing their loss. It was easy for the 'job-creators' and their lackeys to destroy livelihoods by the million and blame some nebulous elite to which they could later attach faces and names and targets.     

8 hours ago, zapatos said:

I see your point that the Democrats have a weak record, but my question remains. Where do the voters go when they feel like BOTH parties haven't been helping them? Don't you choose the party with the better record? Unless you are saying you believe the Republicans have the better record.

The records were never compared by voters and only sporadically by news media - the ones most Republicans don't listen to. He's been campaigning non-stop since 2016 and has more megaphones than any candidate ever has before. The Trump megaphones call him a great businessman (Untrue. So what?) and the fans buy his vastly overpriced made-in-China merchandise. "See, he's a businessman, so he knows what to do about prices."

Mostly, he's leading them in a decade-long tantrum. No graphs or statistics can rival "I am your retribution!!!" I don't expect him to stop campaigning just because he's won - he didn't last time.  

But I do - in fear and sorrow  - expect a great many casualties. I expect both domestic and hate crimes to go through the roof in the next few months.     

30 minutes ago, iNow said:

You’re free to call your wife a bitch, but you’re not free to avoid the involuntarily celibacy which follows when you do. This isn’t exactly hard logic, folks.

Under a Trump-controlled government and judiciary, I would not take that for granted.

2 hours ago, npts2020 said:

Why people believe one source over another seems to have more to do with repetition than it does substantiation. Digging into matters deep enough to separate reality from projection takes actual time and energy, something a large percentage of the voting population appears unwilling/unable to do.

Yes, I see this all the time. Also single-issue voters who, if it's not about their pet peeve, don't hear what they're told, and if it is, hear only whoever promises to fix their issue, whatever else they might wreck in the process.

Interesting point about about 'Cosmos'. The 1980 series with Carl Sagan was very popular. The 2014 version, even though it had cartoons and shiny special effects, didn't capture so many imaginations. There was a huge cultural and technological shift in the intervening period. Not the least of its effects was the accelerated dumbing-down of the population. This was a concerted political and economic reaction to the first three decades of the 20th century, when public education, libraries and culture had the support of governments and philanthropists. A well-informed populace is too difficult to manipulate.  

So, we're all getting burned, drowned or blown away.

2 hours ago, CharonY said:

am not sure that most would understand- even if they understand the mechanism, they might not feel that they relate to their situation and their worries. At least not without educating folks regarding the links.

I can't afford to start a business. This candidate offers to help me; that candidate wants to deport the only workers I could afford. 

I can't afford to buy a house. this candidate offers to build more houses and help with the down payment; that candidate doesn't.

We have another baby coming; I don't know how we'll cope without the wife's income. This candidate offers me a tax exemption, that one doesn't.

It ain't rocket science. The media largely ignored it and sanesplianed Trump's 'weave' in a way that sounded good to the gullible.

36 minutes ago, CharonY said:

And folks want their fears validated and addressed.

Yes. And one of those fears is losing control of their wimmin.

38 minutes ago, CharonY said:

It is a lose-lose situation.

Yup, and it will continue to be, unless and until something quite drastic happens.    

5 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

In 2020, it was about Trump. In 2024, Democrats tried to make it about Trump again, but the country had moved on to another prevailing backstory.

I'm pretty sure most laymen can understand tax exemptions and support for trade unions. No, they tried to make it about an improved future... and unfortunately, that vision of future included tolerance and women's autonomy.  Plus, it started too late to counteract the toxic waste already so thick on the ground. 

13 hours ago, CharonY said:

I suspect as much, but I was hoping for someone to tell me I am wrong. We are doomed, aren't we?

Yes, but at least we're all doomed together. The climate will do for many of us; the territorial, refugee and water wars will take out more; then we just wait for the prehistoric virus to come up one of the Arctic oil wells and Kennedy's Department of Health to handle it. 

8 minutes ago, swansont said:

I fail to see how acknowledging the GOP strategy means the democrats ignored this.

In the sense that they failed to take advantage of it.

They could not, given their principles, exploit the racism and sexism Trump has so well exploited.

1 minute ago, CharonY said:

I suspect that many traditional political entities across the world might be losing ground, because they still assume that certain principles, including the role of media, is still valid.

I have to, sadly, agree. The last day or so, I've read comments by normally intelligent Americans along the lines of: The Constitution protects us and the system of checks and balances have always worked. They don't seem to realize that constitution, or legal structure, is only as good as the people sworn to uphold them (Many of whom now already have a record of breaching those foundational principles.) What checks, what balances, when executive, legislature and high court are under the same fat thumb?  

12 hours ago, CharonY said:

Also, folks seem to get less and less informed. There is a whole of related arrays of issues, but is that people apparently are not able to evaluate or retain information.

The information media are largely responsible for what's happened - and all the very shit that's going to happen. The mainstream media treated Trump as if what he said and did were normal and acceptable; they very often translated his idiotic ramblings into language that resembled policies. They let stand unchallenged many of his lies and diversions. For ten years, they gave him the spotlight he requires to flourish, out of all proportion to other candidates; even covering his rallies while in the White House. They've had an unbalanced set of standards for Trump and everyone else; a ridiculously high tolerance for his toxic rhetoric, and severe judgment of his opponents.

(Some of them will regret that.)

Worse, the right-wing media have co-opted all sources of 'information' to half of the country, so that the people who have been pre-primed  for decades (by previous GOP candidates, by their state governments and propaganda organs) to believe the poison he spews never heard any other side. 

(Some of them will be richly rewarded for it.)

6 hours ago, nec209 said:

What does second term of Trump mean for the US now?

A very bad outlook. Many Americans still lean on the idea that their constitution will protect them, but a constitution is only as good as the people sworn to uphold it - like the executive, the legislature and the Supreme Court. Those rusty old 'checks and balances' have already been scrapped by many states, and soon will be by the federal government.

It's not going to be another term of Trump, with its inconsistency, nepotism and incompetence. It's going to be a Vance government: sane, evil and capable. Read their agenda book and know exactly what to expect. 

6 hours ago, nec209 said:

What caused the US polar shift vote where political shift moved to the far right and MAGA movement is where the US is at now.

It was, ironically enough, written into the founding documents, erupted in the Civil War and has been festering ever since. Several administrations in the 20th century tried to repair some of the damage, but could not contend with the power of money and political factions ruthless in the exploitation of insecurity, anxiety and suspicion. The Confederate states had the power to entrench it.  Nixon's campaign organizers were very good this; Reagan's administration pushed the boat farther out on that high tide; the Bushes took full advantage; Trump surfed into the White house on it. Again.

Quote

I see some similar political parties starting up in Canada, UK and Europe in upcoming election there but they not so far right like Trump.

They've always been there, beneath the surface. We had chapters of the KKK back in the 1930's; Britain had a noisy Nazi party before WWII; the ultra nationalists in France and Germany ducked for cover, but never lost the faith. They're all trending rightward steadily - and powerward.   

Oh well, the experiment failed. Now, watch the domino cascade; Canada is probably next.

8 hours ago, Night FM said:

That type of rhetoric is by no means exclusive to one party. Much of the same type of rhetoric was directed towards individuals such as Sarah Palin, for example.

Can you name some other examples? Can you compare the actual intelligence/knowledge of any two of those 'examples' and what was said about them by the other party spokesmen?  You know, deploy those dirty words: Fact Check?

On 11/2/2024 at 12:33 PM, nec209 said:

People say the GOP is really racist and sexist probably more than Trump.

I've never heard anyone say that. Given the legislative records of GOP dominated states, both racism and sexism have figured large for some time. As for Trump, I've heard him talk about women and ethnic minorities in ways that leave no doubt as to his attitudes. Since trump has co-opted the Republican party, I guess they're pretty much of the same mind; there need not be any question of which is more sexist and racist.  

The far more interesting question is, when Trump is gone, will Vance take over as poster boy for the GOP? They'd go on being racist and sexist, but more intelligent and competent, which is a very real danger. 

9 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Enough to know they would seek political advantage to the detriment of reasonable compromise,

But who are they? Who would be debating? On what platform? According to what rules of engagement? What, exactly, is identified as the 'reasonable compromise - between what stated extremes? Is there a moderator with a fact-checker and a microphone switch?

NOTA: it's been a lot of screaming (not to mention violence) and unilateral legislation on the anti-abortion side vs lobbying, litigation and editorials on the pro side. I don't see the foundations of civil debate in the US. 

What's reasonable is to enlist the expert opinion of Obstetricians in framing a legal structure, and then trust women to do what's right for themselves and their families.

4 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

One that could lead to a reasonable compromise if both sides were willing to debate it..

Are you familiar with the "sides" you expect to engage in debate?

9 hours ago, dimreepr said:

...suggested there has never been a true democracy, some are closer than other's but it's always a compromise with the self intrest of the wealthier...

I don't remember saying that, or suggesting it. There have been so many nations and systems with which I'm unfamiliar. I could confidently posit that the governance of most North American native peoples was democratic, and I understand Switzerland comes pretty damn close right now. Several proportional or phased electoral systems are more democratic than the American one - even simple majority popular vote is more representative than the electoral college. 

The right can never miss with prejudice and greed. Feed the fears and offer bribes. 

So, who needs a planet to live on tomorrow, if we can oppress a minority and make a couple of bucks today? 

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Unrestricted access vs no access? I suspect both would be minority positions in Canada.

Very likely. It's been slow, hard slog even to let expensive useless old people die when they want to.