I don't want to try to apply logic where none exists, but the above statement is an oxymoron of the highest order. Constitutional rights are very much man given. The only God given rights recognized in America are those enumerated on the Declaration of Independence, which of course aren't codified in the Constitution. Rather, the Constitution is structured in such a way as to have those God given rights in mind without specifically naming them. Those rights are, of course, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (and yes, I'm aware that the 14th amendment, blah, blah, so leave it alone). The crux of the issue is, obviously, at what point do the God given rights of individuals collide with the God given rights of the group (and vice versa). This nut case notwithstanding, we've done a really bad job, societally, answering that question, with more and more rights being afforded to the individual in recent decades. The pendulum will swing back eventually, but not until both sides (and I'm both sidesing this intentionally...fight me...this issue is bigger than covid) realize that the individual is important but not everything. We need each other, and we need to be able to trust each other. We can laugh all day at crack pots, but the culpability runs deep for why this type of behavior is extant.God Given Constitutional Rights
"God-given" is social signaling, not a logical argument. Donald Trump's press office knew that scare quotes are grammatically incorrect, but they used them anyway because to the audience they were reaching, scare quotes are grammatically correct. The entire document is written in a register you don't speak - no amount of convincing will cause you to link civil and divine authority. To the writer and his audience, however, reminding them that civil and divine authority are inextricably linked gives power to the notion that divine authority doesn't run contrary to civil authority, it informs and commands it, therefore any terrestrial laws that temporarily interfere need merely be revised. The author would agree - the individual is not everything. But the authority that requires masks and shots is illegitimate. Again, I think our one saving grace is no authority is legitimate right now. They had one, but he lost, and while they can be salty about that, he is no longer in office despite his best efforts. He was beaten. Losing is generally fatal to populists.
Woooo, it's fightin' time! Not really, the overwhelming majority of this is for posterity, and the questions mostly rhetorical. I don't think anyone on the left (except maybe like full-blown tankies?) believes that there should be significantly less "personal responsibility", or that it's not important. There are certainly some issues with the fairness (however you wanna measure it) of our meritocracy, but even a world with e.g. universal basic income wouldn't completely eliminate meritocracy. I'm still not sure we're ready for UBI yet, but I digress. There are plenty of other principled arguments in favor of "personal responsibility", besides. Why attempt a debate with someone who demonizes a school of thought or economic theory that they can't even define, and routinely ignores all self-contradiction? In what scenario, in what medium, am I going to meaningfully change the way that they feel? Because I think you're right, and Haidt, too. It's emotionally-driven, with a huge amount of ego baked in. Not exactly conducive for debate. To most in favor of "greater individual-level rights and freedoms", the actual sentiments behind it are "I should be able to do whatever I want, but not you, you have to do whatever I want, too." Like "libertarian intellectual firebrand", Ben Shapiro, passionately in favor of federally banning abortions. So it's no surprise that Trump, the most selfish prick possibly ever, unified so many of these people and gave them license to further wallow down into the muck of poisonous behavior. Do I trust these people, at an individual level? Some of them, I guess, but isn't one of the main reasons we have a government because we can't trust everyone at the individual level? Do the democrats have problems with how pathetically badly they sell themselves and their policies? LOL, hoooo boy, do they. But the ones doing it best are now the targets of violent imagery and racist hate speech. Does some SJW-ing go too far? Yup. But it seems like more of a grassroots reaction on the left to the ongoing radicalization of Trumpism, which is stoked systematically from the highest levels of power. I truly hate stepping back and realizing that I'm now often forced to argue largely in favor of the status quo. Wouldn't feel the need if fascism wasn't about to kick in the country's front door. I'm sure many people will scoff at this, but I think it's largely already over. Trump will run in 2024, and one way or another, he'll destroy any semblance of democracy. Here's a more immediate prediction: I think Trump will decide to be next Speaker of the House. Why wouldn't he? Right now he's probably exploring whether or not legislation can be drafted that prevents Twitter from banning the official Speaker of the House account or something. Anyway. You're absolutely right, America is incapable of having a productive discussion on anything as top-level and abstract as the relationship between the governing and the governed. Sorry, but I think there exists one side of our political spectrum that bears an overwhelming amount of the blame for that. I am very much in favor of a constitutional convention, in principle, but I can't imagine what the current batch of clowns would try to use it for. Something entirely unconstitutional, surely. They claim it's for enacting term limits, I'd be for that. I imagine the dems would find another way to leave it all up to Joe Manchin, who would vote for going home and maybe thinking about things later. Maybe. Feel free to really tear into me, if you like, btw. It's all good :). I spend wayyyy too much time trying to figure out how to break through the walls of Trumpism, and I'm still empty-fucking-handed. edit: I should also be clear: Trump's base has been lied to. It's partially their fault for not recognizing that, but more than anything else, I pity them. They don't want my pity, trust me. But yes, it's very difficult to put much trust in people operating under a set of outright falsehoods. edit2: I'm not even going to react to Word Salad Dad's speculations on Absolute Godrights, I have to get back to falsifying global warming data and I have a Zoom meeting w/ Soros at 9:30fight me
I'm not talking about any specific issue-level fight-du-jour. I'm talking about long-term trends that predate the rise of Trumpism by decades. Starting in the 60s, probably as a result of Vietnam and that fuckhead Texan and liberal wet-dream LBJ, America realized that collective sacrifice was bullshit, that their government would easily and without consequence lie to them to keep the gears of an unpopular and inane war turning. Thusly, the Boomers decided that the only answer to all the questions of the time was "me, me me." The left and right each decided that one's ability to express oneself is the most important, most sacrosanct, and possibly only value that society should uphold. So there's left and right, and rich and poor, and if you draw a matrix with those two axes (wealth and political affiliation), you could easily pencil in the boxes how the fulfillment of self-expression has manifested itself in each group. Let me be clear: I don't think this is all bad. The world before the 60s was stifling, hypocritical, and served one group of people (us, white males) well and everyone else like garbage. It needed to be torn down, and the individual rights revolution was what precipitated the change. The downside of the right revolution is that we got "shareholder value" as the central tenet of the economy, a complete dissolution of families and community institutions, and more guns that citizens. We got rid of the Church as a unifying force in the community, but we replaced it with nothing. We made an all volunteer army, but never asked for any other type of service from anyone. These are problematic, because I don't think that we feel we have any unity or national identity, which sounds silly when you say it, but also is the invisible glue that holds the country together. But actually I think what's in process, and what we may be in the birth pangs of, is the rebirth of civic life (which is why I'm much more of an optimist than most). The internet has given u sways to reorganize life that were never possible before, and despite the fact that we've made a terrible mess of it over the last 15 years, I think this is the dark before the dawn. I would never bothsides Trumpism. But I absolutely will bothsides the Gordon Gekkoism that has accelerated the razing of everything good in our society.
Nah, doesn't sound silly, I have the same perception. After the USSR dissolved, we lost our collective boogeyman. We can probably thank Bin Laden, the Saudis, Hussein, and even Bush for staving off some of our current flavor of social unrest for just a bit longer. Of course it also did some serious damage, culminating in absolutely unforgivable numbers of dead middle eastern civilians and Trump's Muslim ban attempts. But yeah, I guess apparently we have fingers we just have to point, and, now they're squarely pointed at fellow Americans. The current amount of wealth inequality, especially in America, is dangerously historic. I'm not quite sure how to restructure the wealth without invoking the government in some way. The libertarian argument of "wealth inequality is good because it allows businesses to take risks which then creates new technologies" isn't technically wrong, but it assumes that new technologies are always beneficial. Obviously some new tech is disruptive, and even intentionally used for nefarious purposes, perhaps most notably to continue furthering wealth inequality while also distracting from what is very clearly class warfare being completely dominated by the wealthy. Yes, the most disruptive technology in history. Hitler had the radio, Trump has social media. Those are the most egregious examples, but it'd be ridiculous to assume that the Mercers, Kochs, and Murdochs (except James, he seems OK) of the world aren't also actively manipulating public opinion, literally capitalizing on disinformation campaigns enabled by the quick disruption of widespread, established information ecosystems. There are some people peddling enlightenment and thoughtfulness looks around hubski.com, but it just doesn't pay as well, and it's not where establishment money is. There is a difference between self-interest and knowingly harming others and society. There's absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to make more money for yourself, at least up to a point (I mean, c'mon, there's no way some current CEO salaries reflect the value or difficulty of the job of the CEO). But just because I can make money lying to people by seeding fear and distrust doesn't mean I should. When you can just pull a Steve Bannon and have essentially no harm to your reputation in Trumpworld, we clearly have a problem with insular information ecosystems that needs to be addressed. I don't think the market alone can fix it, but I'm not sure how to protect people from themselves without infringing on free speech. I want to believe there's common ground I have with GOP sentiments to break up Big Tech, but I suspect their motivations only go so far as "We should actually be allowed to lie and hate more on whoever's privatized platform that we want to". It was really funny last year when Zuckerburg gave like $300 million to fund election integrity tho, I think he was feeling guilty about something. It's more reasonable to assume it was a PR move, but I still enjoyed seeing Trump disparage him for the donation. People should pursue wealth and act in their own self-interests, that's fine. There would be more opportunities for more people to pursue wealth if the existing wealthy played by the rules, like paying their share of taxes. The "but they're creating jobs with unpaid taxes" argument is increasingly delusional, and it's also not what we decided as a society. A public service requirement might not be the worst idea. The military exposes people to demographics that they would have never crossed paths with otherwise, and the results are overwhelmingly positive. It'd be nice if that didn't have to involve or relate to war.These are problematic, because I don't think that we feel we have any unity or national identity, which sounds silly when you say it, but also is the invisible glue that holds the country together.
The internet
bothsides the Gordon Gekkoism
Actually, it's a seminal book. Not until we revise the shit out of the Internet. The signals and semantics we get out of online communication bypass our empathy centers almost entirely, which is one of the reasons online communication is so combative. This was my hardest read of the year. Things can get so much worse.These are problematic, because I don't think that we feel we have any unity or national identity, which sounds silly when you say it, but also is the invisible glue that holds the country together.
The internet has given u sways to reorganize life that were never possible before, and despite the fact that we've made a terrible mess of it over the last 15 years, I think this is the dark before the dawn.
Anybody else remember how the only likely Republican candidate for president was Jeb Bush? Right up until about November 2015? It's early days. Trump is getting no younger. He is gaining no new friends. And he has gone from a joke to an existential threat for half of the country. Teddy Roosevelt was a more popular president than Trump. He was objectively better. Yet he couldn't secure the Republican nomination in 1912, and lost as a third party candidate. Yeah, the Republicans don't have anything else going on right now - but that's because they don't have anything else going on. There are definitely Trump die-hards. There will always be Trump die-hards. But theirs is a cult of personality, not of ideology, and that personality is substantially less potent now than it was in 2016. The way Republicans win is by pointing out how different Democrats are, how other, and how much of a threat they are to the Republican way of life. That's harder and harder to do in an environment where the other side doesn't. This is why Biden ended up winning: he doesn't pick fights. The Democrats should have gone for the jugular in 2009. Should have annihilated the banks, gutted their leadership, punished the shit out of corporate malfeasance. Woulda smothered the Tea Party in its cradle. Now? Now the Republicans hold all the buzzwords because the Democrats stand for nothing. I kinda feel that's why they're letting Manchin and Sinema run the table. I dunno. It's all a fucking mess but I've lost faith that shouting past each other will make things better.Trump will run in 2024, and one way or another, he'll destroy any semblance of democracy.
Firstly: That rap is fantastic. I would have produced for that in a heartbeat. Again, this is mostly for posterity, I think it's good to put this content out in the public domain as frequently as possible. Whether Trump runs or not isn't as important as realizing that the GOP has crafted blueprints for achieving minority rule via legal means. We all know they already had advantages in gerrymandering, the nature of the Senate, and the electoral college, but I fully expect at least one GOP-controlled state gov't to say "we actually decided to send our electoral college electors to vote for Trump (or whoever) because fuck off". The laws allowing it are already on the books, in at least Georgia, and I'm sure elsewhere, I can't keep too much track because it's saddddddd. When folks point to Trump's fundraising apparatus as proof that he plans to run again, I don't think that's proof enough. Of course he wants control of the purse, either way. But more than money, he needs validation. Privately, he knows he lost 2020 fair and square. He knows it was only by a sum total of several tens of thousands of votes spread across a few states. He knows that we have a news media that either critiques Biden quasi-fairly, so maybe about half negative, or only affords Biden negative coverage exclusively, so it's gonna be hard for Biden's approval to rebound. He knows to be relatively quiet right now to give himself room to turn up the volume to 11 in 2024. I actually think he can win 2024 legitimately, but that if he doesn't, you should probably expect every state capitol and even a lotta county courthouses to have his dipshits patrolling around with guns, ready to enforce the narrative that "Trump won by show of force, soyboy libtard" or whatever. I think, for him, he has to get back into the white house. It's the biggest megalomaniacal high he's ever had, and he wants it again. SCOTUS repealing Roe? Only 1/3 of the country wants that. Apparently only 1/3 of SCOTUS doesn't want that. I'd tell you that this is another case of the GOP shooting itself in the foot, but the 1/3 of the country in favor of repealing basically all vote, and only about half of the other 2/3 of the country vote. I loved when Fox and the Trump campaign touted how much more "enthusiastic" their voter base was compared to democrat voters. I think "rabidly foaming at the mouth to vote" is pretty enthusiastic, yeah. We thought they wouldn't bother voting if they thought the election was rigged, but now I think they're only more likely to attempt to rig the voting themselves, if they think the dems are doing it, and both at a personal level and institutionally. Ideas on The Establishment Congressional Left currently include: Hand Wringing. Pearl Clutching. Debating whether Boebert should be censured for airing an amazingly racist slur during Gosar's censure hearing. Having an internet literacy of someone one hundred and forty years old. Hoping Merrick Garland isn't scared shitless of prosecuting the leaders of an insurrection attempt. Completely avoiding the use of humor as a rhetorical device to lampoon the buffoonery going on across the aisle. Not ramming through voting rights legislation that is objectively more fair than the current laws while controlling two branches of government. Not actually controlling the legislature. Yeah I dunno how things get better, but I know that either way, things are gonna get a whole lotta worse in the meantime.
Lol you're talking about a group of people (conservatives, not Republicans) that enshrined 3/5ths black people into the constitution, that demanded the Senate, that created poll taxes and Jim Crow laws as if they've just now hit upon voter suppression. What they've done is chosen to do it proudly, something that hasn't worked since George Wallace lost in '68. It's kind of demographically expected - you've got 'boomers whose money is running out and the world they were promised is not the world they got. But they'll die. They're doing a heckuva job at it, really - first the opioid epidemic hit them the hardest. Then they opted out of masks and vaccines. When an entire demographic has grown accustomed to running the world, and then has the world taken from them, they do two things: (1) lash out (2) perish. It doesn't really matter what Trump wants. What matters is what everyone else wants with Trump. So far? Devin Nunes wants with Trump, primarily because demographics are destiny. David Purdue wants with Trump, mostly because he's fucking hopeless otherwise. Matt Gaetz wants with Trump because he's going to need some sort of future and right now he has none. Marjorie Taylor Greene? Lauren Boebert? They don't have anything without Trump, and are purely Trumpian creatures. Sarah Palin managed to become her own thing after losing in 2008 but it only lasted four or so years. She was never able to make it stick. I don't think we have smooth sailing ahead of us. But I also think everyone on the Left is overestimating the staying power of Trump, primarily due to trauma. Yeah he raised a billion dollars with a SPAC or whatever, but I mean fuckin' Rivian raised a hundred billion with an imaginary truck. A billion ain't what it used to be.Whether Trump runs or not isn't as important as realizing that the GOP has crafted blueprints for achieving minority rule via legal means.
To be fair they would have rather had the whole black person, as the point was to get more representation. The non-slave states wanted 0% of slaves to count and slave states wanted 100%, so 60 is where they settled. The whole "conservatives think blacks are 60% of a person" trope is misunderstood. Slave owners of the time thought that blacks, or at least slaves, were 0% of a person for all purposes but getting them more votes in the House, more votes for president, and more share of tax apportionment, for which they wanted the whole person.Lol you're talking about a group of people (conservatives, not Republicans) that enshrined 3/5ths black people into the constitution...