Civil War 2.0

[Treasure Hunter]

No, but the wording reminded me of him.

I don't think we will be able to agree on a common definition of "reality". I like mine objective and definite, you like yours subjective and ambiguous.
But as of now, I think you don't deny my reality, so can we agree that my reality is a subset of yours, and if I refer to it as "physical reality", we can still understand each other?

I’m no tyrant. Anything I share is an offer of persuasion. Take what you want and leave what you want. We’re cool .

 

[Heyo]

I’m no tyrant. Anything I share is an offer of persuasion. Take what you want and leave what you want. We’re cool .

How did we get here? It was about disinformation. Disinformation about the physical reality should be easily refuted, whereas disinformation about the wider "reality" can be endlessly discussed due to its subjective nature. But while, ultimately, there has to be some form of agreement about the wider "reality", disagreement about the physical reality has to be reached first as misconceptions about the wider reality rest on misconceptions of the physical reality. Climate change is real and man-made, Joe Biden won the 2020 election, vaccines help against the spread of pandemics. One side of the divide doesn't accept physical reality.

 

[F1fan]

Classy.

I've pointed out your vague statements. You're implying a lot, but leaving out a whole lot. You make us struggle to understand what you mean, and we have to guess what you're leaving out.

How about giving us examples of what you consider reality. Words are abstractions are both real and not real depending the context.

 

[Valjean]

Air America was a failed attempt. It doesn't seem they really tried hard enough. I recall here locally, Rush and some other right-wing jocks started showing up on the station with the news/talk format, though they weren't automatically right wing. There were other stations with more entertainment and sports focus which might have had more left-wing audiences, but they focused mostly on entertainment news and sports. There was a classic rock station which had more of a morning talk format, without much music during the morning hours. But what did they talk about? Fluff. Entertainment news. Celebrity gossip. They could have talked about politics, but they didn't. I also remember when Howard Stern was touted as a possible counter to Rush Limbaugh, but he was nothing but entertainment news and fluff.

The left simply lost their will to fight. They no longer had the belly for real politics.

The left and right-wing I talk shows I'm talking about are not a few short segments that show up on sports, music or religious formatted stations. They're often the majority of a station's broadcasting -- such as the aforementioned Air America. I've often driven through the US' rural heartland and been unable to find anything other than, religious, country-western music, and right-wing talk on the radio dial. The few left-wing programs were almost exclusively confined to the larger cities.
Nor were these left and right-wing programs "fluff." They were straight-up political and social commentary, with a good deal of propaganda included on the right.

That said, I don't see either end of the political spectrum as giving up. I see the political surrender to the uncontroversial middle mostly on NPR and on non-political radio and TV.
When a talk about right or left-wing, I'm not talking about the Democratic party or the more moderate Republicans, or the NY Times or National Public Radio. These are middle-of-the-road.

Yes, that was a serious mistake the Democrats made. But they made similar mistakes back during the McCarthy era. They're far too sensitive to right-wing criticism of them being "radical, left-wing extremists" to the point where they fall all over themselves to try to appear moderate. So, they had to give support to the Vietnam War and other right-wing military adventurism. They had to give in to Reagan's ultra-capitalism and militarism, culminating in Michael Dukakis' infamous tank ride, just to prove that Democrats are just as tough and ready for war as the Republicans.

I agree -- but it's not the Democratic "middle" I'm talking about. The Democratic Party has, indeed, caved to popular sentiments.
Nor am I talking about the delicate snowflakes seeking shelter from controversy or inconvenient facts.

Then Clinton sold out the working classes by surrendering to Republicans on free trade. They keep nominating lukewarm, milquetoast candidates so as to not rock the boat or upset the Republicans. They show themselves as weak and spineless, and that just by itself ends up losing them votes. Spineless cowards are not fit to lead.

I have to agree. The Democratic party hardly qualifies as liberal, and certainly not as progressive. It's 'base' seems to be anyone disaffected with the Republican party. It seems to stand for nothing.

Yet the real liberals have not given up, despite the efforts of the two dominant parties to keep them on the back burner.

 

[Valjean]

This is what morality means. It’s an essential aspect of reality. Moral truth is to act more in accordance with reality.

Despite your arrogance and insults, you are one of those people I mentioned before who is confused about truth.

How do you decide what moral truth is? Interpretations seem all over the board. How are we to empirically discern and test morality?
And if reliably determined, how are we going to get people to comply, when the easiest and most socially advantageous course is to go along with the crowd?

Objective fact, such as causes and effects, on the other hand, can be objectively determined. The best actions can then be based on tested, factual reality rather than moral speculation.

 

[Revoltingest]

Objective fact, such as causes and effects, on the other hand, can be objectively determined. The best actions can then be based on tested, factual reality rather than moral speculation.

Gawd, man...what is wrong with you!
Oh.....right....you're a racoon.

 

[Treasure Hunter]

How do you decide what moral truth is? Interpretations seem all over the board. How are we to empirically discern and test morality?
And if reliably determined, how are we going to get people to comply, when the easiest and most socially advantageous course is to go along with the crowd?

Objective fact, such as causes and effects, on the other hand, can be objectively determined. The best actions can then be based on tested, factual reality rather than moral speculation.

You can’t stop people from desiring a better world. You can’t just say, “Let’s all agree to be completely grateful and satisfied with our current lives, so the division will heal.”

As long as people want a better life and a better world, then we are in the moral domain. This is why morality drives everything, including how we consume and report facts. The is-ought problem illustrates how empiricism can’t lead morality.

 

[Valjean]

Gawd, man...what is wrong with you!
Oh.....right....you're a racoon.

And I know what I found in your trash bin last night, so be nice.

 

[Valjean]

You can’t stop people from desiring a better world. You can’t just say, “Let’s all agree to be completely grateful and satisfied with our current lives, so the division will heal.”

As long as people want a better life and a better world, then we are in the moral domain. This is why morality drives everything, including how we consume and report facts. The is-ought problem illustrates how empiricism can’t lead morality.

No, a better life is the job of fact-based politics; objective questions of foreign and domestic policies.
We've seen the results of morality-based theocratic government -- and it ain't pretty.

 

[Treasure Hunter]

No, a better life is the job of fact-based politics; objective questions of foreign and domestic policies.
We've seen the results of morality-based theocratic government -- and it ain't pretty.

You don’t seem to understand that there about as many ideas of how to improve society as there are people in that society. The idea that everyone on each side of the divide agrees entirely about how to improve society and the divide is simply over the facts - this is clearly false.

 

[Revoltingest]

And I know what I found in your trash bin last night, so be nice.

Whaddaya expect to find after an
evening of besotted weasel shaving?
(We were besotted....not the weasels.)

 

[Shadow Wolf]

At the moment I don't see a civil war in America though i do see isolated pockets of civil unrest.

I see it far more likely that America becomes a dictatorship.

 

[Stevicus]

The left and right-wing I talk shows I'm talking about are not a few short segments that show up on sports, music or religious formatted stations. They're often the majority of a station's broadcasting -- such as the aforementioned Air America. I've often driven through the US' rural heartland and been unable to find anything other than, religious, country-western music, and right-wing talk on the radio dial. The few left-wing programs were almost exclusively confined to the larger cities.
Nor were these left and right-wing programs "fluff." They were straight-up political and social commentary, with a good deal of propaganda included on the right.

That said, I don't see either end of the political spectrum as giving up. I see the political surrender to the uncontroversial middle mostly on NPR and on non-political radio and TV.
When a talk about right or left-wing, I'm not talking about the Democratic party or the more moderate Republicans, or the NY Times or National Public Radio. These are middle-of-the-road.

I don't recall all the details about Air America, but I don't recall being too impressed by it. I don't even remember if they had an affiliate where I live. The Wikipedia article on Air America said they faced numerous financial troubles and allegations of impropriety. Air America (radio network) - Wikipedia

One of my favorite stations was a classic rock station, and even if it was a music format, the DJs would often little quips and off-the-cuff remarks which would indicate left-wing/liberal sympathies. But they weren't political talk shows. The station did run some civic affairs talk shows on Sunday mornings, but very dry and boring - nowhere near the fire and brimstone of Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage or Mark Levin.

But I think the left is too inhibited to come out with their own equivalent of fire and brimstone, since they might be afraid of the consequences. The owners of radio stations and their sponsors don't like those kinds of consequences, so they have to tone it down.

I agree -- but it's not the Democratic "middle" I'm talking about. The Democratic Party has, indeed, caved to popular sentiments.
Nor am I talking about the delicate snowflakes seeking shelter from controversy or inconvenient facts.

Ultimately, politics is a money game, and the major parties have to play ball with big money to stay viable. The only trouble with playing it that way is that the table then becomes wide open. Anyone with a bag full of money can play - even someone like Trump.

I have to agree. The Democratic party hardly qualifies as liberal, and certainly not as progressive. It's 'base' seems to be anyone disaffected with the Republican party. It seems to stand for nothing.

Yet the real liberals have not given up, despite the efforts of the two dominant parties to keep them on the back burner.

I think the Democrats could conceivably gain back control of the House and still keep the White House - but what they do with it will be totally on them. That's the real test. I'm not all that worried that Trump will be elected again; I suppose anything is possible, but that won't really trigger any civil war. We're not at that point of desperation just yet. But the Democrats have to realize that they can't just rest on their laurels and count on hatred of Trump to get them by. They'll have to be willing to do more than that.

 

[Bthoth]

I see it far more likely that America becomes a dictatorship.

Impossible. No matter which president

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Impossible. No matter which president

Definitely not impossible.

 

[Bthoth]

Definitely not impossible.

Apparently you have no idea that the US military is our children, 'we the people'. That defend us over any leadership.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I've often driven through the US' rural heartland and been unable to find anything other than, religious, country-western music, and right-wing talk on the radio dial.

You didn't look very hard.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Apparently you have no idea that the US military is our children, 'we the people'. That defend us over any leadership.

The military has a lot of unsavory RW types like OAN, Odinists, and lots have joined RW militias.
It's not a guaranteed thing the military will save us. Afterall, they had a less than desirable response to the Jan 6th insurrection.

 

[Bthoth]

The military has a lot of unsavory RW types like OAN, Odinists, and lots have joined RW militias.
It's not a guaranteed thing the military will save us. Afterall, they had a less than desirable response to the Jan 6th insurrection.

OAN is a media outlet, not a representation of US.

Sure lots of wingnuts in the USA but even the RW cannot control US.

I never mentioned a guarantee. If you want that, then sorry.

Exactly, not even Jan 6 could keep a dictator in office.

Learn before ranting.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

OAN is a media outlet, not a representation of US.

ONA is what I meant.