Continuation of Discussion on the role of...well...discussion.

[lewisnotmiller]

So, this is a continuation of a discussion largely being held between @Debater Slayer and myself, although I don't think there is any issue with others jumping in. Just be aware, this is 'mid-flight', so to speak.

I agree that analysis is necessary, although my point here isn't that anyone needs to shout "witch-burning is bad" and not do anything else. It's just that the average person who opposes witch-burning has no obligation to talk to someone who shouts "witch-burning is good."

No, they don't. But if they want to be part of the solution, they might have to jump in at nuanced level, and look at what fixes are going to be effective. That will neccessarily require pragmatic, and not just idealistic discussion. For example, it's easy to suggest that sexism plays a major role in PNG witch-burnings. It's also accurate. But should that be a primary consideration in mounting a response? Is that the most efficient use of money and resources? What would actually save lives?

I don't know about best, but sometimes the best path is well out of people's reach because of a malfunctioning or corrupt system, which makes the second-best path the only realistic one despite being difficult and costly for all involved.

That's fair, I think. But it's lead to some disasters through human history, also. I am strong anti-reactionism, I would say. The enemy of my enemy is not in any sense my friend.

Ideally, a system wouldn't become so ineffective or corrupt that enough people would reach that point of desperation and anger, but I suppose that's human nature: some people never learn from history and just repeat previous politicians' mistakes.

I think the people need to take their share of responsibility here, though. In a nominally free society, there is some truth to the thought that we get the politicians we deserve. The 'fight', for me, is in protecting the health of the democracy. If we shift (as we seem to have now too commonly) to addressing the symptoms, rather than the root cause of issues, we have a problem. As a ham-fisted example, BLM had to be about systemic reform to policing and other systems, and not about tearing down systems (imho). I understand why people become destructive, but ultimately that approach isn't effective in my opinion.

I would probably attribute the main root of a broad level of support for same-sex marriage to factors other than open discourse, in line with the part about material conditions in my previous post, but I have no doubt about its value and contribution to said support, nonetheless.

I wasn't quite sure how to interpret this one, to be honest. One interesting angle I didn't explore deeply (lots of rabbit-holes...lol) is that there was a long-term effective plan to de-stygmatise homosexuality. At some point it become common enough for people to know an openly gay person. And realise they were 'just' people. Some are out there, some are homebodies, some are conservative, some are liberal, some are in long-term relationships and have grey hair, even....just people.
I think that actually had a larger effect than anything. But ultimately having a society that allows for discussions, or views, or actions (to a point) that fall outside the norm is pretty impactful as a long-term consideration in leading us to a point where an unrequired postal vote showed broad support for marriage equality.

I think it is part of the equation, but I probably wouldn't go so far as to say its availability means that the public will necessarily end up adopting desirable policies. As I said, I think its role is, at most, ancillary to more powerful and influential social and political factors

The public will absolutely NOT necessarily end up adopting desirable policies. People are short-sighted, selfish in a casual way, and prone to looking at any given issue with incomplete information, even where more complete information is available.
I think what I'm suggesting here is that 'we the people' need to try and lift the quality and nuance of discourse, and start seeing other people who do the same as allies, even where their opinion differs to ours. These are people investing and committing to liberal democracy, and investing and committing to public discourse. The rest of the people...be they left, right, or whatever...are actually slowly destroying the American political system (and a bunch of others worldwide) even where I agree with them on particular issues.

What if someone is not involved? That's a huge cliffhanger!

Whoops!! I think anyone should have the right to sideline themselves and not be involved, for any reason they like.
We have compulsory voting here, which I like. But I wish people who don't want to pick someone, or haven't invested thought, would just put in a blank ballot. Those people cause no harm at all. Whereas people who vote for their team just because...or pick on name recognition...or hotness...or whatever....they are actively harming democratic principles (to a tiny degree, I admit).

About the trans people on that server, they weren't trying to be a part of any public conversation, in that situation. They were just trying to survive in a particularly hostile environment and find supportive friends in an online community specifically made for that purpose.

Safe spaces in the sense of internet communities makes perfect sense to me, for all that I'm not personally a fan. I see nothing wrong with what they were trying to do.

 

[Stevicus]

What's the discussion about?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

@lewisnotmiller @Debater Slayer

Okay, what does it requrie to understand how a democracy actually functions?

Well, a certain level of cogntion and understanding of psychology, sociology and history.
If I strip away the particulars and go for the key words, it is about how different people understand these categoires:
Fair, equal, majority versus minority rights, duties, responsibility, harm, the good and productive life, being right or wrong. That fans out for in practice how to do it, but there is another "problem".
The ideal citizen is a person on level 5 or 6 as per Kohlberg, but that is a post-conventional level. In other words for democrcy to function it in the ideal form requires a majority of citizens, that is not there in practice.

So how do we get there? I don't know, because there is no big enough we for that.
But in practice I am of the belief of the evolutionary boring centric compromise approach over time. Move the overton window for any of those key words, ever so slightly towards that one context and human at a time and hope for the best.

On the other hand after close to 20 years in the eduction sector, not even eduction is a magic bullet, but rather is even sometimes in effect done as the nirvana fallacy.

 

[wellwisher]

So, this is a continuation of a discussion largely being held between @Debater Slayer and myself, although I don't think there is any issue with others jumping in. Just be aware, this is 'mid-flight', so to speak.



No, they don't. But if they want to be part of the solution, they might have to jump in at nuanced level, and look at what fixes are going to be effective. That will neccessarily require pragmatic, and not just idealistic discussion. For example, it's easy to suggest that sexism plays a major role in PNG witch-burnings. It's also accurate. But should that be a primary consideration in mounting a response? Is that the most efficient use of money and resources? What would actually save lives?



That's fair, I think. But it's lead to some disasters through human history, also. I am strong anti-reactionism, I would say. The enemy of my enemy is not in any sense my friend.



I think the people need to take their share of responsibility here, though. In a nominally free society, there is some truth to the thought that we get the politicians we deserve. The 'fight', for me, is in protecting the health of the democracy. If we shift (as we seem to have now too commonly) to addressing the symptoms, rather than the root cause of issues, we have a problem. As a ham-fisted example, BLM had to be about systemic reform to policing and other systems, and not about tearing down systems (imho). I understand why people become destructive, but ultimately that approach isn't effective in my opinion.



I wasn't quite sure how to interpret this one, to be honest. One interesting angle I didn't explore deeply (lots of rabbit-holes...lol) is that there was a long-term effective plan to de-stygmatise homosexuality. At some point it become common enough for people to know an openly gay person. And realise they were 'just' people. Some are out there, some are homebodies, some are conservative, some are liberal, some are in long-term relationships and have grey hair, even....just people.
I think that actually had a larger effect than anything. But ultimately having a society that allows for discussions, or views, or actions (to a point) that fall outside the norm is pretty impactful as a long-term consideration in leading us to a point where an unrequired postal vote showed broad support for marriage equality.





The public will absolutely NOT necessarily end up adopting desirable policies. People are short-sighted, selfish in a casual way, and prone to looking at any given issue with incomplete information, even where more complete information is available.
I think what I'm suggesting here is that 'we the people' need to try and lift the quality and nuance of discourse, and start seeing other people who do the same as allies, even where their opinion differs to ours. These are people investing and committing to liberal democracy, and investing and committing to public discourse. The rest of the people...be they left, right, or whatever...are actually slowly destroying the American political system (and a bunch of others worldwide) even where I agree with them on particular issues.



Whoops!! I think anyone should have the right to sideline themselves and not be involved, for any reason they like.
We have compulsory voting here, which I like. But I wish people who don't want to pick someone, or haven't invested thought, would just put in a blank ballot. Those people cause no harm at all. Whereas people who vote for their team just because...or pick on name recognition...or hotness...or whatever....they are actively harming democratic principles (to a tiny degree, I admit).



Safe spaces in the sense of internet communities makes perfect sense to me, for all that I'm not personally a fan. I see nothing wrong with what they were trying to do.

Many social issues are fabricated by the leaders to divide people. The induced division, is then turned on its head, to justify the fabricated victim, side with the original provocateurs; gossip 1.0.

A case in point are the transsexuals. Not too many years ago, all this group wanted was to be accepted as anyone else. It was not in the limelight looking for freebies. The Political Left took this group way beyond equal, to an entitled class, using brain washing in Public Schools. This was purposely designed to create a back lash, since it was not about equal, but a different form of injustice to all children. They then spun the concern for equal justice by parents for their children, as hate against Transgender, instead of justice for children. They then framed the debate, until the Trans felt that the Left was their only friend, and not the original team that made them a pseudo target.

Reparation was to use the same game. Martin Luther King only wanted a level playing field. Reparation is designed to divide people, by over stepping equality all the way to injustice against innocent people who had nothing to do with slavery or anything else. The average person wants a level playing field, not a new lopped sided field tilted the other way. The predictable reaction of equal justice, in real time and not pretend time, was then to be spun as hate and white supremacy, and not people seeking equal justice. Luckily, this scam was not practical in costs, although the scam was ready to go in California. The Black are not as dedicated as they had been in California, so the Left needed them to come back to the planation, with spunned division and fear. The costs could cause it to back fire.

I fully expected the Left to make Reparations a National promise for 2024, and the blame the Right when it does not happen, even if due to the same practical reasons; the cost is too crazy. This would cause division, but the Right was prepared to betray the scam, so the Left had to abort. We could have been at each other throats, fighting pretend racism, while the scammers who created the division, pretend to care and divide the voters.

It sort of reminds me of a malicious gossip at a party, who plants seeds to get people to fight or argue with each other, such as telling a wife and/or husband lies about the other, to mess them up. Unlike a husband and wife who may try to work it out, the two political parties will only want to fight and take hard liner stances. The gossip then pretend to be the friend of one, such as to lure the wife into a compromised position.

The easiest way to counter such scum bag scams, is to accept the two premises of equal justice for all and innocent until proven guilty. The first premise allows us to weight justice to see if the two sides are equal. While the second prevents any one size fits all solution, such as reparation by race. Instead it require each person get a fair trial to prove they either fit or do not fit into that one size fits all; no class action suits but only case by case. This neutralizes all the division scams, and allows rational people from both sides to see and even meet in the middle ground.

The way the Left dealt with Transgender; indoctrination, did not allow tequal justice for parents. This was easy to assume a division scam, so let us bring equal justice and move to the next issue. There is no need to play the division game after match point. Time is better spend making sure the gossips get their due.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Many social issues are fabricated by the leaders to divide people. The induced division, is then turned on its head, to justify the fabricated victim, side with the original provocateurs; gossip 1.0.

A case in point are the transsexuals. Not too many years ago, all this group wanted was to be accepted as anyone else. It was not in the limelight looking for freebies. The Political Left took this group way beyond equal, to an entitled class, using brain washing in Public Schools. This was purposely designed to create a back lash, since it was not about equal, but a different form of injustice to all children. They then spun the concern for equal justice by parents for their children, as hate against Transgender, instead of justice for children. They then framed the debate, until the Trans felt that the Left was their only friend, and not the original team that made them a pseudo target.

Reparation was to use the same game. Martin Luther King only wanted a level playing field. Reparation is designed to divide people, by over stepping equality all the way to injustice against innocent people who had nothing to do with slavery or anything else. The average person wants a level playing field, not a new lopped sided field tilted the other way. The predictable reaction of equal justice, in real time and not pretend time, was then to be spun as hate and white supremacy, and not people seeking equal justice. Luckily, this scam was not practical in costs, although the scam was ready to go in California. The Black are not as dedicated as they had been in California, so the Left needed them to come back to the planation, with spunned division and fear. The costs could cause it to back fire.

I fully expected the Left to make Reparations a National promise for 2024, and the blame the Right when it does not happen, even if due to the same practical reasons; the cost is too crazy. This would cause division, but the Right was prepared to betray the scam, so the Left had to abort. We could have been at each other throats, fighting pretend racism, while the scammers who created the division, pretend to care and divide the voters.

It sort of reminds me of a malicious gossip at a party, who plants seeds to get people to fight or argue with each other, such as telling a wife and/or husband lies about the other, to mess them up. Unlike a husband and wife who may try to work it out, the two political parties will only want to fight and take hard liner stances. The gossip then pretend to be the friend of one, such as to lure the wife into a compromised position.

The easiest way to counter such scum bag scams, is to accept the two premises of equal justice for all and innocent until proven guilty. The first premise allows us to weight justice to see if the two sides are equal. While the second prevents any one size fits all solution, such as reparation by race. Instead it require each person get a fair trial to prove they either fit or do not fit into that one size fits all; no class action suits but only case by case. This neutralizes all the division scams, and allows rational people from both sides to see and even meet in the middle ground.

The way the Left dealt with Transgender; indoctrination, did not allow tequal justice for parents. This was easy to assume a division scam, so let us bring equal justice and move to the next issue. There is no need to play the division game after match point. Time is better spend making sure the gossips get their due.

I really think you should worry less about what the 'right' and the 'left' say on issues.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

What's the discussion about?

We were kinda derailing another thread, but basically it's a ramble about the importance (or otherwise) of civic discourse and discussion on issues. To some degree, I don't think that is a particularly divisive topic, but we're kinda moving on to what should be expected of people in terms of open and nuanced discussion, inclusion, commitment to that, etc.

One nuance is that these discussions are commonly launched with an American frame of reference (to some degree) but neither myself nor @Debater Slayer are Americans.
Heck, neither is @mikkel_the_dane who has now dropped in.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

@lewisnotmiller @Debater Slayer

Okay, what does it requrie to understand how a democracy actually functions?

I think there are multiple answers to that. Or, perhaps, multiple progressions.
Initially, I think it's important that people know the basic structure and mechanisms of a democracy, and how it is designed.
That can be taught effectively to primary school children.

But how a democracy actually works? Eeesh. That is trickier. And more controversial.

Well, a certain level of cogntion and understanding of psychology, sociology and history.
If I strip away the particulars and go for the key words, it is about how different people understand these categoires:
Fair, equal, majority versus minority rights, duties, responsibility, harm, the good and productive life, being right or wrong. That fans out for in practice how to do it, but there is another "problem".
The ideal citizen is a person on level 5 or 6 as per Kohlberg, but that is a post-conventional level. In other words for democrcy to function it in the ideal form requires a majority of citizens, that is not there in practice.

But I would say ideals are things to aim for, not things to achieve. So let's agree that a better working knowledge of how our democracies work structurally, as well as an increased and more nuanced understanding over time of how they work practically, are important.

So how do we get there? I don't know, because there is no big enough we for that.
But in practice I am of the belief of the evolutionary boring centric compromise approach over time. Move the overton window for any of those key words, ever so slightly towards that one context and human at a time and hope for the best.

On the other hand after close to 20 years in the eduction sector, not even eduction is a magic bullet, but rather is even sometimes in effect done as the nirvana fallacy.

Yup...I'm an ex-educator, and it's definitely not a magic bullet. But...it would be nice to have basic structural information passed on to all citizens. How our voting system works, and why it is structured the way it is becomes very important. And is pretty easy to teach with a couple of practical exercises. So to how a bill is passed.

I'd love for everyone to invest in a more nuanced understanding of issues, but to be honest, I'm just trying to make sure that I meet that standard. And hopefully my kids in time.

 

[LuisDantas]

We were kinda derailing another thread, but basically it's a ramble about the importance (or otherwise) of civic discourse and discussion on issues. To some degree, I don't think that is a particularly divisive topic, but we're kinda moving on to what should be expected of people in terms of open and nuanced discussion, inclusion, commitment to that, etc.

One nuance is that these discussions are commonly launched with an American frame of reference (to some degree) but neither myself nor @Debater Slayer are Americans.
Heck, neither is @mikkel_the_dane who has now dropped in.

I suspect that this subject matter may not be particularly North-American after all, but maybe it is.

Events since 2003 or so (the time when George W. Bush essentially invaded Iraq under transparent false pretense) have led me to increasingly suspect that civility itself is on a global crisis of some sort. Democracy is a direct victim of that shift towards self-delusion and truculence, which has been going on in many other places beyond the USA.

It is very hard to even attempt respectful dialogue when one of the interlocutors begins from the stance that he is in some form of holy mission to contain evil in the form of the other side by any means necessary. And the arising of impressive numbers of people who are engaged in convincing themselves that they are in just such a situation is a sad reality that we all must deal with.

Civic discourse and discussion are indeed essential. But they may well be beyond our means. In a nutshell, there can be no dialogue without a common language... and there are far too many people who refuse to use language that acknowledges the basic dignity and rights of their intelorcutors.

Sad as it is, we may have reached the point where the message to be communicated is no longer "shall we try to reach a common understanding" but instead "some of your stances are just not within the scope of what I can possibly respect; let's see what the consequences are and how we can deal with those".

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I suspect that this subject matter may not be particularly North-American after all, but maybe it is.

No, I don't think it is. Just more the framing to some degree.

Events since 2003 or so (the time when George W. Bush essentially invaded Iraq under transparent false pretense) have led me to increasingly suspect that civility itself is on a global crisis of some sort. Democracy is a direct victim of that shift towards self-delusion and truculence, which has been going on in many other places beyond the USA.

It is very hard to even attempt respectful dialogue when one of the interlocutors begins from the stance that he is in some form of holy mission to contain evil in the form of the other side by any means necessary. And the arising of impressive numbers of people who are engaged in convincing themselves that they are in just such a situation is a sad reality that we all must deal with.

Yes, agreed.

Civic discourse and discussion are indeed essential. But they may well be beyond our means. In a nutshell, there can be no dialogue without a common language... and there are far too many people who refuse to use language that acknowledges the basic dignity and rights of their intelorcutors.

Sad as it is, we may have reached the point where the message to be communicated is no longer "shall we try to reach a common understanding" but instead "some of your stances are just not within the scope of what I can possibly respect; let's see what the consequences are and how we can deal with those".

Meh, I'm old enough that I'll just 'kee fighting the good fight'. Whether it's effective is completely open to conjecture, but the alternative approaches aren't really palatable to me.

I do wonder what my youngest (2) will think civic discourse is when she's old enough to participate.

 

[Debater Slayer]

No, they don't. But if they want to be part of the solution, they might have to jump in at nuanced level, and look at what fixes are going to be effective. That will neccessarily require pragmatic, and not just idealistic discussion. For example, it's easy to suggest that sexism plays a major role in PNG witch-burnings. It's also accurate. But should that be a primary consideration in mounting a response? Is that the most efficient use of money and resources? What would actually save lives?

I agree with you, but I think it's okay for many people not to want or be able to be involved in doing the heavy lifting for addressing such deep-rooted, major sociopolitical issues. It's necessary to have a subset of the population who are dedicated to thinking about such things, discussing them, and formulating realistic solutions, but like any other job out there, it's not for all or even most.

That's fair, I think. But it's lead to some disasters through human history, also. I am strong anti-reactionism, I would say. The enemy of my enemy is not in any sense my friend.

Yeah, but unfortunately, sometimes disaster becomes unavoidable even though it doesn't need to be, and I would say that's largely a product of human nature. People, at least those in power, often know how to avoid it, but all too often, they don't work together well, respect others' basic rights, or adopt the best courses of action. It's mostly the same story with many instances of severe social and political strife throughout history.

I think the people need to take their share of responsibility here, though. In a nominally free society, there is some truth to the thought that we get the politicians we deserve. The 'fight', for me, is in protecting the health of the democracy. If we shift (as we seem to have now too commonly) to addressing the symptoms, rather than the root cause of issues, we have a problem. As a ham-fisted example, BLM had to be about systemic reform to policing and other systems, and not about tearing down systems (imho). I understand why people become destructive, but ultimately that approach isn't effective in my opinion.

I think the rules fundamentally change in a relatively liberal and free democracy, yes, although I also think that sometimes people don't have as much choice as one might intuitively expect when thinking about a liberal democracy. I wouldn't classify the US as anywhere near the best example of a liberal democracy, but its political scene has become smothered by its bipartisan system, and choice is far more limited than one might think. It's not the only democracy where choices are practically limited to two or a few parties either.

I wasn't quite sure how to interpret this one, to be honest. One interesting angle I didn't explore deeply (lots of rabbit-holes...lol) is that there was a long-term effective plan to de-stygmatise homosexuality. At some point it become common enough for people to know an openly gay person. And realise they were 'just' people. Some are out there, some are homebodies, some are conservative, some are liberal, some are in long-term relationships and have grey hair, even....just people.
I think that actually had a larger effect than anything. But ultimately having a society that allows for discussions, or views, or actions (to a point) that fall outside the norm is pretty impactful as a long-term consideration in leading us to a point where an unrequired postal vote showed broad support for marriage equality.

Based on what you described, I think the fact that homosexuals could openly be themselves without putting themselves at a major risk of unsafety would definitely be a factor there. It's impossible for the average person to know that their neighbor, teacher, boss, etc., is a homosexual when the latter can't even remotely hint at their sexual orientation without risking severe legal or social consequences.

I would argue that this fits into the list of material conditions, although I agree that open discussion and acceptance of views and actions outside prevalent norms are also crucial.

The public will absolutely NOT necessarily end up adopting desirable policies. People are short-sighted, selfish in a casual way, and prone to looking at any given issue with incomplete information, even where more complete information is available.
I think what I'm suggesting here is that 'we the people' need to try and lift the quality and nuance of discourse, and start seeing other people who do the same as allies, even where their opinion differs to ours. These are people investing and committing to liberal democracy, and investing and committing to public discourse. The rest of the people...be they left, right, or whatever...are actually slowly destroying the American political system (and a bunch of others worldwide) even where I agree with them on particular issues.

I disagree that we need to see other people who do the same—rather than a subset thereof, in which case I would agree—as allies, unless we narrow down the area of focus so much that we're talking about being allies on only one or a few issues. I would instead see common ground in that almost everyone had shared interests and benefits in preserving democracy, public discussion, and a functioning political system.

I wouldn't see a vocal proponent of theocracy or military aggression as an ally no matter how much we engaged in dialogue, except, again, in the context of addressing or talking about an unrelated issue on which we were aligned. I would seek to extend them the same rights and freedoms I had in the context of a liberal democracy, but I actually think that seeing people who advocate for implementing certain views into law as allies could be downright dangerous in some situations, theocracy and wars of aggression being two salient and relatively common cases.

Whoops!! I think anyone should have the right to sideline themselves and not be involved, for any reason they like.
We have compulsory voting here, which I like. But I wish people who don't want to pick someone, or haven't invested thought, would just put in a blank ballot. Those people cause no harm at all. Whereas people who vote for their team just because...or pick on name recognition...or hotness...or whatever....they are actively harming democratic principles (to a tiny degree, I admit).

Agreed.

Safe spaces in the sense of internet communities makes perfect sense to me, for all that I'm not personally a fan. I see nothing wrong with what they were trying to do.

Yeah, I think isolating oneself to a safe space all the time can be detrimental to oneself for multiple reasons, but they weren't doing that, since they lived their whole lives in a hostile environment anyway. I think a safe space in that situation can sometimes be life-saving, and I've met like-minded friends through such spaces when otherwise we would have never met each other or would have been unable to open up to each other about who we really were even if we had somehow met.

 

[Debater Slayer]

We were kinda derailing another thread, but basically it's a ramble about the importance (or otherwise) of civic discourse and discussion on issues. To some degree, I don't think that is a particularly divisive topic, but we're kinda moving on to what should be expected of people in terms of open and nuanced discussion, inclusion, commitment to that, etc.

One nuance is that these discussions are commonly launched with an American frame of reference (to some degree) but neither myself nor @Debater Slayer are Americans.
Heck, neither is @mikkel_the_dane who has now dropped in.

Yeah, and it seems to me that we agree on this a lot more than we disagree, an example being our shared approach of being willing to discuss various issues with others, including some who have views that may support existential or otherwise severe threats to us (e.g., the death penalty for atheists). I think we just disagree on a few of the finer details, although those clearly still make for some fun and elaborate discussion!

 

[Patrick66]

There's a reason that we are all divided and the reason is spiritual.

Luke 12:49-52

English Standard Version

​

Not Peace, but Division​

49 “I came to cast fire on the earth, and would that it were already kindled! 50 I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how great is my distress until it is accomplished! 51 Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division. 52 For from now on in one house there will be five divided, three against two and two against three.

 

[Stevicus]

We were kinda derailing another thread, but basically it's a ramble about the importance (or otherwise) of civic discourse and discussion on issues. To some degree, I don't think that is a particularly divisive topic, but we're kinda moving on to what should be expected of people in terms of open and nuanced discussion, inclusion, commitment to that, etc.

One nuance is that these discussions are commonly launched with an American frame of reference (to some degree) but neither myself nor @Debater Slayer are Americans.
Heck, neither is @mikkel_the_dane who has now dropped in.

I think there's a lot of interest in American politics, so that seems to drive the discussion. I don't believe that it actually needs an American frame of reference, and in all honesty, I am interested in opinions from other countries. However, there are times when I can sense that there are some who appear reluctant to actually name which country they're from. Sometimes, it's important to know that in order to understand someone's frame of reference.

If a person is American and discussing American politics, one might presume that they have a personal stake in what happens in the US and to its citizenry. If a person is not American, it's not always easy to tell if they have a personal stake in America or if they're just disinterested bystanders - or if they're arguing from the perspective of what's best for their own country. If a person from Japan says "America's government should do X," do they say that because they believe that it would be better for America or for Japan?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I think there's a lot of interest in American politics, so that seems to drive the discussion.

I'm interested in American politics. However, it might surprise Americans how much exposure to American politics and popular culture we get, whether we want it or not.

I don't believe that it actually needs an American frame of reference, and in all honesty, I am interested in opinions from other countries.

It totally doesn't. It was more just a comment about framing. Put it this way...I might be interested in Egyptian politics, and @Debater Slayer might be interested in Australian. We could (and occasionally do) pm each other about aspects of that. But when talking publically, with folks from different countries, it can be simple shorthand to use slightly American examples due to that common exposure.

If I talk about Dan Andrews, non-Australians are less likely to get the reference than if I talk about Gavin Newsome, basically.

However, there are times when I can sense that there are some who appear reluctant to actually name which country they're from. Sometimes, it's important to know that in order to understand someone's frame of reference.

'Strayan, mate. More specifically, a proud Melbournian. But yes, this could apply to others.

If a person is American and discussing American politics, one might presume that they have a personal stake in what happens in the US and to its citizenry. If a person is not American, it's not always easy to tell if they have a personal stake in America or if they're just disinterested bystanders - or if they're arguing from the perspective of what's best for their own country. If a person from Japan says "America's government should do X," do they say that because they believe that it would be better for America or for Japan?

I'm happy to tackle this one, purely from my point of view.

1) Sometimes it would be based on 'Whats best for Australia' (in my case), but that is rare. It would really be around some trade and some foreign policy decisions. Particularly declarations of war and peace.

2) It is most often a means of discussing an issue with the board in a common language. So...when discussing whether Trump should have been indicted by Bragg (I say no, incidentally) it's really more a discussion about the politicisation of the justice system, or the Trumpification of politics, or popularism vs legalism...or whatever. Many things at once, most likely. And American politics is a common enough language to toss around concepts.
You'll certainly see national variations, particularly around topics of 'freedom', which I would humbly suggest mean different things to many Americans than to many of the rest of us. But it can be hard to communicate the combined experiences of 'outsiders' to Americans...at least to those who aren't well travelled. Unlike us, you don't have massive exposure to foreign politics and culture, and there isn't really a country that can impact on your domestic politics in the way you can on ours.

3) There's a saying that 'when America sneezes, the world catches a cold'. Incidentally, that was originally 'when France sneezes, Europe catches a cold', because Napoleon...lol
Nonetheless, if I see someone like Trump get traction in the States, we will get people attempting the same here (refer United Australia Party and Clive Palmer). That's not just in politics, either. So it makes sense to form opinions on American situations sometimes as they are likely to become Australian ones.

4) Less commonly, sometimes you guys are just a little weird and interesting. Public school funding and charter schools are both areas of professional curiosity, rather than anything falling into the above three buckets. These are instances where the USA is 'just another country' and happens to be a unique case study. So, on schooling, the USA and Finland are particularly interesting to me.

Hope that helps clarify!!

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I agree with you, but I think it's okay for many people not to want or be able to be involved in doing the heavy lifting for addressing such deep-rooted, major sociopolitical issues. It's necessary to have a subset of the population who are dedicated to thinking about such things, discussing them, and formulating realistic solutions, but like any other job out there, it's not for all or even most.

Mostly. I do think there is increasingly a risk for people to not invest in a topic, but still passionately hold a viewpoint. And in Australia, at least, those people vote. So they just vote for their team, and talk about their opponents in jingoistic terms.
That's entirely a generalisation, of course. And it's always happened. Just feels worse these days.

Yeah, but unfortunately, sometimes disaster becomes unavoidable even though it doesn't need to be, and I would say that's largely a product of human nature. People, at least those in power, often know how to avoid it, but all too often, they don't work together well, respect others' basic rights, or adopt the best courses of action. It's mostly the same story with many instances of severe social and political strife throughout history.

True enough, but you're talking systemic issues versus personal responsibility, I think.
I could look at rioting and say 'welp, this is what happens when an underclass develops' and also 'welp, that's not going to help a damn thing' and also 'hitting a cop with a tyre iron from behind needs to result in justice' and also 'the police should not be firing rubber bullets at peaceful protests, no matter what happened last week', etc.
That's kinda my overarching theme. We don't need to reduce things to 'so, BLM...pro or con?'
(Or...Police...pro or con? Etc)

I think the rules fundamentally change in a relatively liberal and free democracy, yes, although I also think that sometimes people don't have as much choice as one might intuitively expect when thinking about a liberal democracy. I wouldn't classify the US as anywhere near the best example of a liberal democracy, but its political scene has become smothered by its bipartisan system, and choice is far more limited than one might think. It's not the only democracy where choices are practically limited to two or a few parties either.

This smells like you're making my case for me. Welcome to the world of nuance, grey, and contextual views. It's a confusing place, but there's beauty here.

Based on what you described, I think the fact that homosexuals could openly be themselves without putting themselves at a major risk of unsafety would definitely be a factor there. It's impossible for the average person to know that their neighbor, teacher, boss, etc., is a homosexual when the latter can't even remotely hint at their sexual orientation without risking severe legal or social consequences.

I would argue that this fits into the list of material conditions, although I agree that open discussion and acceptance of views and actions outside prevalent norms are also crucial.

Agreed. Basically, there were some brave trailblazers, and a need for sacrifice by some (unfortunately), as society wasn't liberal enough on this particular issue to have frank and open discourse and examination. When that was finally achieved to a decent level, there was a natural snowballing effect, and the rate of change actually accelerated. It became societally accepted to support gay lifestyles and people. It's moved past that even further now.

I disagree that we need to see other people who do the same—rather than a subset thereof, in which case I would agree—as allies, unless we narrow down the area of focus so much that we're talking about being allies on only one or a few issues. I would instead see common ground in that almost everyone had shared interests and benefits in preserving democracy, public discussion, and a functioning political system.

Again...you're kinda making my case. We shouldn't see people as allies, unless we narrow down the focus to one or a few issues. They may end up aligning on most issues, even, but that's based on their views. Not their team.

For example, a gay man who wants abortion banned is someone I might align with on marriage equality, and not on abortion. He's not on 'my team', nor is he 'my enemy'. It's contextual and issues based. That's horribly simplified given just how many issues and opinions we have jammed into our monkey skulls, of course.

I wouldn't see a vocal proponent of theocracy or military aggression as an ally no matter how much we engaged in dialogue, except, again, in the context of addressing or talking about an unrelated issue on which we were aligned.

All I'm suggesting is that your alignment with a person can be issues based, rather than personal.
That theocrat might be a Jain who favours peaceful foreign policy. That pro-military person might be advocating putting peacekeepers into Rwanda to protect refugee camps.

You don't have to decide theocrats are good, or militarization is good. But on a given issue, the context of the issue should drive your views and allies.

I've snipped off the rest because we basically agreed. But in defence of more extreme free speech views than I hold, it's worth noting that they are generally and genuinely advocating that allowing hate speech (as an example) is unfortunate, but banning it is more dangerous. Again...not my view to that degree...but you see firmly to believe that allowing certain discussions to flourish is bad. Would you agree that it can also be bad to quell uncomfortable discussions? I suspect yes, and this is more about where that line is, and how compelled people should feel to participate...

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Yeah, and it seems to me that we agree on this a lot more than we disagree, an example being our shared approach of being willing to discuss various issues with others, including some who have views that may support existential or otherwise severe threats to us (e.g., the death penalty for atheists). I think we just disagree on a few of the finer details, although those clearly still make for some fun and elaborate discussion!

Yup...we're mostly aligned, I would say.

I think I'm allow a little more chaos to reign than you'd feel comfortable with, and things like inappropriate humour, or whether a person should be permitted to upset or outrage others would be divisive to a degree.

 

[Stevicus]

I'm interested in American politics. However, it might surprise Americans how much exposure to American politics and popular culture we get, whether we want it or not.

It doesn't surprise me nowadays, with the internet and the availability and accessibility that people have to different cultures and information sources. When I was younger, I became aware rather early that American music had made the scene worldwide and was quite popular. Although many of my favorite bands were British, I also knew that they too were influenced by many early American blues and rock artists. American movies also seemed to dominate the world market. (I recall reading that, after WW2, European cinema was in a bit of a shambles for several years, which worked to the advantage of US film companies.)

As for politics, I tended to see parallels in politics, particularly among the Western liberal democracies and especially the countries of the Anglosphere. With slight variations, we all have conservatives and liberals, capitalists and socialists. The women's suffrage movements came along at around the same pace in both Britain and the U.S. (not sure about Australia). We have similar and connected histories, particularly in the history of expansionism, colonialism, racism - yet we also started reforming and reproving ourselves along parallel lines as well. We each have our war hawks and doves. So, we're a lot alike.

Of course, the U.S. went along a different course, had much more robust immigration, contributing to a larger, more diverse population - which makes our overall culture more nuanced and flavorful than most people are willing to give us credit for.

It totally doesn't. It was more just a comment about framing. Put it this way...I might be interested in Egyptian politics, and @Debater Slayer might be interested in Australian. We could (and occasionally do) pm each other about aspects of that. But when talking publically, with folks from different countries, it can be simple shorthand to use slightly American examples due to that common exposure.

If I talk about Dan Andrews, non-Australians are less likely to get the reference than if I talk about Gavin Newsome, basically.

Sure, that makes sense. That can even be true within America, as there's a certain degree of regionalism. I'm generally interested in international politics and how different countries align and interact with each other in the world community. But when it comes to the domestic politics in other countries, it would largely depend. I do try to keep myself apprised of at least the basic information about most countries of the world, although I may not be aware of the some of nuances and intricacies of individual national systems.

I guess it was important for me, as an American growing up during the Cold War, to try to find out how things looked on the other side of the hill, so to speak. Foreign policy and US militarism have always been hot topics, although as a kid, I noted a lot of the debate was always so insular: Americans explaining to other Americans what the rest of the world was like and what other people around the world thought. I wanted to find out if it was true.

'Strayan, mate. More specifically, a proud Melbournian. But yes, this could apply to others.

Yes, I've run into a few of your countrymen on occasion. But Americans might look at Australia and see an ally of the U.S. We speak the same language (more or less), and we're on the same side, geopolitically. Regardless of which party gets into power, either one of them can be expected to maintain good relations. Although if the US moves even further right, that might encourage and embolden right-wingers in Australia and other countries.

I'm happy to tackle this one, purely from my point of view.

1) Sometimes it would be based on 'Whats best for Australia' (in my case), but that is rare. It would really be around some trade and some foreign policy decisions. Particularly declarations of war and peace.

2) It is most often a means of discussing an issue with the board in a common language. So...when discussing whether Trump should have been indicted by Bragg (I say no, incidentally) it's really more a discussion about the politicisation of the justice system, or the Trumpification of politics, or popularism vs legalism...or whatever. Many things at once, most likely. And American politics is a common enough language to toss around concepts.
You'll certainly see national variations, particularly around topics of 'freedom', which I would humbly suggest mean different things to many Americans than to many of the rest of us. But it can be hard to communicate the combined experiences of 'outsiders' to Americans...at least to those who aren't well travelled. Unlike us, you don't have massive exposure to foreign politics and culture, and there isn't really a country that can impact on your domestic politics in the way you can on ours.

It depends. In my case, I live relatively close to an international border and live in an area which is rather diverse. My own perspective is influenced by living in close proximity to our southern neighbor. I think, to some extent, Latin America is a region that America has neglected and taken for granted for far too long. I think we have a decidedly incoherent immigration and border policy, coupled with an equally incoherent and inconsistent foreign policy. To say the least, we have quite a checkered past with Latin America, and this could have serious ramifications in the long run.

But there's also been a strong xenophobic bent within America, and this also plays into the hands of the warmongers who go on and on about rogue nations, axes of evil, and all the other horrors of the outside world. If you've ever seen "A Few Good Men" with Col. Jessep's speech at the end, keep in mind that there are Americans who really think and act like this. I have met many such people; I grew up around them. They're everywhere. I've known people who couldn't point out their own state on a map somehow develop prescience and clairvoyance about the mindset of the Kremlin and what the Russians were planning. Because they just *know* how "evil" they are. The same basic mentality is what drives the idea that we should "build a wall" along the border, to keep out all these "evil" people who want to destroy us.

Americans have been exposed to this kind of talk since the McCarthy era, and even if we seemed to drift away from it for a while, it came back with Reagan and it's been with us ever since. I think Reagan and his ilk used the jingoism and pseudo-patriotism as kind of a gimmick, and it continued on during the subsequent administrations, both Democratic and Republican, who maintained the same interventionist warmongering policies. It was useful to get the public's support, but the trouble they're facing now is that they have true believers on their hands. There are people who really believe in it.

In other words, Americans have been conditioned and become more and more predisposed towards acceptance of fascism - and it's been going for decades. There is some irony that all this patriotism came about as a cynical political ploy to drum up public support for various military actions, yet it seems many have failed to recognize the long-term consequences that such adherence to military traditions leads to more malignant mode of thought. The Prussians and Germans had long military traditions and adherence to nationalism long before the Nazis ever came to power. They didn't suddenly go berserk just because Hitler made a few speeches, as some people seem to believe. (Just like many believe that Trump single-handedly caused all this political turmoil in America, when nothing could be further from the truth. America was set on this course long before Trump ever came on the scene.)

3) There's a saying that 'when America sneezes, the world catches a cold'. Incidentally, that was originally 'when France sneezes, Europe catches a cold', because Napoleon...lol
Nonetheless, if I see someone like Trump get traction in the States, we will get people attempting the same here (refer United Australia Party and Clive Palmer). That's not just in politics, either. So it makes sense to form opinions on American situations sometimes as they are likely to become Australian ones.

Yes, that makes sense. Granted, America grew tremendously in power during the 20th century. When looking at the various periods in our history, I have to concede that a lot of America's power and success came about from being at the right place at the right time. But our histories also interconnected and ran parallel to each other - not just between America and Britain, but also among the other nations of Europe, which were gripped by various incarnations of liberalism and nationalism.

But in some ways, America kind of backed into the position of global primacy which they reached as a result of the World Wars. I suppose we could have tried to stay neutral - just as Sweden and Switzerland remained neutral. But I just can't imagine what that would have looked like.

Since the end of WW2 and the Cold War - and now this new Cold War 2.0 phase we seem to be in - it's almost like we're locked on some course that we can't change. It reminds me of what Thomas Jefferson said about holding a wolf by the ears. Letting go is not an option.

4) Less commonly, sometimes you guys are just a little weird and interesting. Public school funding and charter schools are both areas of professional curiosity, rather than anything falling into the above three buckets. These are instances where the USA is 'just another country' and happens to be a unique case study. So, on schooling, the USA and Finland are particularly interesting to me.

Hope that helps clarify!!

I guess every country has its own idiosyncrasies.

I remember back in my Usenet days, I would look at newsgroups where it was mostly Aussies and Yanks flaming each other and insulting each other's countries. That's how I became initiated to the term "Seppo." But it was all mainly tongue in cheek, just for fun.