NeoNote — Not right or left
❝❝Rather than citing examples of "rightness" being a mental illness, I think I will just cite the old idiom Moderation in all things.NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.
I will say that from my perspective it's not "right" or "left" that is wrong per se, but the desire to control others while avoiding the consequences of your own actions. The reasons and the justifications change, not the actions.
Just where do you think the "left" learned the self-righteous, sanctimonious posturing?
Frankly, I don't care who did it first, second, or most recently. Or what the scoreboard says.
You're playing the game, perpetuating the problem. And I have absolutely no assurance that if "your guys" win, my life will be better. Just your promises, which are worth exactly nothing based on past experience.
After all, you've just admitted that you can't stand dissent and disagreement.
If I've no investment in the ideology and your side "breaks the rules" to suppress dissent, then there is no benefit for me to support "the system" no matter which side "wins."
I'd be better off bringing down the whole mess and helping people pick up the pieces afterwards.
That's the stakes you're playing for. Not if your side wins, but if there will be a game left to play, or even if there will be recognizable sides.
So thought experiments aside, are you willing to play with these stakes?
The rules of the game mean you can't win. Neither can they. Oh, each side trades advantage with the other, but the conflict goes on and feeds on itself.
That's not being heroic, that's being damn stupid. What good does it do to protect the widows and orphans when there is no safe place to go?
Of course there are rules of the game, number one being winner take all. Number two being that the "truth" of the argument is determined by the winner of the conflict. Number three is that winning the conflict grants the power to silence dissent. Number four is that the conflict is far too important to allow ordinary people to ask questions.
This isn't Darwin, this isn't the nature of man, this is an artificial construct.
Should I go on?
I never claimed that I didn't answer. I implied you were asking the wrong questions. When anyone reduces things to an either/or premise, that is usually the case.
There you go again, assuming the only response is either/or.
You think winning is the answer.
I want to remove the possibility of either side winning and starting the conflict all over again.
Because after you win, after you put down your sword and gun, after you take a deep breath on the field of battle, I and those like me will be there.
Pointing at you.
Laughing.
And you won't be able to touch us.
Sometimes you don't have to win. Sometimes it's enough to keep the other guys from crossing the finish line and claiming their bloodstained glory.
If you think the socialists winning means that the President, Congress, and the courts have unrestrained power, then you already lost.
And they have exactly as much power over you as you choose to give them.
Either/or is a self-imposed trap. It presupposes that there are two and only two alternatives.
The greatest single expansion of the Deep State was signed into law by a Republican.
Would it help you understand my point if I (truthfully) told you that since a month or two after the handoff, I've said that Hong Kong will be remembered in history as the City That Ate A Country?
It's not a matter of free market DNA. It's the fact that Hong Kong has the most capitalist and competitive society on the face of the planet.
I agree we're talking at cross purposes. You see it as all wrapped up and I see a Gordian knot. In the case of Hong Kong, a free Hong Kong has a greater value than the Chinese military.
But for now, let's agree that we do disagree and move on.
And that is when you change the game.
Did you accept the rule set before you started playing?
Well, that is a interesting philosophical premise.
I'd agree that for most purposes, there appears to be an objective reality. From my purely subjective perspective of course. But pursuing that goes way beyond our conversation here.
Are the units autonomous? Well, that's another philosophical bit. For example, is the planet aware? Restricting our conversation to humans, are humans autonomous? I'd have to say that most individuals are not. No matter what the politics.
Are humans and specifically "leftists" dangerous? They can be, and mostly want to be. Are they more dangerous than "rightists?"
No.
As I said political orientation isn't the problem. Politics is.
I prefer Nolan's chart to the right-left dichotomy.
Politics is controlling the other.
I've spent a lifetime dealing with those who want to control others. Some do in the name of environmentalism, some do in the name of Divine moral authority, some do it for the "greater good." The justification changes, but the methods don't.
One of my biggest frustrations in today's politics is that people overlook what "their" side does even as they denounce the "other" side for doing the exact same thing.
We've reached the point where what is done is not nearly as important as who did it.
Meanwhile liberty takes a hit.
*shrugs*
My problem here is once you've won, then what? Especially if in victory you claim power and authority that you never should have had.
Earlier you told me that if the socialists won in 2020, I'll personally lose. My response was to point out that if the EEEEEVVVIIILLLL forces of government already had power to screw me on some technocrat's or politico's whim, then there is no point in me supporting your side because freedom is already gone.
Sure, you promise to fix it, you promise to Do The Right Thing, and I should believe that why?““The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.””
Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan between them escalated the "War On Drugs" and enabled the narco-state. Mandatory minimum sentences were made possible by the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. Wide scale civil forfeiture including sharing funds and proceeds with local police agencies was made legal by the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984. The 1208 program and the militarization of local police dates to 1990, although it was changed to the 1033 program and was expanded in 1996. The USA PATRIOT Act was signed into law by Bush League.
This is only a small portion of things that have happened on a Federal level.
I ask for nothing except the freedom to live my life as I choose while accepting responsibility for my choices.
Who is the "right" to deny me those things?
I'm going to point out again that you're willing to overlook the abuses of "your guys" while going after the "other guys."
I want less government than absolutely necessary. What I see is a long history of Republicans and conservatives who want to expand government, regulation, and spending. The Deep State owes just as much to Republicans than to Democrats.
I don't care who is "in charge." I don't care who is to blame.
I want less government than absolutely necessary.
I gave specific examples of Republicans abusing power in ways that rival anything that Democrats have done or will do.
You are stuck on the label when you should be looking at the institution.
“Nothing R's have done in your lifetime can compare to the damage of the D's.”
Watergate.
Ford's pardoning of Nixon.
Ford's "Hail Mary" pass to save the CIA and his nomination of George H.W. Bush to director. Since it was before my birth, we'll ignore the rumors about Bush's CIA related activities between 1959 and 1964. Also before my time but I'm doing extra credit, the question remains why Bush was pretty much the one American in his generation who could not "remember" where he was on November 22, 1963.
Iran-Contra.
Changing of banking laws and regulations during the early 1980s, leading to the savings and loan crisis, the eradication of regional banks, and the consolidation of American banks and investment firms into selected giants.
The USA PATRIOT Act, literally the climax of decades old Deep State wet dreams. Start with Inslaw and PROMIS, look at the Danny Casolaro murder, and then look at what has happened the last twenty years.
I could go on and on. I haven't even touched on what happened with the Contract With America, or how the leaders of both major parties colluded and conspired against the Tea Party.
The vice or virtue is not in the label. Democrats and the left are not especially evil. Republicans and conservatives don't get a free pass because they are doing the wrong thing for the "right" reasons.
I wanted to make this about government, the abuse of power and politics in general. You were the one making the case that Democrats and the left were irredeemably evil while Republicans and conservatives were mostly good.
First, stop blaming "leftists" for the evils of government.
Second, accept that the label Republican, conservative, or "rightist" doesn't make you saints or even the best qualified.
When you've done that, I'm ready to talk about the next bit.
I gave you examples, including Republicans who actively broke the law.
As for Republicans being the lesser evil, is there a one of them since Eisenhower who did anything other than go through the motions?
Start by admitting it is a government problem and not a Republican or Democrat situation.
Stop making excuses because some of your interests happen to line up at the time.
Until you do that, you're not ready to have this conversation.
You're treating a premise as an Article of Faith Not To Be Questioned.
As long as you hold onto that, you won't believe what I say or accept any solution that I propose. Because under that premise, it's absolute nonsense and can't possibly be anything else.
Or the premise is invalid.
That is not true.
There has to be a commonality to build on, especially for deeply held beliefs.
For example, I don't think humans need to be saved. So talking to me about a guy nailed to a cross isn't really going to resonate. Likewise, unless you accept anthropogenic climate change, the notion of a climate crisis won't make sense.
As for giving my views and the solutions, I have.
“There has to be rationality.”
Since when? Empires have risen and fallen without rationality. Trade agreements have been negotiated without rationality. Probably fewer than ten percent of Americans living right now are rational by any definition except they obey the rules they've been given.
Just to point it out again, I have stated the problem and the solution repeatedly. You reject the premise and therefore don't believe me. Government is the problem, even if it is a "friendly" government controlled by people you like. As long as you look to government for solutions, you make the problem worse.
Case in point, you've mentioned several times that we need to remove the left ideology from public schools and universities. Our public school system was created in part so that government could control what was taught. Did it never occur to you that as long as schools were publicly funded and government controlled, you can never remove the ideas that you don't like? Rather than taking control of schools and universities, maybe the answer is let the schools compete in a free market. The schools that can deliver value will thrive, the others won't. It's worked for everything from rye flour to smartphones, there is no reason to think it wouldn't work incredibly well for schools.
I haven't said anything about moral equivalence.
I just don't think that we should trust politicos to store and transport nuclear sludge in Hefty bags.
Don't tell me about the "virtues" of Republicans. Tell me why, despite their claimed support of smaller government, they haven't done anything substantial since JFK.
And he was a Democrat.
You've been telling me how virtuous the Republicans are. I'm telling you that based on their behavior, they aren't. There's less than a handful of effective Republican politicos on a national level who demonstrate honor and character. It's not because they are Republicans, it's because they have honor and character.
I gave you specific, catastrophic, and freedom destroying examples of highly placed Republicans turning government against the people. Some were felonies, and some weren't felonies only because no one had enacted laws against them yet.
I have offered solutions, you just don't like what I offered since it doesn't give conservatives legal and "moral" advantages that can be exploited against "leftists" because they are leftists.
“Just as we don't want other ideals imposed on us, we shouldn't impose our ideals on others. No matter how convinced we are that we are right.”
“The only thing they are really giving up is the power to compel behavior in others.”
You can't depend on government to do it for you.
Before Trump, who was doing it?
After Trump, who will continue doing it?
And that is assuming that Trump is a net benefit, something I do not believe.
All I've said is that Republicans aren't saints or "the better choice" because they are Republicans. The evidence supports my claims.
You've said that Democrats are more inherently more evil than Republicans. The evidence doesn't support your claims.
Show me people of honor and character and I will consider supporting them.
Show me Republicans and I will insist on honor and character. Show me Democrats and I will insist on honor and character. The label doesn't get a pass.
A man is measured in the lives he touched.
BTW, mandatory minimums, civil forfeiture of property without criminal convictions, and the militarization of police are hardly minor, superficial issues.
Your entire argument boils down to government is worse with Democrats in charge.
My argument is that government threatens liberty and rights no matter who is "calling the shots."
I gave you specific examples during Republican presidencies that have led to massive abuse of power.
I am not saying that Republicans are as bad as Democrats. I am saying that government is bad and it's time we reduced it's power and scope.
Otherwise we're fighting over who gets to be in charge with no evidence that Republicans are better or Democrats are better.
As long as we have government, let's make it too small to screw up our lives.
We have conditioned generations to believe that government is all wise and mostly benevolent. That government is the first, best, and last solution. That any problem can be fixed with more money and government expertise.
Provided no one asks inconvenient questions.
Me, I think government is radioactive and corrosive. I think it is occasionally useful in extreme circumstances but only if it is behind thirteen layers of protection. I think the risks of invoking government outweigh the benefits by several orders of magnitude.
And I do not trust anyone to use it wisely.
As far as the criminal abuse of the alphabet agencies, why do you think it began with Obama against Trump?❞❞
Comments
NeoNotes — Are you trying to make me irritated with you?
❝❝Mrs. Bookworm,NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.
Are you trying to make me irritated with you?
You keep going off on these anti-pagan rants. This is what, the ninth or tenth? It's blood libel. You wouldn't stand for it if the targets were Jewish or Christian. I don't see why I should "turn the other cheek" when you target pagans.
Nature worship as such is not the problem. Any more than the KKK (a nominally Christian organization) is. Intolerance is the problem. Demanding that others follow the rules of your faith is the problem. Yes, Nature is red of tooth and claw. So are humans when untempered by civilization. And no, I do not mean civilization is Christianity. I regularly tell people that Christians (and the other two Big Monotheisms) are nicer people when they aren't the only game around. Yes, Christianity says some pretty nice things in that book. But it only plays by it's own rules when there is competition keeping it honest.
The vice or virtue is not in the label. It's in the words and actions of the individual. We're measured in the lives we touch.
You want to go after someone for intolerance, be my guest. You want to go after someone for monoculture and echo chambers, go for it. You want to go after someone for Nature worship, then you'll have to start with me. And I will turn it back on you with a vengeance. Not nicely, like I usually do with these discussions. Because you would do the same if it were your faith that was attacked. And so would everyone else here.❞❞
Mutual respect
Saturday - 27Jul2019 Filed in: Quotes & Thinkums&Morality & Modern Life
NeoNote — Unjustified privilege
❝❝You're making unjustified assumptions.NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.
Is the climate crisis a thing? To some (like most pagans), yes. To others like (not conservative) me, no. It's an article of faith, not far removed from monotheism or forgiveness of sin. The issue is that because of the alarmism, those who believe in the climate crisis don't tolerate dissent because of the "urgency" of the problem.
At their best, American Christian conservatives are extremely community minded. A child lost in the woods? They are there looking. Death in the family? Somebody is bringing meals by. The problem is who they identify as being part of the community. Something that is not helped by some like pagans setting themselves outside the acknowledged community.
Most claims of conservative racism are because the conservatives involved didn't see any reason to grant special privilege when people already had rights recognized by law. It doesn't help when conservatives are routinely accused of white supremacy simply for being the wrong skin color regardless of their words and actions. There is a vast difference between not supporting the claims of groups like BLM and being racist. Because conservatives (and libertarians too) see rights as individual and not collective, the idea of identity politics is repugnant. You have rights because you are human, not because you are Hispanic, female, wore a pink hat in a march, or consider yourself non-binary.
What's more, the idea that only "whites" can be racist because of something that was done in their great-great-great grandparents time just doesn't fly. Racism comes in all colors. I've seen casual racism my entire life. I've also seen most people reach out for no other reason than someone else needed help.
Finally, judging people by label is a mistake. The label has no inherent vice or virtue. It's the individual who makes the label mean something through their words and actions, not the other way around. Power from victimhood depends on the pity of others and will make you less than you are.
Here are some of the demands for privilege I've seen during my life.
The idea that one skin color and one skin color alone can decide what is and is not racism. I still know people who try to convince me that a "black" minister saying "Hymietown" is not racist.
The idea that inner-city poverty is a more important than reservation poverty.
The idea that a person whose family came from Nigeria two generations ago has a claim on the success of a person whose family came from China five generations ago.
The idea that skin color should trump evidence in a crime.
And as long as we keep qualifying the legal definition of who is and is not allowed to marry, that problem will not go away. Previously I've pointed out in discussions on this site that somehow in the call for marriage equality poly marriage wasn't even a consideration. That selectivity is a consequence of defining rights by group instead of individual.
Pardon, but the bit about how some threw poly people under the bus should be stressed. Because the "struggle" wasn't about marriage in whatever form it could take between consenting adults, it was about "gay marriage."
It wasn't about rights. It was about privilege for some taken at the expense of others.
No, there wasn't a "polyamorous community" fighting to be recognized. I had some LGBT activists tell me emphatically that poly people didn't deserve marriage because they hadn't fought for it.
That is where my issue is. I'm perfectly willing to fight for equal rights. But I hear demands for "black" rights, Hispanic rights, women's rights, gay rights, and for all I know rights for people with ingrown toenails. Not to mention Christian rights, pagan rights, Muslim rights, atheist rights, and pastafarian rights. That doesn't even count the constant efforts of government to define government powers as rights (police rights, Congress has the right…). It seems that everyone wants to carve out their own piece but no one is willing to help carve out a piece for any group but theirs. Especially if they don't agree with other groups.
It's not about rights. It's about privilege for some taken at the expense of others.
Oh, and by the way, "white" cis males are guilty for all the troubles in the world. Especially when they don't abase themselves to the demands of self-identified victims-of-the-week. No matter what they personally have done or said, "white" cis males are undeniably and collectively guilty. Or so I am told. Again and again and again.
How that is not racist is beyond me.
Meanwhile "people of color" tell me that they are fighting for the rights of the victimized. And they are. But not if those victims live almost invisibly and don't advance certain causes. And definitely not if those victims have different politics. If there is an oil pipeline that gets TV coverage, the "champions" are all over it. But every day poverty on Amerindian reservations, well, that just isn't important enough.
So tell me, when is it reasonable when some victims are deliberately overlooked? Maybe it's not about rights. Maybe it's about privilege.
Human rights are the only ones worth fighting for. Maybe we should worry about the rights we share instead of a place in the pecking order. It's not a right unless the other has it too.
“I still wouldn't characterize them as privileges.”
I know. That's what's so frustrating. Human rights get moved to the back seat, then to the bicycle with a flat tire thirteen rows back.❞❞
NeoNotes — Looking good
❝❝Unscientific test.
Two video monitors of equal size. A dozen people, some of who were Democrats. Both videos played side by side with the volume turned down. All but one person thought that Trump came across stronger, more confident, better body language, and more convincingly. One guy said that Pelosi and Schumer looked like high school student council candidates.
Again, I don't like Trump and I don't trust Trump. But compared to the Democrat leadership, well, there's no comparison.
Is anyone else reminded of the Kennedy-Nixon debate?❞❞
❝❝Kennedy vs. Nixon.NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.
Regardless of what was said, visually Trump came across looking very well. Pelosi and Schumer came across looking like two high schoolers running for student council. That observation isn't mine, but I am caging it anyway. Why in the World were they sharing a lectern?
Trump came across as an executive with pictures of his loved ones in the background. And with only one American flag. Pelosi and Schumer looked like they got kicked out of the cafeteria and they dragged in flags to make the walls look good.
As an aside, the trend of using multiple flags behind you to show your patriotism is stupid.
Kennedy vs. Nixon.
If you'll remember, I told you before you need to focus on the things that Trump does that are actually wrong. I specifically mentioned his misuse of eminent domain in the past. Lo and behold, the key part of his emergency plan is eminent domain.
Peepers, you focus on the wrong things when you attack Trump. You have from the very first. And you continually mistake my not agreeing with you as support of Trump.
Trump has been making Democrats look bad since he announced. It doesn't help when Democrats continually underestimate him. Even if they ignore everything that Trump did before, there's not a one of the Democrat Congressional leadership who has ever negotiated anything outside government. Trump is playing this exactly right and the optics reflect that.
You want to take Trump down? I'll tell you what to focus on. Eminent domain. The volatility of the stock market. Not the direction, but how fast and how far it changes direction. There's some major instability there. His treatment of the EU, particularly downgrading the ambassador. National security, particularly spying on Americans. Healthcare. War on drugs. Prescription drugs and self medication. The Second Amendment. Social Security and pensions. The national debt. Military spending and accountability. Free speech. Protectionism. Start with those.
You can't treat him as a Republican politico because he isn't one. And don't forget that this man has been dragging his fights and negotiations through the press for forty years. Remember that exchange from the first Pirates of the Caribbean movie about the worst pirate. Trump doesn't care if the press is good or bad, he just wants the press.
This came from an unscientific experiment that some friends and I did. And yes, some of them were Democrats. We ran the videos side by side on two monitors with the sound turned off.
Trump looked like he belonged. Pelosi and Schumer didn't. Their body language showed that they were unhappy, probably because they were sharing a lectern and neither wanted to share the spotlight. Pay attention to their hands specifically. Trump looked friendly, Pelosi and Schumer looked like they wanted to strangle someone.
I never have liked the multiple American flag thing, not even when it started with Bush League. I think it was him, he was the one I noticed using it first. Certainly the Democrats of that time were doing it. I think it is purposely distracting. Come to think of it, that's when I remember multiple Democrats sharing a lectern. Or at least all standing behind one person at the lectern.
As for the Z group, I adjusted my tactics accordingly. They wanted to ignore the political implications when those same implications were central to the argument, whether they wished to acknowledge that or not.
You on the other hand don't like to deal when facts or actions don't fit your script. You think that opposing someone means throwing every insult and accusation possible at them in the hope that something sticks. You're not willing to look the person's history and adjust accordingly. You let the labels control your expectations and then get frustrated when things don't turn out the way you want.
I was never against criticizing Trump. I was against criticizing Trumpstupidlyfoolishly in ways that would make him look stronger and better. Throwing insults at him doesn't work, he just pushes back. Treating him as the typical Republican politico who will back down out of civility or for the greater good doesn't work because that is not what he does.
It's not that I support Trump. I just think you are attacking him in very stupid and amazingly ineffective ways.❞❞
NeoNote — Nature and the World are not cruel.
Monday - 19Nov2018 Filed in: NeoNotes&Morality & Modern Life
Vote for the label
Vermont governor's race: Christine Hallquist, Phil Scott win primaries
““Vermont Democrats made history Tuesday by nominating Christine Hallquist as the first transgender individual to be a major party candidate for governor.””
— April McCullum
That's the first paragraph.
According to the article the transgender label is more important than the candidates qualifications. The label is more important that the candidate's character. The label is more important than anything you might consider.
This is the inevitable result of identify politics. The label must transcend all other reasons.
Sadly, this is the result of party politics too.
Politics is about controlling other people. You must not be allowed to make up your own mind. You might do it wrong.
Conditions
❝❝There's a vast difference between a character who happens to be X and a X character.
The emphasis should be on character, not the label. Character is about the human condition, the label is about the labeled condition.
Next, it's acting. Fictional. If the actor is good enough, they can play the heavy and the hero. They can play the pauper and the prince. And they can play whatever sexual orientation is necessary.❞❞
— NeoWayland
Labels
Monday - 06Aug2018 Filed in: Quotes & Thinkums&Morality & Modern Life
It's only shame if I accept the premise.
Sunday - 08Jul2018 Filed in: Quotes & Thinkums&Morality & Modern Life
❝❝It's only shame if I accept the premise.
As I see it, the vice or virtue isn't in the label. It's in how you touch the lives of others. The honor is in giving truth when needed, helping when you can, and leaving the World a little better than how you found it.❞❞
— NeoWayland, comments from Column: What of the Christians?