All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Coronavirus Spreads Faster Outside China, Stoking Global Fears

The new disease - COVID-19 - was also detected for the first time in Pakistan, Sweden, Norway, Greece, Romania and Algeria. Meanwhile....

**********

Trump Ripped For Putting ‘Science-Denier’ Mike Pence In Charge Of Coronavirus

The vice president has no medical experience — and that’s not the only problem. Oh, by the way....

Mike Pence's Defining Moment As Governor? Enabling An HIV Outbreak

**********

Trump Reinvents Pandemic Response Wheel After Scrapping Team Obama Left Him

Trump has so far downplayed the coronavirus threat and accused Democrats and the news media of trying to hurt the stock market and his reelection chances. Well, of course Trump made it all about him.

====================

In non-coronavirus news:

6 Dead, Including Gunman, After Molson Coors Facility Shooting In Milwaukee

“This is a tragic day for our city, for our state,” Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett said.

**********

Boston Mom, Teen Daughter Allegedly Attacked For Speaking Spanish On Street

The mother said they were told to “go back to your f**king country” during the violent incident that was caught on video. More of Trump's xenophobia at work. I'm amazed this sort of thing hasn't happened more often.

**********

Once Put In Concentration Camps, Japanese Americans Rally For Detained Immigrants

Homer Yasui, 95, has a message: “Stand up, do something! Be counted. Help us.”

**********

Trump Suggests More Lawsuits Against Media For Expressing ‘Wrong’ Opinions

A journalist asked the president if he believed “if people have an opinion contrary to yours that they should be sued?” Wrong opinions about him? That's what this is all about. So much for Trump being the protector of the First Amendment.

**********

‘Fire Up A Bowl, Numb Out!’: Tucker Carlson Joins Right-Wing Reefer Madness

The Fox News host’s attack on Bernie Sanders gets weird in a hurry. Heavy emphasis on madness from our pal Fucker.

[PwrdOn]

I didn't say that was the reason America opposed them, or that they don't uphold terrible regimes themselves. However, you blamed all the sins of those dictators on America, while ignoring the context of why they're not liked by Americans and not just politicians. Their reasons for turning to socialist are there own, it's how they did it which is where people are turned off by them, that isn't an excuse for their atrocities anymore than capitalism is for America's behaviour on the global scale. North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, Russia and China are varying degrees of awful, taking way their agency is short sighted and dismisses their responsibility for their actions domestically and internationally. This very day their countries engage in horrific activities like genocide but rather then rebuking America and them you wrote them like they had a moral high ground, when they don't. The atrocities they commit aren't all because of getting sanctioned by America, it's vastly more complex than that. Russia's been disrupting the global order the last few years and that's cost the world many things, Trump himself is a major disaster and there's Brexit, too. Ukraine. China's been able to do more in the Pacific with Trump quashing TPP, internally there's Hong Kong and the Uyghur's - which matches whatever America's done in the past and now. Venezuela's a train wreck dictatorship. Among them Iran has shown the most evidence that they can grow but they're still a Theocratic regime and very recently made their own purges with protests. Trump disrupted what progressive's they had going that Obama and the EU began. This is more than simply military bases.



That's bad regardless of who does it. It comes off as hypocritical that you're ok with everyone else doing that, except when America does it then it's unacceptable. Which is it? Why wouldn't Americans be upset by that interference? It's a reason we got Trump as president - would you prefer him to stay in power? They're going to do it again in '20.

You're right that geopolitics is a dirty business which lots of terrible actions and things never truly seem to change. Sanders being president won't change that, that's something one man can't do by themselves on the world stage.

Who should they trust then? It's fine dragging down America, since they are responsible for terrible status quo across the world, but what are you offering? What's the solution America isn't creating?



I don't think anyone would disagree with this in theory, it's in practice that things get fuzzy for what the left is providing. Change requires having ideas that work in the real world, with the political mechanisms to implement them - doing nothing maintains the status quo and demoralises the left. The military industrial complex isn't a secret, and the dysfunction comes from Trump who's been perverting to his own agenda, not that they were "good guys" to start with. Has the world become a safer place with the American hegemony weakening? I don't think so.

It's always instructive to think about international relations as just a more zoomed out version of the kinds of problems we face internally. So countries like Iran and Venezuela are sort of analogous to the crime and drug ridden inner cities whereas America and the rest of the Western world are like the wealthy gated communities. Sure it's pretty easy for the latter to try and pin the problems of the former as some kind of moral failing on their part, but that would be at best an incomplete characterization. It would ignore the degree to which the privileged party in either case callously wrecked the foundation of the other community, poisoned the well for their future development, and shut themselves in these ivory towers to ensure that none of the problems they created would ever affect them. However, it's not feasible for anyone to live in a hermetically sealed bubble and just pretend everything is fine and will continue to be fine so as long as all of the undesirables know their role and shut their mouths, and even the most patriotic flag waving chud has to acknowledge on some level that these countries have legitimate gripes about the negative impact that American power has had on their societies.

[jetengine]

It's always instructive to think about international relations as just a more zoomed out version of the kinds of problems we face internally. So countries like Iran and Venezuela are sort of analogous to the crime and drug ridden inner cities whereas America and the rest of the Western world are like the wealthy gated communities. Sure it's pretty easy for the latter to try and pin the problems of the former as some kind of moral failing on their part, but that would be at best an incomplete characterization. It would ignore the degree to which the privileged party in either case callously wrecked the foundation of the other community, poisoned the well for their future development, and shut themselves in these ivory towers to ensure that none of the problems they created would ever affect them. However, it's not feasible for anyone to live in a hermetically sealed bubble and just pretend everything is fine and will continue to be fine so as long as all of the undesirables know their role and shut their mouths, and even the most patriotic flag waving chud has to acknowledge on some level that these countries have legitimate gripes about the negative impact that American power has had on their societies.

After a certain amount of time though it stops being as much of Americas problem. North Korea has had what ? 70 odd years to sort its **** out. It could have done ANYTHING (it was tied to China and Communist Russia who were big on being friends to a certain point, thet could of traded technological and educational info to aid each other) but instead they doubled down on being shitheels. Yeah the sanctions are gonna hurt them but they've had numerous offers and keep shitting on them.

Ad for Russia their entire history is "Opress our own people, get paranoid with our allies/neighbours, meddle in their affairs or begin semi-agressive build up for our own defense unintentionally making things worse"

[PwrdOn]

After a certain amount of time though it stops being as much of Americas problem. North Korea has had what ? 70 odd years to sort its **** out. It could have done ANYTHING (it was tied to China and Communist Russia who were big on being friends to a certain point, thet could of traded technological and educational info to aid each other) but instead they doubled down on being shitheels. Yeah the sanctions are gonna hurt them but they've had numerous offers and keep shitting on them.

Ad for Russia their entire history is "Opress our own people, get paranoid with our allies/neighbours, meddle in their affairs or begin semi-agressive build up for our own defense unintentionally making things worse"

It's worth noting that North Korea wasn't always the basket case it appears to be today, up until the late 70s they kept pace with South Korea economically and it was only with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the loss of that crucial lifeline of support that their economy really cratered. And to that point, who really can envision South Korea having the same kind of success that it had if it didn't have American backing every step of the way?

Korea is actually a very interesting case study, because while from our perspective it seems obvious to choose K-pop and smartphones over jackboots, it wasn't always this way. Indeed, just like in Vietnam, the overwhelming majority of the Korean public at the time of independence favored the left wing, pro-Soviet government, and it was only because of that insane domino theory that America felt the need to prop up a right wing authoritarian against the wishes of the people. In the end of course, this ended up working out for the South though it wasn't so much an embrace of free markets as it was state directed capitalism with a focus on pumping out goods for export, combined with strong American support, that finally got their economy going. At the same time, the North lost support from a disinterested and stagnating USSR, and turned its back on trade entirely in an effort to become self sufficient, with predictable results. I am in no way trying to defend the North Korean regime, just pointing out that its failures are not solely due to its own misrule.

[Steel Inquisitor]

It's always instructive to think about international relations as just a more zoomed out version of the kinds of problems we face internally. So countries like Iran and Venezuela are sort of analogous to the crime and drug ridden inner cities whereas America and the rest of the Western world are like the wealthy gated communities. Sure it's pretty easy for the latter to try and pin the problems of the former as some kind of moral failing on their part, but that would be at best an incomplete characterization. It would ignore the degree to which the privileged party in either case callously wrecked the foundation of the other community, poisoned the well for their future development, and shut themselves in these ivory towers to ensure that none of the problems they created would ever affect them. However, it's not feasible for anyone to live in a hermetically sealed bubble and just pretend everything is fine and will continue to be fine so as long as all of the undesirables know their role and shut their mouths, and even the most patriotic flag waving chud has to acknowledge on some level that these countries have legitimate gripes about the negative impact that American power has had on their societies.

Bad analogy, international politics isn't that cut and dry. You're not completely wrong, however, your stance only works by ignoring the histories of all other nations and that nations don't require America to be terrible for their people or other countries. They have their own agency, its their responsibility to look after their people, not America's. You can't just blame everything on America and this the problem's solved.

You have no vision for who fills in for when America leaves the stage, do you? This is all about tearing America down, not making the world a better place than it was before. The problems America creates won't be undone when it ceases to exist, there will be others who will fill the power vacuum and hurt their own citizens. This is why ultimately your argument is unfulfilling, you think any of those counties is going to make the world better than the American hegemony? Russia and China are fighting over right now. How would you feel about living in a world where they are the hegemony? They've been working on that project for longer than we've been alive. Do you feel any safer that they're closer to that goal than ever before?

I'll ask again: do you feel any safer now the America hegemony is fading?

Edit:

It's worth noting that North Korea wasn't always the basket case it appears to be today, up until the late 70s they kept pace with South Korea economically and it was only with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the loss of that crucial lifeline of support that their economy really cratered. And to that point, who really can envision South Korea having the same kind of success that it had if it didn't have American backing every step of the way?

You've condemned America for supporting right wing dictatorships, why is ok for them to do the same for left wing ones?

[PwrdOn]

Bad analogy, international politics isn't that cut and dry. You're not completely wrong, however, your stance only works by ignoring the histories of all other nations and that nations don't require America to be terrible for their people or other countries. They have their own agency, its their responsibility to look after their people, not America's. You can't just blame everything on America and this the problem's solved.

You have no vision for who fills in for when America leaves the stage, do you? This is all about tearing America down, not making the world a better place than it was before. The problems America creates won't be undone when it ceases to exist, there will be others who will fill the power vacuum and hurt their own citizens. This is why ultimately your argument is unfulfilling, you think any of those counties is going to make the world better than the American hegemony? Russia and China are fighting over right now. How would you feel about living in a world where they are the hegemony? They've been working on that project for longer than we've been alive. Do you feel any safer that they're closer to that goal than ever before?

I'll ask again: do you feel any safer now the America hegemony is fading?

Edit:



You've condemned America for supporting right wing dictatorships, why is ok for them to do the same for left wing ones?

First off, I don't know where you got this idea that American hegemony is fading, Russia and China have been pushing themselves to a breaking point trying to catch up and aren't anywhere near parity either economically or militarily, so I wouldn't say that there is any serious external threat. The much greater risk is that the American-led international order simply collapses under the weight of all the terrible and self-destructive things we have to do to just to sustain our position, though we are a few decades off from that at least.

As to making the world a better place, just like in ANY community or social grouping, things generally function a lot better when there is a balance of power and mutual respect among all members rather than a dominant alpha that flexes on everyone else and forces them to act like they like it. A hegemonic power forcibly suppressing conflict among subordinates might look like peace, and in fact America is hardly even doing that but whatever, but all it means is that the resentment continues to seethe beneath the surface and eventually boils over into a much bigger catastrophe when the situation eventually gets out of hand. We are starting to get an inkling of what that will look like now, and we cannot say with a straight face that North Korea or Venezuela are responsible for that.

[ed2962]

Yeah, that's pretty clever. Use a phrase black people have moved past and only old white people really use.

Next he should start deploying "jive speakers" to go rap to the cats down the boogie.

Don't forget, fake outrage merchants use it quite frequently.

[Mister Mets]

Oh boy. 'Natural law'. natural law is a typically, thinly veiled excuse to deny rights for others, no matter how much its proponents declare it a key and core part of liberty.

The alternative in this context is moral relativism.

It might well be a mistaken belief (in that there does not appear to be any such “natural law” in majority of societies)...but I honestly can’t see how it can be used to deny rights to others.

Can you give an example of how it’s been used that way?

Defenders of the concept of natural law/ universal rights/ higher principles would suggest that there is a misapplication, but that while this can be a method to argue for great ideas (the inherent dignity of the human, the need to take care of the environment) it has also been a way to defend rigid hierarchies (IE- the idea that it is natural that the children of the rich be the only ones who have opportunities, that races stay segregated, that women stay out of the public sphere, that all people should be in heterosexual marriages by 25, that other countries' resources are yours to plunder, etc.)

[JCAll]

Coronavirus Spreads Faster Outside China, Stoking Global Fears

The new disease - COVID-19 - was also detected for the first time in Pakistan, Sweden, Norway, Greece, Romania and Algeria. Meanwhile....

**********

Trump Ripped For Putting ‘Science-Denier’ Mike Pence In Charge Of Coronavirus

The vice president has no medical experience — and that’s not the only problem. Oh, by the way....

Mike Pence's Defining Moment As Governor? Enabling An HIV Outbreak

**********

Trump Reinvents Pandemic Response Wheel After Scrapping Team Obama Left Him

Trump has so far downplayed the coronavirus threat and accused Democrats and the news media of trying to hurt the stock market and his reelection chances. Well, of course Trump made it all about him.

====================

Guys like Trump and Pence don't care about epidemics. They can just blame them on foreigners or minorities to stoke the xenophobia that keeps them in office.

[KOSLOX]

I don't know about that. I sure do hear a lot of people use the word "woke" (and associated phrases) on social media and Youtube, and most aren't "old white people", odd.

Oh, well I'm sure you're much more of an expert. Please tell me more about what black people do, I mostly just spend time being black and being around black people, so I'm not up on the vagueries of whatever YouTube and Social Media it is you believe is representative of the way we speak.

[shooshoomanjoe]

Oh, well I'm sure you're much more of an expert. Please tell me more about what black people do, I mostly just spend time being black and being around black people, so I'm not up on the vagueries of whatever YouTube and Social Media it is you believe is representative of the way we speak.

He's right. The word 'woke' is all over social media and for some reason, trump supporters hate that word.

[Tami]

I suspect I do understand your meaning. It's the common language of humanitarian and human rights groups, and it helps that the idea of natural, inherent rights jives well with modern religious ideas of god-given rights for everyone. But it's all arbitrary. Customs, norms, universal rights, it's all made up. Some rights have more benefits and are better thought through than others. But nobody will ever be able to point to a universal, unchanging source of what universal rights are. The idea that such universal rights exist in the aether, just waiting for us to discover them, is a fiction. Some people decide what rights everyone ought to have, and if they get the right amount of influence into the social fabric we call them universal rights. It's another social construct, one very reminiscent of many religions where we're trying to discern some hypothetical perfect being or ideal.

The Northern States had a political marriage between the abolitionists who really did believe in black rights and the free market capitalists who didn't like competing against slave labor. If the entire North had fervently believed in the cause of black equality as greatly as the abolitionists did, Reconstruction would have gone a lot differently. Am I glad the North won? Absolutely. But I'm glad they won because they supported more progressive ideas, not because they gleaned some extra glimpse of some perfect truth.



I'm in 99.9% agreement with your first sentence. Your second is intriguing, and while I'm hesitant to call today's morality solely a primal survival response I think there's some truth to it. I'd counter off the top of my head that people do the right thing even when it costs them personally, but one could argue that our social nature means sometimes we think of the survival of the group over ourselves. Or what about Bushido, which was more about a warrior's idea of a good life and death even in the context of Buddhism? That seems a bit less survival-oriented. It's an interesting thought anyway.

I'd disagree that entire societies, especially on a large scale, ever totally abandon expressions of morality and empathy. These concepts often get warped and a lot of people acting in good faith end up doing horrible things because of their worldview of what is right. And of course societies can end up empowering bad actors who cloak themselves in moral virtue.

As your discussion with Farrealmer indicates, tribalism is one way in which morality is shaped by the nature and culture of the tribe.



I talked about this with my friend who actually did study philosophy into the graduate level. I'm just a talented amateur with history hobby and a legal education. He says my ideas are most similar to postmodern philosophy.

I just want to add that, what I wrote is just intended as, from what I have read, to be the large scale, scientific/evolutionary basis for morality and tribalism. Individual humans, of course, have free will and the ability to decide issues of morality on their own.

Are their opinions shaped by the environment/society/culture they were brought up in? Are their opinions based on genetics? Or is something else? That is another discussion all together.

[Steel Inquisitor]

First off, I don't know where you got this idea that American hegemony is fading, Russia and China have been pushing themselves to a breaking point trying to catch up and aren't anywhere near parity either economically or militarily, so I wouldn't say that there is any serious external threat. The much greater risk is that the American-led international order simply collapses under the weight of all the terrible and self-destructive things we have to do to just to sustain our position, though we are a few decades off from that at least.

You haven't noticed what Trump's been doing on the international stage while he's been president, America's ceded the Pacific to China, alienated the UN and EU, given concessions to North Korea for nothing, among other things. I didn't say they were going to conquer the world tomorrow, I said they wee the closest to greater influence on global politics then they have been in decades and it's true. Both are in dominant positions right now. Both Russia and China have been utilising soft power to gather more influence globally, all without firing a single shot. It's not the 60's anymore, the world is far more complex and tighter globally.

Nations don't crumble because of nothing, Trump is a direct result of Russian interference - that's why they've backed him and why the counties weaker than it would be under President Clinton. Do you believe Russia interfered in the '16 elections for Trump, or other countries recently?

As to making the world a better place, just like in ANY community or social grouping, things generally function a lot better when there is a balance of power and mutual respect among all members rather than a dominant alpha that flexes on everyone else and forces them to act like they like it. A hegemonic power forcibly suppressing conflict among subordinates might look like peace, and in fact America is hardly even doing that but whatever, but all it means is that the resentment continues to seethe beneath the surface and eventually boils over into a much bigger catastrophe when the situation eventually gets out of hand. We are starting to get an inkling of what that will look like now, and we cannot say with a straight face that North Korea or Venezuela are responsible for that.

Be specific, you're too vague in how you want the world to change for the better. I have no details on how this is going to happen once America is off the board. You think no country is going to swoop in to fill the power vacuum? Hegemonies don't simply stop occurring once America retreats from the international stage, others will make their own hegemonies like they always do.

You continue to ignore the atrocities of the countries you bought up are doing, ignoring the whole context since it interferes with your narrative that America must be evil and whoever else is left does what they want.

Moving the goalposts with North Korea and Venezuela, that stance isn't as strong with countries like China or Russia.

It's infuriating how you dodge questions, which shines a light on where you truly stand on international politics. It's not a good look.

[KOSLOX]

He's right. The word 'woke' is all over social media and for some reason, trump supporters hate that word.

It's all over social media because Trump supporters keep using it to build strawmen.

Go ahead, type #woke in the search function on Twitter an see what pops up. It's 90% right wing people using it ironically and 10% Black Voices for Trump.

[JackDaw]

The alternative in this context is moral relativism.

Defenders of the concept of natural law/ universal rights/ higher principles would suggest that there is a misapplication, but that while this can be a method to argue for great ideas (the inherent dignity of the human, the need to take care of the environment) it has also been a way to defend rigid hierarchies (IE- the idea that it is natural that the children of the rich be the only ones who have opportunities, that races stay segregated, that women stay out of the public sphere, that all people should be in heterosexual marriages by 25, that other countries' resources are yours to plunder, etc.)

Yes, as I plodded into town I was thinking about this topic I realised the danger of it (a belief in natural law) was that it could just be used to reinforce existing prejudice. And who has right to determine what is "natural"??

While a belief in "everything is a social construct" might at first seem dangerously amoral (because in certain circumstances it might justify killing people)...it is probably a more useful way of thinking...because it makes everything subject to challenge and review...and allows for outmoded standards of behaviour to be jettisoned.

The only note of caution is that ("all is a social construct") implies acceptance that society may not become more and more tolerant...actually if environmental change makes resources scarcer...society might find it necessary to reduce individual freedom to protect majority.