Both Sides, Both Ways: Implications and Political Argumentation

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Tiassa, Oct 9, 2019 at 7:50 PM.

  1. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,974
    The basic question:

    • While plenty might equivocate about "both sides" of a political dispute, what consideration are people giving the many sides of what they say, and the implications, thereof?​

    A complicated version: Does it feel good to trap a political opponent with words? Okay, but what has one really done? As easy as it might seem to point to an ostensible purpose, there are many circumstances by which one defeats or harms that purpose in hopes of gaining, what, satisfaction? from pretending they have just mortally zinged someone else's discourse. An example would actually be the Trump administration's pursuit of the Biden family.

    †​

    Part of the explanation for President Trump's behavior involves projecting and comprehending an apparent, albeit unknown, belief that he can get away with everything. To wit, if it seems like he wants to be impeached and convicted, it might be that part of him thinks he just goes back to his life as a wealthy, privileged celebrity; remember, he thinks others get away with all sorts of bizarre crimes, including a fifty-year conspiracy to plant a Muslim-Jewish Nazi-Communist black man in the White House. This potential becomes a variable factor in assessing what goes on, but it also reflects a long, dynamic conservative sympton of ego defense by which one comes to sincerely believe their own make-believe. This line of thinking works, within approximate limits, as a partial inoculation against the most obvious objection to any of Trump's strange behavior, which is that explanations just don't make sense without considering extraordinary circumstance. Compared to being bought off or blackmailed, a sincerely held belief that one can get away with anything because everyone else gets away with it all the time might seem an overly complex proposition, but, even more than coercion and corruption, appeals to make-believe have driven the conservative political behaviors that elected Trump, and, moreover, while desperate conservatism has resorted to a proposal of disqualifying stupidity, at least this doesn't accuse outright criminality.

    †​

    The Biden question is an example of a weird problem Americans force themselves to endure, and quite frequently, for the sake of not condemning whatever passes for mainstream, traditional, American conservatism. Think, for a moment, of the Communist Manifesto: The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle. Americans generally don't tolerate communism, no matter how much they might otherwise seem to like it; what they truly disdain is the label of communism, so much so that many American Christians reject the Apostles of Christ.

    While Americans might not like the messengers, such as communists, they do tend to accept, in manners as diverse as each American, some aspect of the proposition that class warfare exists and goes on.

    Traditionalist opposition to Affirmative Action in American universities, for instance, generally protects legacy considerations; the underlying hook, that focusing on racial and ethnic injustice in order to correct historical imbalances is itself, by definition, racist, defeats itself by preserving imbalance. Or sexism. When this came to a head the Roberts Court carved out ostensibly nonprecedental exceptions that had specific effect of preserving apparent imbalance. In Ricci, one result was the preservation of legacy considerations affecting hiring to the public trust. In the end, it was just about legitimizing racism: No, no, reparative adjustment is unfair, but not quite arbitrary adjustment intended to constrict privilege according to aesthetics that just happens to coincide with furthering the damage the reparative adjustment would repair is not only fair but the only fair thing in the world. In Safford, the intended effect was to put women back in their place: Certes, the law is the law, and it was promulgated appropriately, and ignorance is not bliss, but school officials who molested a thirteen year-old girl want to claim ignorance, and, y'know, like the one old man on the Court said, it's not that big a deal, and, besides some boys would have gotten a thrill out of it, so we're going to let them claim ignorance, that they didn't know it was wrong, and this isn't going to set any precedent, or anything. The Court did not come out and make the sexist to call it sexism argument, but inasmuch as we might be reminded from time to time that men are the real victims of sexism, we might remind that part of the Court's mitigating rationale included an old man thinking about what it would be like if a school nurse prodded his nude body when he was thirteen.

    Underneath all that, though, these can be described as questions of classism.

    From legacy admissions to the current universities scandal seeing wealthy people face minor punishment for conspiring and committing fraud, we see a classism problem that affects everyone.

    This extends into the professional world; there are sectors in which it's not what as much as who you know. Family legacy, Greek System, secret societies, professional community associations, and, sure, upholding the family reputation is sometimes a burden, but it beats being the more qualified candidate who didn't get the job because her father sold shoes in the mall instead of playing squash with one of the board members.

    And, certes, Americans complain about it all the time, but they haven't stopped society over this. Imagine an American general strike demanding an end to legacy admissions at universities, and strong regulation of favors for fellow board members, &c.

    †​

    We might consider a suggestion that the Obama administration probably could have at least cleared its throat and raised an eyebrow, but did not really have a route to outright instruct Hunter Biden to not take a job with Burisma. It is an interesting hair to split, and for particular reasons.

    Some also recall the Rodham brothers, Neil Bush, and Billy Carter. The fact of political family seeking benefit for reputation is perpetual. Comparatively, we might recall the justification that some were just so frustrated by the political outlook they voted for Donald Trump in order to send some sort of message, because the hitch is that we are describing people becoming so distressed by circustance that the only thing they can do is make things that much worse.

    So it really is worth considering what Donald Trump thinks other people got away with, because, well, it really is hard to get into one sentence, but includes two "But her email!" jokes alongside the fact of new, obviously-timed investigation, as well as ensnares Depts. State, Energy, Justice, Defense, and Commerce, as well as CIA, NSC, and DNI, and, of course, the Vice President, and all this in addition to a private-sector wing including two Soviet-born businessmen from Florida with troubled business exposure including natural gas, but who are strong Republican donors, as well as a Republican fundraiser and oilman who has a history of being overpaid by the Pentagon, is a frat brother of Charlie Crist, and was among those John McCain considered for a running mate before selecting Sarah Palin.

    All of that for Hunter Biden, whose place in the infamy of American classism includes the credit of having been given a job in the George W. Bush administration.

    †​

    If someone recently suggested that every accusation the Trump administration makes is a sublimated confession, the point of contention we might pick has to do with how we regard sublimation. To the other, if the occasion stands out, it is not simply that people at particular valences of repute are saying such things so openly and directly, nor any sentiment that it is about time people picked up on this facet of Trump's monsters' ball. The administration is not bothering with masquerade at this point; the idea of sublimation can seem difficult compared to the blatancy.

    Then again, even before its actual improper relationship with a Ukranian natural gas company—leaning on the Naftogaz supervisory board—emerged, there was still a growing sense of wonder that Team Trump would attempt to sacrifice itself as well as the American aristocracy by raising nepotism in private- and public-sector privilege as fever-pitch scarecrow. As watch-the-birdie goes, the question of how the children of politicians might benefit from their parents' office is a problem, but Trump also seems to be sacrificing his own children and son-in-law. Not just for yet another Ivanka-Jared email account conducting ostensible state business, but, well, there are questions of profiting from family political influence. Seriously, file under, Duh.

    †​

    Such self-infliction is hardly new among conservatives; normally, though, they find some means of presuming themselves safe from their own effects. This is easier to see in issues of Christians discriminating against homosexuals; or the expectation of white segregationists that they will do okay, or even prosper, in a hierarchical society.

    If Donald Trump was sufficient to break the aristocracy for soft nepotism, then history would record the tragic error of bourgeois expectation that the narcissistic will cooperate sufficiently for a constricted pretense of altruism to bear its selfish fruit. To the other, 'tis true enough not even the Trump Family Scam is sufficient to properly break a shameless aristocracy.

    †​

    We can always expect that some simply will not surrender such privilege; the petit-bouregois wants that power for itself, and hereditary benefit is part of our traditional American canon. Certes, there are questions to be asked and boundaries identified, but still: Who thought through the implications? Even more: Why trust such arguments?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. wegs With brave wings, she flies . . . Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,614
    I’m an Independent. Alas, there are more than two sides.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,038
    the ability to shout at the crowd and say "look at my penis"
    thats about it

    That sounds like a dvd title

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    lube that ...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    aint nuthin but a swamp thing baby

    you have to pick a side just like you were taught how society works in high school
    no one likes people who are independent

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2019 at 12:37 AM
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,651
    ??

    Within the context discussed here, being an "Independent" is entirely meaningless.
     
  8. wegs With brave wings, she flies . . . Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,614
    No, it’s not.
     
  9. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,651
    OK, then, explain precisely what being "an Independent" means with respect to the OP.
     
  10. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,038
    thought...(pondering)
    the unidirectional universe perceives a singular plane of existence
    the single entity mostly perceives a single lane of conceptualization as a self associating value
     
  11. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,553
    Okay, i have 22 minutes before Colbert gives me the news.

    It depends on the "people". 60%, probably 0 to 2 minutes. 10% on either side, 10-20 minutes a day and they're getting fatter. 10% at the top, 20-80 minutes a day and the alcoholism/drug dependency/hospital admission rate is rising rapidly. 10% at the bottom have already made up their minds about everything, including whom they're going to shoot if their side loses. ​

    I imagine so, or else they think it will look good on the screen.
    No, it wouldn't. that's nothing to do with moral superiority or feeling good. He's just trying desperately to hang onto the throne he's coveted his entire life, and when he finally got it, hasn't been the high it was cracked up to be.

    †​

    So far, he always has.
    No. He's not that complicated; impeachment will utterly crush him. He'll live out his remaining years snarling and fear-biting his way through an endless cesspit of litigation and toxic twitter.
    When he started making that shit up, he knew he was making shit up. By now, having heard it repeated and repeating it again so many times, he may actually believe it... when he remembers to.

    Sorry, time's up.
     
  12. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,038
    he was famous for, throwing around threats of impending doom of litigation at those who did not agree with him publicly ?
    i guess thats normal american business morality in american business culture
     
  13. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,553
    I don't know how normal it is in business; apparently it was unusual in politics. If he was in 3500 lawsuits back then, how many has he got now? And how many of the very fine people he's fired, maligned, or threw under one of his garbage trucks will come back to bite him on the ass afterward?
     
  14. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,553
    How many? What do they look like? Do you like them all equally?
     
  15. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,331
    I'm an independent as well. Unfortunately, the many sides that make up American discourse all too often get lumped into one of two positions. I think one of the reasons for this comes from American's preoccupation with team sports - generally there are two teams, and only one wins. That paradigm is the one people are most comfortable with, so it's carried over into politics.
     
    wegs likes this.
  16. wegs With brave wings, she flies . . . Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,614
    Well said. I've heard it explained however, that narrowing the scope down to ''two sides,'' leads to economic growth and gets people to find more political common ground. I don't know if I agree with that, though. Does that make things simpler or more complicated, in the end? lol
     
  17. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,331
    Well, it's certainly easier. But neither political party "fits" me so I end up without as much common ground. Economic growth? I don't think there's a good justification for that, except perhaps that the two-party system is easier for some people to understand (see the previous sport team metaphor) and thus people spend less time thinking about it.
     
    wegs likes this.
  18. wegs With brave wings, she flies . . . Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,614
    I feel the same - neither party ''fits'' me, because I'm more concerned with issues than party affiliations, does that make sense? In other words, I can't see myself having any type of "loyalty" to a political party.
     
  19. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,726
    The two party system has nothing to do with sports. Our political system doesn't reward parties on a representational basis as is the case in a parliamentary system.

    In our system a 3rd party ends up just taking away from one of the other two parties. In a parliamentary system multiple parties can get together and form a coalition to rule. That's not the way it works under our system.

    It's certainly not related to sports. The current system pretty much predates sports and sports work the same way in all other countries. Hockey, soccer, and rugby have their rabid followers the world over. That has nothing to do with political organizations however.
     
  20. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,038
    we need more lols

    not before sports was privatised into professional businesses

    the take a knee thing is a good example
    why were political partys trying to tell other people how to do their job ?
    they were not their employer

    look at the black arm band use
    or silent minute tributes
    such displays are not sport yet they are implicit human attributes of the complete human
    human rights ...
    political projections of bi-partisanship ideologies around complicit human rights is mandated as a form of acceptable sports culture.
    the consumers of sport expect such things

    the profit made by the sport businesses dictates the politics affiliation

    it would be interesting(for a conceptual exercise) to pose fifa as an exception suggesting it was non professional long enough to build global membership.
    however the vast mind boggling sums of money it turns over dictates entire economys.

    while it would be nice to see sports is not controlled or dictated to by political partys or ideologies, sports has attempted to assert its own political mandate to prevent political meddling.

    is there a political advert ban in all American sports companies stadiums and games and broadcasts ?
    is such a law fascism ?
    it seems to be a very conflicted complex thing.

    a good example of politics coming into sport is the attempted regulation to prevent types of drug use during professional sports competitions.
    im not anti anti-doping, more so because i want to see the athletes live to old age
    i am pro anti-doping to give the advantage to those who excel under personal effort and attainment also.

    doping regulation issues around legitimate use of performance enhancers for those who compete seems a bit too vague and convoluted.

    a top athlete who has to take a performance enhancing drug to remain in competition seems a little short sighted to me.
    i would expect it would burn them out faster.
    the gap between being able to detect performance enhancing drugs in sports is a political social ethics issue
    yet it is main stream
    thus politics as a form of governing law dictates sport.
    separating the carrot and stick ideology from the nature of competition is a struggle with vastly different social cultures
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2019 at 6:19 AM
  21. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,553
    What does it take away from them? Votes? Nearly half the people don't vote anyway - presumably because they're either unable to identify with any political organization, or belong to one of the dozen or so "other" parties that are rarely if ever mentioned.
    What does that mean? Nearly half the American population can never be represented in the government they pay for. (A lot more, really, if we didn't ignore the various polling abuses and the craziness of the electoral college.) That also means, whatever issues they care about will never be considered, let alone legislated.

    Does it bear reflection whether the 'major' parties deserve to have all the power? Or perhaps should have something - say, entitlement, self-absorption, privilege, news coverage, funding - taken away from them?
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2019 at 6:34 AM
  22. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,726
    You can reflect on it all you want. I'm just pointing out the reality of the current situation.

    The problem isn't the system. It's either the people or the way the system is used or abused. Take your pick.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Yes, many people don't vote. That's not a function of the system. Since we don't have a parliamentary system, proportional representation isn't a feature of our system. If you don't like the Republicans but feel that the Democrats don't represent you so you vote for a 3rd party all you are effectively doing is enabling the Republican candidate.

    Don't think that all of our problems would be solved if we only have a parliamentary system though. We would have the same citizens and the same politicians that we currently have so little would change.

    To put it another way, we could have the government right now that we want if that's the way that everyone voted. It's necessary to take the corruption out of any system and once you do that you find that any system works.
     
  23. wegs With brave wings, she flies . . . Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,614
    I agree about voting for a third party candidate enabling a republican candidate (throwing away one's vote, so to speak). But, how can someone outside of the current two party system ever stand a chance, then?
     

Share This Page