If you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…

On May 24 2019 11:32 Nebuchad wrote:


Elect the most leftwing candidates in the countries that matter so that the Overton window gets pushed to the left as much as possible, be openly criticial of liberalism, not only of conservatism, so that we stop accepting liberal framing of economic issues and it stops being easier to envision the end of humanity than the end of capitalism, use a strategy that as much as possible includes rational points rather than moral points; probably some violence at some points.

But mostly I don't think we're going to make it, for the record.

On May 24 2019 15:44 Danglars wrote:
Preemptively declaring opponents all the worst sort of people and rebellious types is a quick route to the bottom. Go ahead and argue that this or that would work for the good of the country, but don’t label those in disagreement as unable to comply with legitimately passed constitutional amendments. Show a little good faith.

On May 25 2019 02:35 ShambhalaWar wrote:


Sadly I think I agree we aren't likely to make it at this point, but maybe we are like cockroaches.

The overton window is a neat idea, but in an oligarchy I don't think it holds true. Money nullifies or freezes it, technology might do the same, in regard to its ability to influence the public. Public opinion is now surpassing in many ways the current state of events and people with money are able to halt congress from enacting any meaningful legislation for the change in public opinion.

In regards to guns, healthcare, climate, etc... So as the window shifts (public opinion shifts), it still doesn't enact meaningful change. Politicians are learning now, that if you can lie (no matter how big the lie) and just repeat it over and over, you will win some portion of the population.

I don't think the overton window matters as a concept. Public opinion has been on a long and large arc of positive growth, making slow but generational positive changes, but abuse of power/money halts or slows that process.

Greed and lust for power imo is somewhat of a cancer in parts of society, which shifts to the focus from the well being of everyone (the system, the organism) to the well being of a very small portion of the system (the rich). You could imagine a body in which the cells no longer function for the whole of the body, but just for the well being of the right finger, no matter how much it destroys the rest of the person.

That is basically where we are now in a societal sense. Part of the human problem, is that we have evolved in a way that hasn't corrected for this, or maybe it has over time, but somehow the problem still exists.

It seems to me there must be a better way, and maybe we are moving toward that. If the US system holds against the test it is going through now, then maybe that will demonstrate something to the rest of the world, but the global trend toward authoritarianism suggests that we are all pretty stupid at the end of the day.

Or at least vast amounts of people can be fooled by rich and powerful people that what they are doing is in their best interest, while they continue to get fucked by the very same people.

On May 25 2019 05:46 Nebuchad wrote:


I agree that the influence of money in politics is a huge problem but think it has more or less the same solution. There is almost a consensus on this question amongst the electorate, almost everyone thinks that money shouldn't have this oversized influence, so the only reason why nothing is fixed there is because the people who are already here like it that way. Elect the most leftwing candidate possible and that position will become harder to maintain; you already have people running grassroots campaigns free of corporate money today. A sidenote but the influence of money on politics is also one of the main reasons why capitalism is ill-equipped to deal with a threat like climate change.

The Overton window matters in terms of what solutions are perceived as acceptable. If something like milquetoast social democracy is considered "extreme" because the Overton window is shifted to the right, it's a major obstacle to doing something radical that goes in that political direction. The same goes for the fascist solution: before you go ahead and let it be known that your solution to climate change is to reinforce borders and let migrants die off elsewhere, you need a certain type of opinions about migrants to be well accepted in the mainstream.

On May 25 2019 09:37 ShambhalaWar wrote:


I appreciate your comments, and somewhat agree.

However, my opinion is that the natural arc of history (human growth) bends toward liberal ideology. I would say the word "liberal" is more just a label for the naturally occurring phenomena of how life evolves. The word "Conservative" is created just in opposition to that, because people find comfort in dualities (if not comfort, they find something, such as ground).

There are certainly regressions, but over the arc of history I feel like everything moves generally to the left.

The overton window implies the idea that things can actually shift back to the right, I would argue that isn't true; with the exception becoming some complete reset of humanity, like a nuclear winter or disease wiping out the majority of humanity.

If we manage to lose to much of our history or understanding of what has happened in the past, maybe there can be some massive regression, but barring that... We generally don't make complete regressions as a species. *I believe gay rights are a prime example of this... no matter how much a small amount of people want to change the fact that homosexuality is becoming more and more accepted in the world, they cannot do anything to stop that process. Tthere is nothing that can stop gay people from moving toward equal rights. I would argue this for all discussions of equal rights (a liberal point of view) Younger generations don't even see the issue as an issue anymore.

Another example, conservative views of the life (religion) were always meant to explain why life was the way it was. Now, science has come along to be the new "god" of our time, science's explanation of the world is farrrrrrr more accruate than religion, therefore most all people have come to adopt it.

When someone gets sick we go to a doctor (non-conservative or liberal), not to pray at church (conservative). As the older generations die off, this will become more so the case. There is no overton window in regard to this "shifting public opinion back", it will never shift back, people are too smart to let it.

On May 25 2019 11:04 GreenHorizons wrote:
The notion that the moral arc bends towards justice on it's own is a notable fallacy, it indisputably takes dogged determination of those demanding it despite the assertion society is better off with them lacking it.

The idea it happens without the very efforts that liberals tend to belittle or dismay at is a myth that comforts liberals inaction from my perspective.

On May 25 2019 11:14 ShambhalaWar wrote:


Your entire response is made of projections that you have inserted into my post, I claim none of what you mention.

Also "justice" is a terrible term, it's completely subjective and can mean completely opposite things to two different groups of people. "Liberal" is a fairly defined objective set of ideas.

I said nothing about the effort required to bring about change, only that it trend specifically in that direction regardless of effort.

On May 25 2019 10:21 Nebuchad wrote:


You have accepted that in specific instances the Overton window can shift right, so I take it that you wouldn't contest that specific contexts can become more conservative; and I mean, we have a ton of those examples, for example Iran was more liberal in the 1950s than it is now, and the Weimar Republic was so liberal that it even had a full library on sex studies including trans studies that the nazis got to burn afterwards. So, okay. We're talking events on a larger scale.

Even taking that into account I don't really see a reason why we should assume that humanity is always going forward. That's my main gripe with marxism btw, it posits historical materialism and that's nonsense to me. It takes major events for rightwing shifts to occur, but major events happen quite often, it's not nuclear winter level. For example the fall of the USSR caused a rightwing shift in Europe. At least in France, in the 1980s it would have been unthinkable for a far right party to get 25% of the vote and be the major opposition force to the government. It is now. I suspect we can say the same for a lot of european countries where the far right is strong. In the US you had the rise of the Tea Party, a much more further right version of the rightwing. I can't say that I know exactly how it rose, I suspect 9/11 had to do with that. But it did.

If they are transformational enough, political events influence the political discussions that you get to have. Honestly I think that this notion that, it's okay, in the end we're going to win, is dangerous. Because it allows us to believe that we don't have to fight, and we do.

On May 25 2019 11:15 GreenHorizons wrote:


The bold is exactly what I'm refuting as a preposterous myth of liberalism.

On May 25 2019 11:35 ShambhalaWar wrote:


Then you really need to work on the delivery of your point, and the reading/understanding of mine. Your words apply extra angles to the positions I'm taking (projections), and therefore alter my point. You are essentially arguing against a point that nobody made, but you.

You're arguing with your own words and ideas imposed over mine. Try reading my statement again and taking it very literally, which is how I intended it to be read (with less assumptions being made about it).

that it trend specifically in that direction (left/liberalism/science) regardless of effort.

On May 25 2019 11:37 GreenHorizons wrote:


I'm arguing with exactly what you said.



That's not true.

it trend specifically in that direction (left/liberalism/science) regardless of effort.

On May 25 2019 11:52 GreenHorizons wrote:
You said:



To which I'm telling you that is not true. Your example of Nazism and slavery are in incongruent to the argument you made which I challenged.

On May 25 2019 11:10 JimmiC wrote:
Are you saying that Liberals think that change will happen automatically with out effort? I understood that Neb was more suggestion that Marxists can not see it as an inevitability and need to work.

Could you give some examples of this?

On May 25 2019 12:37 ShambhalaWar wrote:


Ok... first off. You're not even quoting my original point, the one which you imposed a bunch of ideas on top of, you are quoting my response to you. Nothing in my original posts explicitly suggests what you're saying.

The effort I refer to in the response, is in regard to the efforts "against" the trend toward the left.

I could have stated it clearer if I said, "I said nothing about the effort required to bring about change, only that it trend specifically in that direction regardless of effort in opposition to that trend."

You still haven't made anything even approaching a counter argument to what I've said.

"That isn't true." is not a valid counter argument.

I stand by everything I've said. Try providing any example, or looking at how Nechubad forms a good counter point. He has his own ideas and does a good job of explaining them clearly.

You're posts simply amount to some version of, "No that's not true." At best you say there are no markers for this in history, but then you provide no other statement to back it up, just the idea that what I said "isn't true."

Another example, would be the slaughter of native American people by the whites that took the land from them. While we still persecute Native people in America, I would stand by the idea that if white America committed genocide on a scale like that in present day, the world condemn it on a massive scale, and if possible would likely hold us to account. And also that the vast majority of our US society would is likely appalled that we did such a thing in the first place, this is something America still has to truly acknowledge as part of our past. It is the "shadow" (as Jung would say) of our culture (that and slavery).

Overall I would say that is a trend toward equal rights, though we clearly aren't there yet.

And I stand by my point of slavery as well, the whole world has trended away from it, though it still occurs.

Next time you respond do so with some examples to back up your statements and reasoning behind it, or I won't bother responding.

I in no way think that the trend toward liberalism in the world requires no effort, only that all the majority of the effort put forth in the world will trend in that direction (barring a catastrophe). I can't explain that point any more directly.

On May 25 2019 12:47 GreenHorizons wrote:


I again disagree based on the assertion that you can't provide any example of this majority of the effort trending in that direction without deliberate effort and advocacy. The examples you have provided weren't inevitable without people who told liberals to "shut up and get out of the way".

I don't disagree that by and large we've trended toward liberalism (if we don't consider the looming climate apocalypse), what I disagreed with was the notion that it's a natural state of things rather than the product of countless gallons of blood sweat and tears, quite often to the protest of said liberals.

We very much can and will descend into fascism/theocracies/etc... should those people to the left of liberals stop dragging them kicking and screaming toward those same liberals own alleged ambitions.