| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23515 Posts
On June 26 2020 21:04 IgnE wrote: So would you not be phased by that behavior at all? You don't mind people breaking your shit? There's a huge gap between being upset (presuming there was damage that I didn't read about) and the racist diagnosis of sociopath we got from ClutZ | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22006 Posts
On June 26 2020 21:07 IgnE wrote: except cLutZ claims it is a cultural thing. 'he's south east asian, therefor he is a sociopath'.Well, probably more of a cultural thing for Americans to think people who damage one's car and take no responsibility for it are sociopaths. That's pretty textbook racism. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18843 Posts
| ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On June 26 2020 21:16 Gorsameth wrote: except cLutZ claims it is a cultural thing. 'he's south east asian, therefor he is a sociopath'. That's pretty textbook racism. The explicit logic is actually working the other way: "he's a sociopath who doesn't take responsibility for his actions, he's acting like it's normal to do this, it must be because he's not from here." Maybe that's textbook racism too, but it's not necessarily so, and the racist move would really be the move from the particular to the universal: "all south east asians have no respect for property rights." | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On June 26 2020 16:06 cLutZ wrote: The thing about Denmark (and not to be flippant) is that it is full of Danes. And we are not. I'm not an expert on Denmark, but if they follow Scandinavian trends, American-Danes are way better off than those in the home country. Someone once said to Milton Friedman (and I paraphrase) "There is no poverty in Sweden" to which he replied, "there is no poverty among Swedes in America" which is statistically supported. Another wrinkle is that those countries generally beat the USA on scores of economic freedom for every measure aside from taxes. They have less corruption, their regulatory states are much much better than ours for business. If we implemented their welfare, we'd be closer to a Latin American economy than a Scandinavian economy, because our regulators are already there. Also, getting back to my initial point, Those states all implemented their welfare systems when, quite frankly, they were more homogeneous than your average American church. Also they have largely walked back a lot of their programs over the last 25 years. Demographically, the US looks more like Brazil than we do Sweden. I'm very sympathetic to your view here. A very homogenous society with high in-group trust can have a functioning civil society. Several European countries have managed to implement systems where freedom is exchanged for security in much larger doses than America has since tolerated. In places like Sweden, the promise of security has historically been implemented well, even as it's been extended and contracted. The future might be different for a number of reasons, and maybe we're seeing the hints of that in the political shift of 2017-2018. America is an outlier. Not just currently, but historically. The success rate of large multiethnic states is quite poor. If you dive down at American cities, unfortunately they often break down into a racial spoils system type government. Our principle of federalism has, probably, kept us going for this long. But, if we continue to elevate almost all issues to the national level, it will become an untenable situation, unless we can fix the mentality I talked about. Which I'm not sure is even desirable. I love my Fiance, Mom, Dad, Brother, and Sister. I have affection for my grandparents. I don't have similar feelings for anyone else and it is not close. In my neighborhood I often feel alienated by the people around me who have wildly different norms than I do. A SE Asian recently hit my parked car and drove away without any remorse. My social norm is to leave a note of apology and taking responsibility. His norm was, apparently, to flee the scene and hope I hadn't taken down his plate. I did because I was fortunately on a walk. What sort of society is that? Why would I even consider that person a fellow citizen? This isn't an isolated incident. How can you build a government, let alone a society, in those conditions? You can't. Its like creating a lung cancer insurance agency that treats smokers as well as nonsmokers. The members of this forum have a sort of reactionary impulse to negative stereotypes and anything close to a condemnation of any aspect of an ethnic group, provided it isn't white european or analogues. SE Asian man showing no remorse in damaging your property will never be received well. It can't be taken as an example of diverse cultures necessitating a different system than those better adapted to govern highly homogenous systems. It prompts too much of an immune system response. We have seen the push to handle every issue at the national level and this will end badly, whether it is Congress, the President, or the Supreme Court. I don't even care if my preferred party recruits a better class of candidates and takes power in all branches+ Show Spoiler + (the Supreme Court functioning more and more as a political entity anyways, serving both judicial doctrines and a quest for enduring political legitimacy) I don't hold a lot of hope for short-term improvement on the current fascination with racial power games and whatever the hell you want to call journalistic institutions preferring censorship to information. It will keep going to national decisions, and sometime the left will get back the legislature and presidency soon or a little farther down the road. They'll have their shot for single-payer and their social agenda, and will be judged by the nation on it's effects. Only the lack of success in what they promise it will do and improve will lead to the pendulum swinging back the other way. That's one of the reasons I wish Bernie was running against Trump, because at least he's been pounding the same-ish agenda for years, rather than riding the winds of political trends. Feel free to disagree if you think the current crop of "highly opposed to everything in your post" are open to changing their mind, prior to having their shot with national political power. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18843 Posts
| ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4736 Posts
| ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On June 26 2020 16:06 cLutZ wrote: The thing about Denmark (and not to be flippant) is that it is full of Danes. And we are not. I'm not an expert on Denmark, but if they follow Scandinavian trends, American-Danes are way better off than those in the home country. Someone once said to Milton Friedman (and I paraphrase) "There is no poverty in Sweden" to which he replied, "there is no poverty among Swedes in America" which is statistically supported. Another wrinkle is that those countries generally beat the USA on scores of economic freedom for every measure aside from taxes. They have less corruption, their regulatory states are much much better than ours for business. If we implemented their welfare, we'd be closer to a Latin American economy than a Scandinavian economy, because our regulators are already there. Also, getting back to my initial point, Those states all implemented their welfare systems when, quite frankly, they were more homogeneous than your average American church. Also they have largely walked back a lot of their programs over the last 25 years. Demographically, the US looks more like Brazil than we do Sweden. America is an outlier. Not just currently, but historically. The success rate of large multiethnic states is quite poor. If you dive down at American cities, unfortunately they often break down into a racial spoils system type government. Our principle of federalism has, probably, kept us going for this long. But, if we continue to elevate almost all issues to the national level, it will become an untenable situation, unless we can fix the mentality I talked about. Which I'm not sure is even desirable. I love my Fiance, Mom, Dad, Brother, and Sister. I have affection for my grandparents. I don't have similar feelings for anyone else and it is not close. In my neighborhood I often feel alienated by the people around me who have wildly different norms than I do. A SE Asian recently hit my parked car and drove away without any remorse. My social norm is to leave a note of apology and taking responsibility. His norm was, apparently, to flee the scene and hope I hadn't taken down his plate. I did because I was fortunately on a walk. What sort of society is that? Why would I even consider that person a fellow citizen? This isn't an isolated incident. How can you build a government, let alone a society, in those conditions? You can't. Its like creating a lung cancer insurance agency that treats smokers as well as nonsmokers. How do you define 'large multiethnic states'? Because unless you're using a very specific definition, you'll find many of history's most successful states were multiethnic. Russia, for example, which despite long cycles of boom and bust, is definitely a successful multiethnic state. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23515 Posts
On June 26 2020 21:20 IgnE wrote: The explicit logic is actually working the other way: "he's a sociopath who doesn't take responsibility for his actions, he's acting like it's normal to do this, it must be because he's not from here." Maybe that's textbook racism too, but it's not necessarily so, and the racist move would really be the move from the particular to the universal: "all south east asians have no respect for property rights." I would hope it's at least the more enlightened racism that allots for "one of the good ones" here and there? | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On June 26 2020 21:09 GreenHorizons wrote: There's a huge gap between being upset (presuming there was damage that I didn't read about) and the racist diagnosis of sociopath we got from ClutZ So sociopaths are by definition those who don't value property "as much as human life?" I am pretty sure clutz would tell you that he doesn't value his car as much as human life, and I am also sure that he's not calling for the death penalty. I am struggling to understand your comment. How exactly are these things—racism, the value of life, the value of property—related in your reading of clutz's story? Neb posted a video in the youtube thread that quite usefully contextualizes the question of non-violence. The problem, says the video, is that nonviolence doesn't work anymore. So people fighting for change have to figure out new methods. I am tempted to say that the actual media strategy in 2020, for both sides, is hyperbolic exaggeration. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7928 Posts
On June 26 2020 21:31 iamthedave wrote: How do you define 'large multiethnic states'? Because unless you're using a very specific definition, you'll find many of history's most successful states were multiethnic. Russia, for example, which despite long cycles of boom and bust, is definitely a successful multiethnic state. I'd like to know which states are not multiethnic. I mean unless you are Japan and closed yourself to the outside world for centuries, every country is a melting pot of different populations. France has a lot of north africans immigrants, and before that had a lot of Poles, and before that a lot of Italians, and so on and so forth... I think it's a rather successful country all in all. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On June 26 2020 21:24 farvacola wrote: Even if only by implication, constituting a category with an example is still a fraught understating such that leaving the category out is usually the more proper tack. I suppose we’d need to know if other bases for associating culture with individual behavior were at play. A fraught overstating is the implicit move from family culture --> village culture --> regional culture --> national culture --> ethnic culture --> continental culture. All of them plural. | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4736 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28727 Posts
On June 26 2020 17:19 Neneu wrote: If you want a more social democracy like the countries in Scandinavia, you need to be aware that there are three pillars that enables us to have a such system. It is what makes it hard for other countries to imitate our system and in my opinion, US is probably one of the countries that would struggle the most of acquiring said pillars. The pillars that our system stands on are: Strong trust in everyone else: Knowing that other's will not abuse the system, makes you not abuse the system. Strong trust in the state: Knowing that no matter who you are, you will be treated equally by the government/bureaucrats within our strong social bureaucracy. Do not mistake strong bureaucracy for being inefficient btw, Norway has some of the strongest bureaucracies in the world while at the same time being one of the most efficient. Everyone benefits from tax: No matter if you are rich or poor, you shall get the benefits from the tax you are paying. It doesn't matter if you have a looooooooooooooot of money, you are still getting e.g free school, medical care or financial support as a student. It is a lot easier to get people to agree on paying taxes, when you know that if you need help, you will also benefit from it. It is less likely it will happen, I mean you are rich after all, but if you need it, you will get it. The welfare in the welfare state is not something just for middle/lower class. Everyone benefits and get support. This is what I consider to be a hard pill to swallow for a lot of people who want a social system like the Nordic countries. This video series from one of our best comedians are going deeper into the science (from a Norwegian perspective) behind it, unfortunately it is only in Norwegian. This post is entirely accurate in its description of Norway. It would be fantastic if the video linked had english subtitles, because it's a really solid video.  Anyway, 'trust', both in your fellow man and in government, are such important and valuable parameters, and one where Norway excels within Scandinavia and where Scandinavia excels within the world. It's not so easy to say it's about homogeneity either (although it's definitely an area that sometimes confuses immigrants from countries where this is not present - e.g. eastern europeans coming to Norway and noticing that people leave toys and items worth hundreds if not thousands of dollars, completely unguarded, on their lawn during night. ) | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On June 26 2020 21:41 Silvanel wrote: I dont recall a single large "multiethinic" state that wasnt to some degree dominted by one ethnicity/culture. Rome had romans, Ottoman empire turks, China had/has Han chineese, Russia has russians even PLC was domintaed by poles and lithuanians and ukrainians suffered as a result. I mean there might be many cultures inside one state but usually there is a dominant one and it is projecting its influence over others. Roman culture dominated the Roman empire, but Roman culture encompasses ethnic groups which were romanized. They were Roman in culture, but not Roman ethnically. Iberian Romans (ethnic then culture) dominated Iberia, Gaulish Romans dominated Gaul, and Roman citizenships was given to all on the Italian peninsular after a couple of civil wars. Generally all within the Roman Empire came to be "Roman" of the Roman culture who were legally and culturally citizens. Several generals and Emperors themselves in the later periods came from outside the Roman and the broader Italian peninsular. Eventually even those outside of the boundaries of the Roman Empire were romanised, most famously Germanic "barbarians" becoming their generals and forming their armies, who spoke Latin and intermingled with their elite. The Roman Empire was a large multiethnic state which was not dominated by one ethnicity, but by one culture that assimilated others. So yes, Roman culture dominated the Roman Empire, but Roman ethnicity did not. In fact the "Eastern Roman Empire" or The Roman Empire as they called themselves, know today as the Byzantine Empire were mainly ethnically Greek or came to be so whilst identifying themselves as Roman. The reality of the past is often much more complex and interesting than what pop culture thinks the past was. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18843 Posts
On June 26 2020 21:41 IgnE wrote: A fraught overstating is the implicit move from family culture --> village culture --> regional culture --> national culture --> ethnic culture --> continental culture. All of them plural. I actually meant to write undertaking so I hear ya haha | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4736 Posts
This is really offtopic but You didnt say anything that invalidates my statement. Stalin was georgian, PLC had French, Swedish, German and Moldavian kings, China had non han emperrors, so what? If anything that was source of discontent and lead to powerstruggles. Same in Rome, the rise to power of nonromans was both cause and result of powerstruggles and eventually the roman ethos and culture evaporated in everything but name. @IgnE Of course domination can mean many things but i specifically mentioned LARGE multiethnic states and i specifically object the notion that Russia is example to follow in this area. Ask someone from Caucasus if he/she feels welcome in Moscow or Piter. Russia is very racists, the nationalist sentiments are super strong: russian langauge, cyrilic alphabet, russian point of view in history, orthodox church, acomplishments of USSR, this is what matters--> this is what i mean by domination. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7928 Posts
On June 26 2020 22:39 Silvanel wrote: @Dangermousecatdog This is really offtopic but You didnt say anything that invalidates my statement. Stalin was georgian, PLC had French, Swedish, German and Moldavian kings, China had non han emperrors, so what? If anything that was source of discontent and lead to powerstruggles. Same in Rome, the rise to power of nonromans was both cause and result of powerstruggles and eventually the roman ethos and culture evaporated in everything but name. @IgnE Of course domination can mean many things but i specifically mentioned LARGE multiethnic states and i specifically object the notion that Russia is example to follow in this area. Ask someone from Caucasus if he/she feels welcome in Moscow or Piter. Russia is very racists, the nationalist sentiments are super strong: russian langauge, cyrilic alphabet, russian point of view in history, orthodox church, acomplishments of USSR, this is what matters--> this is what i mean by domination. Not sure about that. Roman culture at its summit was a patchwork of influences, especially Greek ones, and its population assimilated slowly people that were considered at first not romans for the least all around the Italian peninsula. I would say that the city that really protected itself successfully from external influence, both ethnically and culturally was Sparta. It's the very reason its influence vanished to the point of non relevance. | ||
| ||
|
|
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Krystianer vs Classic
TriGGeR vs SKillous
Percival vs Ryung
ByuN vs Nicoract
OSC
BSL 21
Cross vs Dewalt
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
OSC
Solar vs MaxPax
ByuN vs Krystianer
Spirit vs TBD
OSC
Korean StarCraft League
OSC
OSC
|
|
|
EPT
