Author Topic: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe  (Read 38706 times)

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #50 on: March 01, 2020, 05:58:45 PM »
Just saying, the US didn't have issues with mass shootings until Reagan gutted mental care authority/funding.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #51 on: March 01, 2020, 07:35:15 PM »
That could be a big part of it. We also weren't handing out Ritalin and Aderall like tic tacs to any kid who required a bit more effort to manage.

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #52 on: March 01, 2020, 07:48:25 PM »
Just saying, the US didn't have issues with mass shootings until Reagan gutted mental care authority/funding.

I'm unsure what data supports this. 

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #53 on: March 01, 2020, 09:55:04 PM »
Just saying, the US didn't have issues with mass shootings until Reagan gutted mental care authority/funding.

I'm unsure what data supports this.

Reagan put through a big program to make it harder to put mentally ill people in hospitals in the 80's.

US started having mass shootings on the regular in the 90's.

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #54 on: March 01, 2020, 10:09:02 PM »
And ya'll should know by now I'm the local liberal. However, I'm a believer in the "if we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns," theory. Guns were part of America from it's very inception and it wasn't an issue. It was only when they cut social funding and authority for mental health that we ended up with young men shooting up places before putting a bullet in their own heads.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #55 on: March 01, 2020, 11:26:32 PM »
There is little evidence that the suburban kids who have shot up their schools had anything to do with Reagans policies. Most of them had access to mental health services,and would not have been institutional candidates.

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #56 on: March 02, 2020, 09:35:37 AM »

Reagan put through a big program to make it harder to put mentally ill people in hospitals in the 80's.

US started having mass shootings on the regular in the 90's.

I'm looking at the data on the wiki page, which by the way I believe was compiled by Mother Jones of all sources.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States
I'm unsure how good the data is, but it's what is readily available. 

The data doesn't seem to support that there was a huge increase in the 80s.  The total number of shootings has been rising since the 1960s.  Total # of shootings and percentage change by decade:

50s        1
60s        6        600%
70s        14      233%
80s       21       150%
90s       30       143%
00s       37       123%
10s       123     332%

If I had to look at the growth of mass shootings in America, I wouldn't look for Reagan policies, but problems that occurred in the 60s, 70s, and 10s. 

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #57 on: March 02, 2020, 09:49:37 AM »
I mean, off the top of my head, those are all time periods featuring ridiculous and unpopular wars, and especially ones where Americans were in a state of internal conflict over their relationship with their own government. Maybe that's merely a correlation and not a causation, but assuming that 60's/70's and 10's are vaguely related (50's-60's is harder to say because of margin for error in small volume of data points), it would appear that within a few years of a very contention military adventure there are social problems in the country. Whether or not this guess of mine is in fact related to the issue, it seems to me fairly obvious that this would in fact result from people losing faith in government and in their fellow American.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #58 on: March 02, 2020, 10:25:57 AM »
SSRI induced violence is a real thing and didn't widely exist until the 90's.

"According to a review of the FDA’s database, 484 drugs were identified as triggers to serious adverse events significant enough to warrant a case study during the five-year period from 2004 through 2009. Of these 484 medications, 31 were identified to have a “disproportionate” association with violence. These 31 drugs make up 78.8 percent of all cases of violence toward others..."

The list includes five SSRI antidepressants:

Fluoxetine: Prozac increased aggressive behavior 10.9 times
Paroxetine: Paxil increased violent behavior 10.3 times
Fluvoxamine: Luvox increased violent behavior 8.4 times
Venlafaxine: Effexor increased violent behavior 8.3 times
Desvenlafaxine: Pristiq increased violent behavior 7.9 times

By 2010, 11% of all US citizens over the age of 12 had been prescribed an anti-depressant drug.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mad-in-america/201101/psychiatric-drugs-and-violence-review-fda-data-finds-link


Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #59 on: March 02, 2020, 04:46:22 PM »
Quote
I'm looking at the data on the wiki page, which by the way I believe was compiled by Mother Jones of all sources.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States
I'm unsure how good the data is, but it's what is readily available. 

Really? Mother Jones, I’m pretty damn sure how good the data is.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #60 on: March 02, 2020, 09:52:28 PM »
If anyone wants to look at the increases in mass shootings, we should look at the instigation of gun-free zones.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #61 on: March 03, 2020, 07:26:38 AM »
I think we should look at the ever expanding definition of “mass shooting”. Under current definitions favored by gun grabbers it seems we have a mass shooting a couple of times a day. Of course, there’s a pretty significant filter applied to which ones get reported - have to promote that narrative!

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #62 on: March 03, 2020, 07:39:03 AM »
Quote
A mass shooting is an incident involving multiple victims of gun violence.

What's so hard to understand?

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #63 on: March 03, 2020, 07:53:13 AM »
Quote
A mass shooting is an incident involving multiple victims of gun violence.

What's so hard to understand?

Too late to edit, but if you want to see how badly the bad bad liberal press is distorting numbers on mass shootings, you only have to go to the uber-liberal FOX News for the lowdown:

Quote
A database compiled by The Associated Press, USA Today and Northeastern University shows that there were more mass killings in 2019 than any year dating back to at least the 1970s, punctuated by a chilling succession of deadly rampages during the summer.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #64 on: March 03, 2020, 05:18:55 PM »
If anyone wants to look at the increases in mass shootings, we should look at the instigation of gun-free zones.

Actually, much like terrorism, the rise in mass shootings (depending on definition) is a media driven phenomena.  If we're talking Columbine or Vegas style attacks this is certainly true, without 24 hour news coverage and blanket social media news those kind of events never become regular.

If you're talking about the bizarre over inclusive, more than 3 persons test, it' more likely just a change in reporting.  Fact is that is that most gun deaths are suicides.  FBI's stats usually show 8-12 k murders with guns.  Rifles, like assault rifles, that get so much coverage and that "no one needs to own" usually come in at a couple hundred of those murders (total).  Knifes usually kill 4-5 times more people than rifles (even fists usually kill more). 

Gun murders are highly clustered in certain locations and demographics and the vast majority are with handguns.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #65 on: March 03, 2020, 08:23:43 PM »
Getting back to Uncle Joe... Limbaugh apologized today for assuring everyone that the Democrats would never nominate Joe, because he couldn't win. He explained that he missed the point that there are doppelgangers in the Dems who correspond to the Never-Trumpers in the GOP. He realized that these Never-Bernies would rather lose the election than let someone head their party who is outside their personal power base. Rush pointed out that the GOP has realigned under Trump, more unified than ever before, with the Never-Trump elitists virtually excluded from any power at all.

Bill Kristol, Mona Charen, Rick Wilson, Mindy Finn, Amanda Carpenter, Tara Setmayer, Tim Miller, David Frum, and Tom Nichols are self-acknowledged Never-Trumpers who were shocked to find that they were not welcomed into the anti-Trump Democrat power base. (https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/03/03/never-trump-maybe-bernie-118981) Now looking like homeless drifters, the Left elitists don't want to become them. They seem to be deathly afraid of what Bernie Sanders would do to their party. Accepted wisdom said any winner is better than another four years of Trump, but now, it looks as if losing to Trump again would be better than being unimportant within a party that nominates Bernie.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #66 on: March 04, 2020, 07:46:28 AM »
Forcing Buttigieg and Klobuchar to drop right before Super Tuesday worked:

Quote
According to exit polls, voters who made up their mind on whom to vote for within the last few days broke heavily for Biden. And even in states like North Carolina, Biden did merely OK among early voters but cleaned up among Election Day voters.

People just aren’t going to vote a socialist into the White House and the DNC knew it. They had to put the fix in again in 2020 to avoid certain disaster. It’s amazing to see the Democrats literally have an elite group that decides who you get to vote for; anybody can run for the nomination  but it’s an illusion of choice. The nominee is decided in back room deals before the primaries even start.

There’s a theory out there he picks Hillary as a running mate and, if he wins, when it’s impossible to cover up his dementia any more that he quits and makes Hillary President. Sounds kooky but if they’ll fix the primaries like this anything is possible.

It’ll likely be a brokered convention so Warren may leverage her delegates to get the VP slot and can bring some Bernie Bros back to the party.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #67 on: March 04, 2020, 07:55:32 AM »
Quote
A mass shooting is an incident involving multiple victims of gun violence.

What's so hard to understand?

Too late to edit, but if you want to see how badly the bad bad liberal press is distorting numbers on mass shootings, you only have to go to the uber-liberal FOX News for the lowdown:

Quote
A database compiled by The Associated Press, USA Today and Northeastern University shows that there were more mass killings in 2019 than any year dating back to at least the 1970s, punctuated by a chilling succession of deadly rampages during the summer.

You’ve mixed mass shootings with mass killings. Very first line is about a guy using an axe. And this is precisely my point, gun grabbers try to confuse things to inflate the numbers.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #68 on: March 04, 2020, 08:15:35 AM »
Quote
You’ve mixed mass shootings with mass killings. Very first line is about a guy using an axe. And this is precisely my point, gun grabbers try to confuse things to inflate the numbers.

I'm not mixing anything up.  If you have a problem with liberals overstating facts, it is with the liberal FOX News, not me.  Do you feel somehow reassured that 33 mass killings with 210 innocent victim deaths using guns somehow indicts liberals who point out that there are lots of mass killings?  FOX News says this was the highest total going back to the '70s.  Is FOX News broadcasting fake news?

Quote
In all, there were 41 mass killings, defined as when four or more people are killed excluding the perpetrator. Of those, 33 were mass shootings. More than 210 people were killed.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #69 on: March 04, 2020, 12:13:26 PM »
Quote
Now looking like homeless drifters, the Left elitists don't want to become them. They seem to be deathly afraid of what Bernie Sanders would do to their party.

Quote
It’s amazing to see the Democrats literally have an elite group that decides who you get to vote for; anybody can run for the nomination  but it’s an illusion of choice. The nominee is decided in back room deals before the primaries even start.

You guys seem to be under the impression that there is a group that controls the Democratic Party and "pulls the strings."

Care to tell me who they might be?

Sure, there are those who run the party.  But their influence is limited, and they don't seem to be very smart with the little they have.  I mean, if they're so afraid of Bernie, why did they allow him, an Independent, run as a Democrat in the first place back in 2016?  Why let him run again?

And while I agree that there was probably some deals reached with Pete and Amy to get them to leave before Super Tuesday, I'm sure it is far less nefarious than you make it sound.  Probably some offer of a cabinet position or such if Biden wins.  Who's to complain that they accepted the offer?  They almost certainly were not going to win the nomination.  It makes the field smaller so that a clear winner can be chosen.  And if you consider the offers to be even somewhat nefarious, why would you want them contending to run the country in the first place? What does it say about their character that they accepted such an offer?  After all, they might win! ;)

Although I am not comfortable with the choices we have left, I was never entirely comfortable with any of the choices.  But now the Democrats can see for themselves how much support comes from the left wing of the party and the moderate wing, which will help them balance the ticket for the all-important November election.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #70 on: March 04, 2020, 01:08:02 PM »
Quote
You’ve mixed mass shootings with mass killings. Very first line is about a guy using an axe. And this is precisely my point, gun grabbers try to confuse things to inflate the numbers.

I'm not mixing anything up.  If you have a problem with liberals overstating facts, it is with the liberal FOX News, not me.  Do you feel somehow reassured that 33 mass killings with 210 innocent victim deaths using guns somehow indicts liberals who point out that there are lots of mass killings?  FOX News says this was the highest total going back to the '70s.  Is FOX News broadcasting fake news?

Quote
In all, there were 41 mass killings, defined as when four or more people are killed excluding the perpetrator. Of those, 33 were mass shootings. More than 210 people were killed.

Yeah you are. Mass shooting or mass killings, what are you worried about? You started with mass shooting, now it’s generic.  Want to push for common sense axe control?

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #71 on: March 04, 2020, 01:13:21 PM »
Yeah you are. Mass shooting or mass killings, what are you worried about? You started with mass shooting, now it’s generic.  Want to push for common sense axe control?

Not really. Based on my gender, age, and fitness level. My odds of surviving a mass axe attack are pretty darn high. My odd of surviving a mass shooting are much lower.

But honestly both are such rare events legislating around them is a little ridiculous. I do support more aggressive gun laws, and some bans on items that are only useful for mass shootings (100 drum magazines, bump stocks, ...), but actual gun control measures should be targeted at keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and reducing domestic violence homicides.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #72 on: March 04, 2020, 01:29:40 PM »
Quote
Now looking like homeless drifters, the Left elitists don't want to become them. They seem to be deathly afraid of what Bernie Sanders would do to their party.

Quote
It’s amazing to see the Democrats literally have an elite group that decides who you get to vote for; anybody can run for the nomination  but it’s an illusion of choice. The nominee is decided in back room deals before the primaries even start.

You guys seem to be under the impression that there is a group that controls the Democratic Party and "pulls the strings."

Care to tell me who they might be?

Sure, there are those who run the party.  But their influence is limited, and they don't seem to be very smart with the little they have.  I mean, if they're so afraid of Bernie, why did they allow him, an Independent, run as a Democrat in the first place back in 2016?  Why let him run again?

And while I agree that there was probably some deals reached with Pete and Amy to get them to leave before Super Tuesday, I'm sure it is far less nefarious than you make it sound.  Probably some offer of a cabinet position or such if Biden wins.  Who's to complain that they accepted the offer?  They almost certainly were not going to win the nomination.  It makes the field smaller so that a clear winner can be chosen.  And if you consider the offers to be even somewhat nefarious, why would you want them contending to run the country in the first place? What does it say about their character that they accepted such an offer?  After all, they might win! ;)

Although I am not comfortable with the choices we have left, I was never entirely comfortable with any of the choices.  But now the Democrats can see for themselves how much support comes from the left wing of the party and the moderate wing, which will help them balance the ticket for the all-important November election.

This is a great post.

There are no deal makers in the party! I means sure, there’s some deals made by a few people that run things and then there’s the people that so conveniently cut deals to exit right before Super Tuesday but that’s it! Other than that, totally open and honest!   ;D

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #73 on: March 04, 2020, 01:34:47 PM »
Personally, I would have loved Bernie and done the Capitalism vs socialism smackdown but creepy uncle joe is as good

 Trump is going to eat him whole. Trump will put Hunter’s baby momma and illegitimate child in the front row of the debate and tee it up. Then he’ll go down the Biden crime family deals, cut over to Uncle Joe constantly sniffing and fondling 11 year old girls, groping grown women, and finish with Joe not even knowing what city he’s in or the office he’s running for or even the day of the week.

It’s going to be brutal. Trump bringing up Clinton’s history of raping women will seem quaint.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #74 on: March 04, 2020, 02:41:40 PM »
Quote
You’ve mixed mass shootings with mass killings. Very first line is about a guy using an axe. And this is precisely my point, gun grabbers try to confuse things to inflate the numbers.

I'm not mixing anything up.  If you have a problem with liberals overstating facts, it is with the liberal FOX News, not me.  Do you feel somehow reassured that 33 mass killings with 210 innocent victim deaths using guns somehow indicts liberals who point out that there are lots of mass killings?  FOX News says this was the highest total going back to the '70s.  Is FOX News broadcasting fake news?

Quote
In all, there were 41 mass killings, defined as when four or more people are killed excluding the perpetrator. Of those, 33 were mass shootings. More than 210 people were killed.

Yeah you are. Mass shooting or mass killings, what are you worried about? You started with mass shooting, now it’s generic.  Want to push for common sense axe control?

You made me think of the Woody Allen movie where he hands the teller a note that says "I have a gub. Give me all your cash."  There must be a lot of mass shootings in your world where nobody gets killed.  Sorry, I meant "mars shootings", so ignore everything I said.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #75 on: March 04, 2020, 04:05:04 PM »
Quote
This is a great post.

There are no deal makers in the party! I means sure, there’s some deals made by a few people that run things and then there’s the people that so conveniently cut deals to exit right before Super Tuesday but that’s it! Other than that, totally open and honest!   ;D

I suppose you only vote for a party that is "totally open and honest?"  One where the President or the Senate Majority Leader never lies to the American people?  Where the party always makes sure their members have a choice in the primary elections and never cancels them because Trump is going to win anyway, so why bother? ;)

Deals are made.  Amy, Pete, Tom and now Mike probably wouldn't have won anyway, not because a few people stopped them but because they weren't popular enough among all Democratic voters.  Campaigns are expensive, so throwing good money after bad isn't a good idea.  This way they can salvage something out of their run.

Amy, Pete, Tom and Mike losing wasn't because of some puppet masters.  They were losing anyway because of the Democratic voters.  Any deals just hastened their almost-inevitable departure.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #76 on: March 04, 2020, 04:20:02 PM »
Quote
Trump is going to eat him whole. Trump will put Hunter’s baby momma and illegitimate child in the front row of the debate and tee it up. Then he’ll go down the Biden crime family deals, cut over to Uncle Joe constantly sniffing and fondling 11 year old girls, groping grown women, and finish with Joe not even knowing what city he’s in or the office he’s running for or even the day of the week.

It’s going to be brutal. Trump bringing up Clinton’s history of raping women will seem quaint.

So the family that currently makes millions in overseas deals is going to criticize Biden for his son taking thousands from Ukraine?  So the p***y-grabber and porn-star buggerer is going to call Biden a groper?  So the man who only speaks at a fourth-grade level is going to show how much smarter he is than Biden? :)

Perhaps the Fox viewers will fall for it, but not everyone watches only Fox News.

Remember, Crunch, that Trump only won by 200,000 more votes in four states.  It won't take much to tip that scale.  And accusing your opponent of stuff you're even more guilty of may not work out as well as you think.  ;D

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #77 on: March 04, 2020, 04:32:51 PM »
Speaking of deals...

Quote
The biggest decision facing Elizabeth Warren is not whether to end her campaign, but rather whether to endorse Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders or neither.

“That’s the only real choice facing her now,” a Warren adviser tells CNN.

Warren is closer to Sanders — policy speaking — but those ties are strained. Some advisers believe her best path is to be considered as a vice president to Biden.

The question is, how many times is she willing to be groped by Biden at the convention when he mistakes her for his wife?
« Last Edit: March 04, 2020, 04:38:40 PM by TheDrake »

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #78 on: March 04, 2020, 04:35:45 PM »
Quote
You’ve mixed mass shootings with mass killings. Very first line is about a guy using an axe. And this is precisely my point, gun grabbers try to confuse things to inflate the numbers.

I'm not mixing anything up.  If you have a problem with liberals overstating facts, it is with the liberal FOX News, not me.  Do you feel somehow reassured that 33 mass killings with 210 innocent victim deaths using guns somehow indicts liberals who point out that there are lots of mass killings?  FOX News says this was the highest total going back to the '70s.  Is FOX News broadcasting fake news?

Quote
In all, there were 41 mass killings, defined as when four or more people are killed excluding the perpetrator. Of those, 33 were mass shootings. More than 210 people were killed.

Yeah you are. Mass shooting or mass killings, what are you worried about? You started with mass shooting, now it’s generic.  Want to push for common sense axe control?

You made me think of the Woody Allen movie where he hands the teller a note that says "I have a gub. Give me all your cash."  There must be a lot of mass shootings in your world where nobody gets killed.  Sorry, I meant "mars shootings", so ignore everything I said.

Probably the best advice ...

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #79 on: March 04, 2020, 04:38:13 PM »
Quote
This is a great post.

There are no deal makers in the party! I means sure, there’s some deals made by a few people that run things and then there’s the people that so conveniently cut deals to exit right before Super Tuesday but that’s it! Other than that, totally open and honest!   ;D

I suppose you only vote for a party that is "totally open and honest?"  One where the President or the Senate Majority Leader never lies to the American people?  Where the party always makes sure their members have a choice in the primary elections and never cancels them because Trump is going to win anyway, so why bother? ;)

Deals are made.  Amy, Pete, Tom and now Mike probably wouldn't have won anyway, not because a few people stopped them but because they weren't popular enough among all Democratic voters.  Campaigns are expensive, so throwing good money after bad isn't a good idea.  This way they can salvage something out of their run.

Amy, Pete, Tom and Mike losing wasn't because of some puppet masters.  They were losing anyway because of the Democratic voters.  Any deals just hastened their almost-inevitable departure.

I vote for one of the two choices I’m allowed under the current system. At least the republicans had a fair primary that allowed a complete outsider to grab the nomination and ultimately the White House. You can’t even remotely say the same thing for Democrats.

Believe what you’re told, by all means. I’m happy to see it continue.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #80 on: March 04, 2020, 04:43:38 PM »
Establishment Democrats are terrified by progressives because:

A. Their standing would be weakened.
B. Incumbents could face more primary challenges.
C. They will lose a majority in both houses as Republicans appeal better to centrists.
D. Socialists will change the system and start taxing their fortunes.
E. All of the above.

By establishment democrats, I mean everything from politicians to donors to superdelegates to pundits.

It's not a shadowy cabal with some central control.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #81 on: March 04, 2020, 04:48:25 PM »
It's not a shadowy cabal with some central control.

Why does everyone assume behind the scenes money interests need to be a shadowy cabal? I wonder sometimes that the X-Files actually harmed peoples' ability to picture how things work. The usual toss-up now seems to be between "these are just good folks trying to do their jobs" and "the cigarette smoking man in the leather armchair." It's no wonder partisan politics works so well...people can't understand any kind of detail other than lawful good vs chaotic evil.

FWIW this may not actually apply to you, TheDrake, but it's what I generally perceive anyhow. It's gotta be a lizard-man conspiracy, or nothing.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #82 on: March 04, 2020, 06:19:46 PM »
It's not a shadowy cabal with some central control.

Why does everyone assume behind the scenes money interests need to be a shadowy cabal? I wonder sometimes that the X-Files actually harmed peoples' ability to picture how things work. The usual toss-up now seems to be between "these are just good folks trying to do their jobs" and "the cigarette smoking man in the leather armchair." It's no wonder partisan politics works so well...people can't understand any kind of detail other than lawful good vs chaotic evil.

FWIW this may not actually apply to you, TheDrake, but it's what I generally perceive anyhow. It's gotta be a lizard-man conspiracy, or nothing.

That's fair, let me clarify what I was responding to, which was Crunch's post:

Quote
People just aren’t going to vote a socialist into the White House and the DNC knew it. They had to put the fix in again in 2020 to avoid certain disaster. It’s amazing to see the Democrats literally have an elite group that decides who you get to vote for; anybody can run for the nomination  but it’s an illusion of choice. The nominee is decided in back room deals before the primaries even start.

To me, it is fair to characterize that as a description of a shadowy cabal. I certainly don't deny that there's something more going on with the DNC than good people doing their jobs, but it seems more unilateral. There's also no question that a bunch of people got together and funded the anti-Bernie SuperPAC Big Tent Project. The name of it could be their sole motivation - they don't think he can win moderates and so they want to stop him getting the nomination. Or they could use that as the shiniest face for one of the other reasons.

Bloomberg proved, however, that you can't just slam money in (among other things) and predetermine the nominee. The PAC ads against Bernie play on widely held fears in Democratic politics - including the rank and file.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #83 on: March 04, 2020, 07:08:56 PM »
It's no wonder partisan politics works so well...people can't understand any kind of detail other than lawful good vs chaotic evil.

I'm split between lawful neutral and chaotic neutral myself. :)

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #84 on: March 04, 2020, 10:20:34 PM »
It's no wonder partisan politics works so well...people can't understand any kind of detail other than lawful good vs chaotic evil.

Politicians are more representative of Lawful Evil versus Lawful Neutral.  Trump is a disruptor because he's representing Chaotic (Evil/Good) depending on your perspective.

All swamp creatures range from LE to LN, laws either exist to benefit them and can be ignored or manipulated when they don't (which is why this type never faces charges), or laws exist as absolutes without tolerance for difference (which is why they sometimes seem to have no compassion).

I think most of the populace favors NG (don't care how it gets done so long as its good in their mind) and NE (Which is really just absolute self interest). You get some, like Antifa that are C G/E (depending on your perspective).  You get more that are LG, who tend to support the politicians because they think order is inherently good.

Not many true Neutral, or Chaotic Neutral.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #85 on: March 04, 2020, 10:45:29 PM »
To me, it is fair to characterize that as a description of a shadowy cabal. I certainly don't deny that there's something more going on with the DNC than good people doing their jobs, but it seems more unilateral. There's also no question that a bunch of people got together and funded the anti-Bernie SuperPAC Big Tent Project. The name of it could be their sole motivation - they don't think he can win moderates and so they want to stop him getting the nomination. Or they could use that as the shiniest face for one of the other reasons.

IMO if what we're talking about it "they honestly didn't believe Bernie could win" then I would actually happily class that under "good folks just doing their jobs" notwithstanding the fact that it's obviously self-interested. What I am referring to is more like "whether or not this might benefit America as a whole it will disfavor us, and we are the ones making campaign contributions." Both fiscal policy and other policies will create a flow of wealth, or shall we say trends in the flow of wealth, and obviously any powerful group wants it to flow their way. And I am 100% certain that if the money flowing the other way by some margin were to improve overall American earnings per capita, they would fight against it tooth and nail. It doesn't matter how well the country is doing; they just want maximal absolute income. This is more the sort of thing I mean. It doesn't require thinking of a "cabal" to understand this, is mostly what my point was. It's more like "duh" when you think about it, knowing even a moderate amount about human nature. The average person will not intentionally agree to lose anything even if it benefits some faceless others more than they are losing.

Quote
Bloomberg proved, however, that you can't just slam money in (among other things) and predetermine the nominee. The PAC ads against Bernie play on widely held fears in Democratic politics - including the rank and file.

Maybe, however that was not a purely 'scientific' experiment if we're going to take it as an interesting result. What I mean is that his campaign wasn't just about throwing money at the problem, but also doing so with an irregular timing and without the sort of momentum we usually expect from pundits and the media. I suppose eventually we'll learn numerically how plastic the public's perceptions are based on what they hear on CNN, FOX, and talk shows. How much BS can you throw at people and they'll believe it, vs actually aggravating them because they know you're messing with them? I don't know the answer to that, other than I know a great many people IRL who believe absolutely stupid things because "it's what they're saying on the news."

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #86 on: March 04, 2020, 10:51:29 PM »
Politicians are more representative of Lawful Evil versus Lawful Neutral.  Trump is a disruptor because he's representing Chaotic (Evil/Good) depending on your perspective.

All swamp creatures range from LE to LN, laws either exist to benefit them and can be ignored or manipulated when they don't (which is why this type never faces charges), or laws exist as absolutes without tolerance for difference (which is why they sometimes seem to have no compassion).

I think most of the populace favors NG (don't care how it gets done so long as its good in their mind) and NE (Which is really just absolute self interest). You get some, like Antifa that are C G/E (depending on your perspective).  You get more that are LG, who tend to support the politicians because they think order is inherently good.

Not many true Neutral, or Chaotic Neutral.

I always like your post replies when I invoke D&D :)

That being said I think you underestimate in this assessment how much of the population is innately (and I mean probably genetically) geared towards being either LN or CN; meaning that an enormous amount of satisfaction comes from seeing the law enacted in and of itself on the one hand (currently understood to be a conservative mindset) versus satisfaction from breaking up the status quo and undoing structure (currently understood to be a fundamentally progressive or perhaps 'leftist' mindset). The gist of studies that look at this seem to suggest that this may at any rate by partially genetic, that as Gilbert and Sullivan put it, "every boy and every gal that's born into the world alive, is either a little liberal or else a little conservative." If so, this would mean that the desire for law - in the sense of innately disliking it when people break the rules or go unpunished - in those people comes prior to any moral consideration, and likewise for the disorder people. Not that they all end up necessarily morally neutral, however I think a surprising amount of people will go on the instinct of order/chaos as a first priority and *call that good*, whereas in fact it's a preference for a type of structure or anti-structure. Based on what I see in everyday life, I think there are a lot of LN and CN people out there, for whom "but is this decent or right?" is not nearly as important as "what do the rules say" or "the system has to change."

One interesting thing about the moral-neutral position is that it's the simplest position to adopt in order to avoid thinking. The moment you want to be in the LG/NG/CG camp an actual moral evaluation is required of you to make sure you or others are following a moral code. More often than not I suspect that "follow the rules" for example is interpreted as being moral, but I (and I suppose Kierkegaard) disagree with that. 'Just do what you're told' and the equivalent on the other side, 'buck authority', are both positions that are amoral and IMO almost incapable of being moral. They're also the easiest positions to take and still feel self-righteous without having to do much mental labor.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2020, 10:55:09 PM by Fenring »

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #87 on: March 05, 2020, 10:31:45 AM »
It's no wonder partisan politics works so well...people can't understand any kind of detail other than lawful good vs chaotic evil.

Politicians are more representative of Lawful Evil versus Lawful Neutral.  Trump is a disruptor because he's representing Chaotic (Evil/Good) depending on your perspective.

All swamp creatures range from LE to LN, laws either exist to benefit them and can be ignored or manipulated when they don't (which is why this type never faces charges), or laws exist as absolutes without tolerance for difference (which is why they sometimes seem to have no compassion).

I think most of the populace favors NG (don't care how it gets done so long as its good in their mind) and NE (Which is really just absolute self interest). You get some, like Antifa that are C G/E (depending on your perspective).  You get more that are LG, who tend to support the politicians because they think order is inherently good.

Not many true Neutral, or Chaotic Neutral.

In the D&D context, which is where I went with it, there is too much of a tendency towards Zealotry with regards to "Good" aligned characters, in particular the lawful good types. So in that regard much easier to just jump in with the neutral types and stick to a path closer to the middle. Although hewing closer to the "good" side rather than the evil end.

But on the lawful end, as I hold that most laws exist to serve man (or God), I don't hold to the law itself being the final arbiter by which to base decisions. Obviously in reality, the law has to be considered, but "it's illegal" does not in and of itself make something moral or immoral. While many and possibly even most laws reflect the morality of the people in a region, not all laws do.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #88 on: March 05, 2020, 10:48:34 AM »
I always like your post replies when I invoke D&D :)

That being said I think you underestimate in this assessment how much of the population is innately (and I mean probably genetically) geared towards being either LN or CN; meaning that an enormous amount of satisfaction comes from seeing the law enacted in and of itself on the one hand (currently understood to be a conservative mindset) versus satisfaction from breaking up the status quo and undoing structure (currently understood to be a fundamentally progressive or perhaps 'leftist' mindset).

The D&D alignment system is certainly open to multiple interpretations, but I think your reading of what is going on is on the wrong pole (Law-Chaos).  Most of the people you categorize as LN are either LG or LE.  The LE's want the law to punish others (but not themselves), and the LG's, like I said above, tend to think that law is inherently good.

You also get NG's mixed up in there because the NG's will praise the law if it serves the greater good (which, honestly in western society is better than a 50/50 proposition), and will undermine it or ignore it if it doesn't.  The populaces position on say tolerance for "illegal" immigration is inherently NG (or NE if it's for political gain, rather than the benefit of the illegals or the populace), its position on non-enforcement of drug laws and allowing pot is also NG.  An LN populace would not tolerate either of those, an LG populace would insist on changing the laws to be better, and an LE populace would use the status of the "illegals" for its own personal gain (like say, abusing their immigrant workers because they can't go to the police, or threatening to have them deported).  And that's before you consider the Chaotics.

In this case though, the joy you are seeing isn't because the law was enforced, it was because the unworthy were punished and therefore the proper pole is (good-evil).

I know you really want to pigeon hole liberals and conservatives on the law/chaos line, but it doesn't fit.  Both sets are on the Lawful end of the spectrum, with individuals varying on the G-E line with how much they think the law should serve themselves and their allies versus how much it should serve all.

Quote
The gist of studies that look at this seem to suggest that this may at any rate by partially genetic, that as Gilbert and Sullivan put it, "every boy and every gal that's born into the world alive, is either a little liberal or else a little conservative." If so, this would mean that the desire for law - in the sense of innately disliking it when people break the rules or go unpunished - in those people comes prior to any moral consideration, and likewise for the disorder people.

But the problem with assigning it in this manner is that it ignores that Progressives actually impose and favor the strictest laws.  They are not out there advocating for a reduction in law, they are advocating to impose laws on EVERY decision an individual makes.  Even in the informal world, it's trivially easy to violate a progressive "law" with a poor choice of words (say like referring to Xe as She) and become excommunicated unless you serve a penance (and maybe even still).  There is absolute joy in forcing others to bend to the often arbitrary rules imposed. 

Quote
Not that they all end up necessarily morally neutral, however I think a surprising amount of people will go on the instinct of order/chaos as a first priority and *call that good*, whereas in fact it's a preference for a type of structure or anti-structure.

Or, its exactly what they say.  A preference for good.

You're overthinking it.  People can be wrong about what they want being good (and often are), but are rarely wrong about communicating that they think something is good (other than politicians who play on social mores to try and be convincing).

Quote
Based on what I see in everyday life, I think there are a lot of LN and CN people out there, for whom "but is this decent or right?" is not nearly as important as "what do the rules say" or "the system has to change."

The "system has to change" is neither Law or Chaos, it's seeking either good (for other's benefit) or evil (for my own benefit).  The "system has to go (and not be replaced)" is chaos.

What do the rules say isn't actually anything.  it's an expression that disobedience has consequences.  Now if it's applied where no one can see it and no one would ever know you may have a point.

Quote
One interesting thing about the moral-neutral position is that it's the simplest position to adopt in order to avoid thinking. The moment you want to be in the LG/NG/CG camp an actual moral evaluation is required of you to make sure you or others are following a moral code.

Actually no.  The simplest system is to seek "good" but to define good as equivalent to what you already believe without examination.  Under that system, literally everyone that disagrees with you is inherently evil and can be ignored (sound familiar)?  There's no nuance.

Moral-neutral is actually really tough to parse out.  Unless all you mean is moral-indifferent, and you just don't care.

Quote
More often than not I suspect that "follow the rules" for example is interpreted as being moral, but I (and I suppose Kierkegaard) disagree with that. 'Just do what you're told' and the equivalent on the other side, 'buck authority', are both positions that are amoral and IMO almost incapable of being moral. They're also the easiest positions to take and still feel self-righteous without having to do much mental labor.

Any rigid interpretation is easy to take if you shut your brain down.  Being a rebel without a clue is easy, being a clone trooper is easy. 

Trying to decide what to do if a law is wrong is for an LG very hard (but not a consideration the rigid thinker has to debate), easy for LN, LE, NG, N, NE, CG, CN and CE.  Trying to decide if you should support a rigid law that serves and important good where the lack causes a harm that can't resolve is hard for the CG, and not for any other alignment.

LN, NG, NE and CN have no moral ambiguity, the answer in all situations is clear (unless you play CN as effectively random, in which case the randomness is clear).

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #89 on: March 05, 2020, 10:53:21 AM »
In the D&D context, which is where I went with it, there is too much of a tendency towards Zealotry with regards to "Good" aligned characters, in particular the lawful good types. So in that regard much easier to just jump in with the neutral types and stick to a path closer to the middle. Although hewing closer to the "good" side rather than the evil end.

Zealotry is - in my book - a misplay of LG.  Zealots would more often be NG.  They have no moral ambiguity, and in fact - as played - they often ignore the law, manipulate the law or even act in manners that are close to objectively evil, which kind of proves that point.  There are no LG terrorists or inquisitors.

Quote
But on the lawful end, as I hold that most laws exist to serve man (or God), I don't hold to the law itself being the final arbiter by which to base decisions. Obviously in reality, the law has to be considered, but "it's illegal" does not in and of itself make something moral or immoral. While many and possibly even most laws reflect the morality of the people in a region, not all laws do.

I think that's the fundamental disagreement, for some the law is intended to reflect the moral answer for the situation.  And I mean that free from the overlay of laws seeking to govern morality.  Murder is immoral and not just because it violates someone's religion.  Laws for example seeking to require polluters to bear the costs of pollution are there in part because that's a moral result (it's also an economically efficient result).  That means in many, if not most cases, violating the will mean violating morality.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #90 on: March 05, 2020, 10:55:27 AM »
That being said I think you underestimate in this assessment how much of the population is innately (and I mean probably genetically) geared towards being either LN or CN; meaning that an enormous amount of satisfaction comes from seeing the law enacted in and of itself on the one hand (currently understood to be a conservative mindset) versus satisfaction from breaking up the status quo and undoing structure (currently understood to be a fundamentally progressive or perhaps 'leftist' mindset).

Uh, have you heard of the Tea Party? They're often identified as being arch-conservative, and "Lawful" in the D&D Context did not apply to them. If anything, many of them lean towards neutral or even choatic(for the ones trending strongly Libertarian).

In the American Political Spectrum, it is now the Democrats who want to pull out the "Lawful" attribute to define morality, mostly because they believe that they should be given control over the legal system(which needs to be made even more complicated) so that they can make the laws resemble how they feel the world should be.

Meanwhile Conservatives (not to be confused with their Social/Religious counterparts who want to do some social engineering of their own by way of legal action as well) are wanting to remove laws and regulations, as well as simplify the legal code.

On the D&D Spectrum, anyone who is moving to remove laws and regulations is Chaotic almost by definition. Anyone advocating more laws and "structure" through them is appealing strongly to the Lawful side of the Spectrum. Which would make Bernie a Lawful Good(/Evil depending on Point of View) archetype. While Rand Paul in contrast would likely have to try to self-describe as Chaotic Good due to his more Libertarian views on non-social issues.

Quote
The gist of studies that look at this seem to suggest that this may at any rate by partially genetic, that as Gilbert and Sullivan put it, "every boy and every gal that's born into the world alive, is either a little liberal or else a little conservative." If so, this would mean that the desire for law - in the sense of innately disliking it when people break the rules or go unpunished - in those people comes prior to any moral consideration, and likewise for the disorder people. Not that they all end up necessarily morally neutral, however I think a surprising amount of people will go on the instinct of order/chaos as a first priority and *call that good*, whereas in fact it's a preference for a type of structure or anti-structure. Based on what I see in everyday life, I think there are a lot of LN and CN people out there, for whom "but is this decent or right?" is not nearly as important as "what do the rules say" or "the system has to change."

I understand some of the underlying research has since been debunked to some degree, but I'd more generally hold that the Conservatives more generally view the world as "a dangerous place," and those dangers can include your own government as well. While Liberal thinking doesn't view the world as dangerous in anything close to resembling the same way, and in particular don't generally feel threatened by their own government. At least until Trump became PotUS.  ;)

But going back to the D&D definition of Lawful Good. Many Left-Wing Activists fit that archetype just as well as the Religious Conservatives do on the Right. They're both Zealots for their cause which they view to be good. The laws of the land where they're at just don't happen to fully agree with them at this time, so they're working strenuously to change the laws accordingly.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #91 on: March 05, 2020, 11:14:29 AM »
In the D&D context, which is where I went with it, there is too much of a tendency towards Zealotry with regards to "Good" aligned characters, in particular the lawful good types. So in that regard much easier to just jump in with the neutral types and stick to a path closer to the middle. Although hewing closer to the "good" side rather than the evil end.

Zealotry is - in my book - a misplay of LG.  Zealots would more often be NG.  They have no moral ambiguity, and in fact - as played - they often ignore the law, manipulate the law or even act in manners that are close to objectively evil, which kind of proves that point.  There are no LG terrorists or inquisitors.

It's a little of both. The issue with LG in D&D is those characters are often already operating in their legal utopia, so they don't have to deal with juxtaposition of being a "Lawful Good" character in another "good"/neutral aligned area where those laws are in conflict with their own morality. The D&D answer to the question of a Lawful Good character being in conflict with a law in a particular area is that the government present for those lands is under the leadership of some strain of Evil, which then allows the "Good" aspect to counter the "Lawful" part.

At least my memory of the Forgotten Realms, indicated that a disjointed moral pantheon wasn't much of an issue in the setting. For that matter, laws themselves rarely came up as a matter of contention, unless we're talking about the Undercity, or some other den of inequity and evil.

Quote
Quote
But on the lawful end, as I hold that most laws exist to serve man (or God), I don't hold to the law itself being the final arbiter by which to base decisions. Obviously in reality, the law has to be considered, but "it's illegal" does not in and of itself make something moral or immoral. While many and possibly even most laws reflect the morality of the people in a region, not all laws do.

I think that's the fundamental disagreement, for some the law is intended to reflect the moral answer for the situation.  And I mean that free from the overlay of laws seeking to govern morality.  Murder is immoral and not just because it violates someone's religion.  Laws for example seeking to require polluters to bear the costs of pollution are there in part because that's a moral result (it's also an economically efficient result).  That means in many, if not most cases, violating the will mean violating morality.

I'm speaking more generally to the idea of things like Harriet Tubman serving as a conductor on the Underground Railroad, the French Resistance in WW2, or the Nazi SS for that matter.

Just because it was illegal for Harriet Tubman to aid escaped slaves(while being one herself, no less) doesn't make what she did immoral, even if many would say she was engaged in property theft. Working with the French Resistance in Nazi occupied France wasn't immoral, even if the Nazi's made it illegal. Working for the Nazi SS wasn't moral, even if their existence and mission was legal within the borders of Germany.

But again, that's a one-sided reading of the D&D system. A "Lawful Good" Character could help escaped slaves because they view slavery as evil. Ditto for LG helping the French Resistance, and nobody(today) is going to begrudge them on those points. Likewise, there is going to be a strong case that a German LG "Character" in 1940 Germany would act in opposition to the SS because the SS is Evil. So the Lawful/Chaotic split in D&D isn't that clear cut.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2020, 11:19:58 AM by TheDeamon »

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #92 on: March 05, 2020, 12:34:09 PM »
Haha, I should have figured this would open a tinderbox. But maybe it's a good vehicle for discussing these things, because as rough (and even arbitrary) as it is the alignment system is a decent enough way for us to categorize what - psychologically - people may think they're doing, versus what they ARE doing, when they espouse a belief.

Most of the people you categorize as LN are either LG or LE.  The LE's want the law to punish others (but not themselves), and the LG's, like I said above, tend to think that law is inherently good.

Maybe we're speaking past each other, but isn't the bolded part a bit inconsistent? The law cannot inherently be good unless it's a good law, according to LG. That may sound like a truism but it's really important. As I think you've even mentioned before, a LG will gleefully break the law in the LE society if it's an evil law. We could get into nomenclature at this point, like "well they wouldn't really call that a Law, just a human-made bad rule", if we're to define Law as "that which is alignment with the Good." But at that point the alignment system is reduced to just GvE. At least in D&D terms, LE is definitely a set of laws, but not ones worth following to a LG. So LG don't believe in the law in and of itself; they believe in adherence to the correct set of laws, even if those are not the laws of the land they live in. A LG in an evil society would most likely end up in jail as a criminal, which is what Thoreau pointed out. LN is the alignment that champions following the law of the land because it is the law of the land.

Quote
In this case though, the joy you are seeing isn't because the law was enforced, it was because the unworthy were punished and therefore the proper pole is (good-evil).

Again I'll say this for clarity in case we're speaking past each other, but my point actually is that the way punitive people think (I am suggesting) is that the law exists to guarantee that wrong-doers get punished. It's not some abstract appreciation of law, like philosophers of law or something, that I'm suggesting is behind the LN; it's the fact that the system will crack down on people who step out of line as a systemic principle. It's the dislike of people who do things they're not supposed to (which is different from 'people who do bad things') that IMO is behind the psychology of the LN in ordinary life. I called that classically 'conservative' but this title isn't really so important; I only named it like that as a reference, but you could drop that aspect of it to examine my point if you don't like the title. I understand your reasons for rejecting it.

Quote
The "system has to change" is neither Law or Chaos, it's seeking either good (for other's benefit) or evil (for my own benefit).  The "system has to go (and not be replaced)" is chaos.

I think this is fundamentally where we're not agreeing, so let me explain my view of it a bit more. I do not think that almost anyone is "chaotic" in the way you describe; fair enough, I suppose your position would be that very few people are of this alignment then. But I think this mischaracterizes a bit what Chaotic is even in D&D (or at least some of the time). Now the cartoony chaotic characters are of course nutty and make very little sense (like, how did they ever accomplish anything with that behavior). But let's take the Forgotten Realms world, with Limbo, home of the Gith. This is a CN plane where the rules of existence bend with thought. However the Gith themselves make their homes there using the strictest of order, where even the slightest deviation in precision means destruction for them all (I'm going off the depiction in PS: Torment here for argument's sake). And yet they are the sort of essence of a CN people, despite their extreme rigidity. The reason their are CN and not LN isn't to do with whether they want laws or not, but rather it's based on the worldview behind their desires. They know that there is no real (or perhaps formally 'correct') structure out there, and they have to create it completely for themselves. It's basically a nominalist (anti-realist) world, and where the justification for any rule the Gith follow is that it's theirs, rather than because it's based in a greater truth. THIS is chaotic alignment as far as humans go; that the rules are going to suit whatever they feel they need at a given time, but that there should be rules. There is another sort of CN, which is the fey CN, which is the satyr-like or capricious insanity of no rules and no purpose other than delight or fancy. But the only people who are like this to any extent are people who cannot function in society, so for the most part I'll ignore this manner of expressing CN when referring to 'regular people.'

Does that clarify a bit why I consider the more 'leftist' mindset to be chaotic-alignment? It's not because I think they want no rules, but because they believe that rules are by definition fluid, changing things, and that there is no "right" position for them to end in. If they did think there was a correct endpoint for rules, they would cease to be progressives at the precise moment where the rules were how they liked them to be, and would become orthodox conservatives; however if Chesterton is right then the sort of mindset actually cannot be satisfied with an end-point because change is its own purpose. That is chaotic alignment, to me. There are, even in D&D, many chaotic characters who have their own version of a code they adhere to; it just isn't the code of the society, and may not be rooted in a "greater law." The 'Robin Hood' type of CG is a decent example of this, but I don't think the RH story purports to suggest that he desires chaos for its own sake, nor does it suggest that he's a closet LG in a bad society, because that would make stealing from the rich a moral imperative, which the story also wouldn't want to say.

Quote
Actually no.  The simplest system is to seek "good" but to define good as equivalent to what you already believe without examination.  Under that system, literally everyone that disagrees with you is inherently evil and can be ignored (sound familiar)?  There's no nuance.

I mean, in colloquial terms, sure this could make sense to say. But in D&D terms Good is an absolute set of (quasi-Judeo-Christian) values, not just thinking you're the best no matter what. It isn't possible for a LG in D&D to think of a CG person (doesn't respect law, but does respect good) as evil; they would just think of them as being a pain in the butt and possibly destructive despite their good intentions. The view that whatever you do is essentially the definition of good is a fundamentally CN or CE position, as the axis of measuring the worth of your action becomes only your own desires rather than comparison to a greater law or greater good.

Quote
Moral-neutral is actually really tough to parse out.  Unless all you mean is moral-indifferent, and you just don't care.

I'm not sure there's an important class of people who truly don't care, but I think that there are plenty of people for whom deeper moral concerns are just not that much a part of their everyday life. Mostly it's pay the bills, get the stuff you want, and try not to dwell on the troubles in the world that you're not devoting time to helping to solve. This is actually part of why I think there's so much online zealotry right now; because people are vaguely aware that they're armchair moralists (i.e. that they say stuff about it but do nothing) so to make themselves feel good they launch into invective with faceless strangers. But strangely enough I think this could still fall under neutral-morality, insofar as they are not themselves going to feel subjected to an outside opinion that what they think is wrong. Don't forget, D&D morality isn't relativist, so any actual moral relativist living in a D&D world would at best be moral-neutral (i.e. not subscribing to an exterior higher definition of Good outside their own opinion), or perhaps they might end up as Good if by chance their personal views aligned with the 'correctly good' views, sort of like the broken clock occasionally accurate.

Quote
Trying to decide what to do if a law is wrong is for an LG very hard.

This much I agree with completely, which is why I think very few people are LG in our society. It's too difficult, and for the most part cognitive dissonance will change the view rather than change a person's behavior. When faced between "I am not living my life correctly in accordance with my views" compared with "no my behavior is fine because I'm comfortable with it or don't want to change" the views will come into alignment with the already established habits. Very rarely will people break away from their own lifestyle out of the knowledge that they're betraying their values. It happens, but not a lot, because it's very difficult. It could mean giving up a career, a self-image, or other advantages and comforts. It might mean living in jail Thoreau-style. As Nietzsche pointed out, not only will this be unlikely but even memory of the breach of your principles will be washed out; "“Memory says, 'I did that.' Pride replies, 'I could not have done that.' Eventually, memory yields.”"

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #93 on: March 05, 2020, 12:46:11 PM »
Uh, have you heard of the Tea Party? They're often identified as being arch-conservative, and "Lawful" in the D&D Context did not apply to them. If anything, many of them lean towards neutral or even choatic(for the ones trending strongly Libertarian).

I know what you mean, which is really the issue of how "conservative" people (i.e. those wanting to conserve past precedent) could want to radically alter the status quo from how it is now. This is a not-uncommon conundrum in the U.S., where conservatives wanting to repeal progressive laws still see themselves as trying to re-establish classical values in some sense, even though obviously they are actively trying to instigate change. I think part of what I would say about this is that there is a definite end-point to their desires, where if achieved they would 'stop' (see my response to Seriati just above for context on this point) and be content; in contrast I don't think progressive-mindsets would ever be content with the status quo no matter what. This is neither good nor bad per se; it's just the person's tendencies. The other thing I would say about this is that libertarianism is a funny animal when discussing D&D terms, because I think most libertarians actually do believe in a LG society, but believe that the lawful part comes from self-governance rather than hierarchical governance; but that does not mean that it excludes a higher definition of Good. So for instance it is entirely consistent to be both a libertarian and an orthodox Catholic; your view would be that Good is not open to debate, but that each person should have room to adhere or not adhere to it as their will dictates. To the extent that libertarians or Tea Party people may be for deregulation - I think this is tricky because they don't actually want a state of no laws, but rather they want a structure of law that minimizes central government as an agent of control. But for instance a Chomskian anarcho-syndicalist society would probably have a great amount of rules mutually generated by the guilds that would have consequences for disobeying; they just wouldn't be mandated by a central government. So I'm not sure that I feel the Tea Party needs to be classed as chaotic-axis as a rule. In terms of the 'conservative' mindset I refer to, they may well not fit into it very well since libertarianism is in any case only recently a politically conservative position.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #94 on: March 05, 2020, 07:00:25 PM »

That's fair, let me clarify what I was responding to, which was Crunch's post:

Quote
People just aren’t going to vote a socialist into the White House and the DNC knew it. They had to put the fix in again in 2020 to avoid certain disaster. It’s amazing to see the Democrats literally have an elite group that decides who you get to vote for; anybody can run for the nomination  but it’s an illusion of choice. The nominee is decided in back room deals before the primaries even start.

To me, it is fair to characterize that as a description of a shadowy cabal. I certainly don't deny that there's something more going on with the DNC than good people doing their jobs, but it seems more unilateral. There's also no question that a bunch of people got together and funded the anti-Bernie SuperPAC Big Tent Project. The name of it could be their sole motivation - they don't think he can win moderates and so they want to stop him getting the nomination. Or they could use that as the shiniest face for one of the other reasons.

Bloomberg proved, however, that you can't just slam money in (among other things) and predetermine the nominee. The PAC ads against Bernie play on widely held fears in Democratic politics - including the rank and file.

"Back room deals" is a euphemism. I doubt there's a cabal with a secret handshake, meeting up around a bonfire in the woods to drink boar's blood and plot their next move. Nothing quite that dramatic.

But, it was clear in 2016 that the primary was rigged. Hillary got all kinds of things handed to her to help (e.g. debate questions) and the super delegates were locked up in her favor before the primaries even started. It wasn't a lock but might as well have been:
Quote
At the polls Bernie Sanders won New Hampshire’s pledged delegates by a landslide 22 percent. Bernie Sanders received 60.4 percent of the poll vote, just about 150,000 votes. Clinton received 38 percent of the poll vote, tallying just about 95,000 votes. Yet, all six Democratic New Hampshire superdelegates gave their support to Hillary Clinton, effectively erasing Sanders win, leading both candidates to leave the state with the same 15 delegates.

But to look at the aftermath of the vote count we truly have to critically evaluate the start. Hillary Clinton entered Super Tuesday in March in a virtual tie in pledged delegates with both candidates holding just about 50 pledged delegates, yet she held the support of nearly 400 super delegates. /quote]

Hillary was pre-selected in 2016. Bernie never had a chance - nor did the current VP Biden. Biden, running for president for decades, it's been his goal at least since the 80's and he inexplicably steps aside for Hillary at the moment he's got the best odds of achieving it by being Obama II. Right. Nothing suspect about that!

And in 2020, Bernie never had a chance, neither did anyone else.

Buttigieg was coming off his biggest fundraising quarter ever, leading right into Super Tuesday. The biggest chance he has to gain some delegates and, a day or so before, he suddenly decides he's out. Klobuchar is still in it and, suddenly, bails the day before. Right when she had a chance to gain delegates and increase her bargaining power in the convention. Then, another miracle, Bloomberg's ad buys drop dramatically and, after spending $600 million he bails. Since he's the last "establishment candidate" in the race, this guarantees Biden locks up everyone but the most liberal Democrats and leave Bloomberg with nothing to show for it other than a raft of anti-Trump ads.

Every single one endorses Biden on the way out.

Then there's Warren. Always a distant 3rd or 4th, never a contender. Unlike Buttigieg and Klobuchar, she hangs on through Super Tuesday where she can do Bernie the most damage. She siphoned off enough votes to really cost him, flipped a few states for Biden even. Then, suddenly, she's out as well but no endorsements from her. I suppose that would have been too on the nose to endorse Biden right now.

This all came at a time when Biden was failing miserably. He needed everyone to do exactly what they did in order to make it work for him. And damned if they didn't. It's a miracle!  It was a perfect chain of coincidences, every one of them benefiting Biden and they all happened within just a few days right around Super Tuesday, a perfect pattern of events.

All against the backdrop of a sudden cacophony of anti-Bernie media coverage.

If you wrote a script to save Biden, this is what you would have written - and everyone would dismiss it as a comedy since the timing of it all is so improbable.

It was a script developed in 2015 and it's playing out right in front of us.


Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #95 on: March 06, 2020, 12:02:59 AM »
"Back room deals" is a euphemism. I doubt there's a cabal with a secret handshake, meeting up around a bonfire in the woods to drink boar's blood and plot their next move. Nothing quite that dramatic.

Except for the fact that there is a society or two of power players who literally do gather in the woods around a bonfire speaking arcane rituals. This was 'parodied' in House of Cards but it's a real thing. Not that they are necessarily Satanists or anything like that; it's a social club where the ritual game is chanting with masks before the whiskey comes out. You could call it a 'level two' of the elite Bonesman-type bonding rituals for people of a certain social standing.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #96 on: March 06, 2020, 06:49:44 AM »
I'm surprised that there's been so much surprise and disappointment about how little support Sanders has gotten from the DNC and Democratic Party leadership and regulars since 2016.  People want to forget that he's not a Democrat, has never been a Democrat, and has never been a great supporter of other Democrats. In return, they don't feel much kinship with him.  But, now he insists that the Party should embrace him and his ideas and finds (again) that it doesn't want to do that.  In other words, he has no natural base of support among Democrats, like Hillary did then and Joe does now.  The superdelegates are selected by the Party, so it's no surprise that they will have generally similar preferences to each other and to the Party's self-determined direction. 

His appeal so far has been to younger and more idealistic voters who want to see major changes in how government works.  Older voters who are more pragmatic question whether he can achieve many of his policy objectives, even with Democratic majorities in both Houses of Congress. 

Denigrating the Democratic Party for defining its borders somehow offends Republicans and anti-liberals.  Well, that's because all non-Republicans and non-conservatives look alike to them, and since he's not one of us, he must be one of them.  So they think the Democrats should welcome and support Bernie, even though they detest everything about him and would protest loudly (and possibly do more) against every one of his proposals that found its way into legislation. 

OTOH, Republicans believe that somehow their Party is the one with the Big Tent.  They tout that they have the interests of poor people, people's health and welfare, and especially all non-white people in their hearts and souls.  You can see where this is going, so I won't bother.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2020, 06:51:53 AM by Kasandra »

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #97 on: March 06, 2020, 08:43:49 AM »
An oopsy to correct in what I wrote:

Quote
Denigrating the Democratic Party for defining its borders somehow offends Republicans and anti-liberals.  Well, that's because all non-Republicans and non-conservatives look alike to them, and since he's not one of us, he must be one of them.  So they think the Democrats should welcome and support Bernie, even though they detest everything about him and would protest loudly (and possibly do more) against every one of his proposals that found its way into legislation.

Is better written as:

Quote
All non-Republicans and non-conservatives look alike to them, and since Bernie's not one of us, he must be one of them.  So they think the Democrats should welcome and support Bernie, even though they detest everything about him and would protest loudly (and possibly do more) against every one of his proposals that found its way into legislation.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #98 on: March 06, 2020, 08:11:19 PM »
...Republicans believe that somehow their Party is the one with the Big Tent.  They tout that they have the interests of poor people, people's health and welfare, and especially all non-white people in their hearts and souls.  You can see where this is going, so I won't bother.

Metrics prove facts, don't they? Historically, the GOP has always been the party that defends minorities. The Dems fought against Civil Rights, yet pretend history was 180° wrong. Contemporaneously, Trump's figures are unchallengable: Lowest unemployment for Blacks, Latinos, Asians, Women, and all minorities. Raising incomes and opportunities for these families. Legal betterment for inmates. So much better in so many areas, yet the Left ignores it all.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #99 on: March 06, 2020, 08:29:50 PM »
...Republicans believe that somehow their Party is the one with the Big Tent.  They tout that they have the interests of poor people, people's health and welfare, and especially all non-white people in their hearts and souls.  You can see where this is going, so I won't bother.

Metrics prove facts, don't they? Historically, the GOP has always been the party that defends minorities. The Dems fought against Civil Rights, yet pretend history was 180° wrong. Contemporaneously, Trump's figures are unchallengable: Lowest unemployment for Blacks, Latinos, Asians, Women, and all minorities. Raising incomes and opportunities for these families. Legal betterment for inmates. So much better in so many areas, yet the Left ignores it all.

The depends on how you define "Civil Rights" though. Republicans have been unerringly consistent on the matter since the 1850's. Democrats have been all over the map in the interim, and created a new category of law in the 1960's, which they call "Civil rights" which give the appearance of pursuing the same goal, and on that front, the Republicans have been fighting against that since it was done.