Yeah, and because of this, I don't foresee StreetlightX's appeal to (essentially an appeal to humanism) emotions, as ever bringing about foreseeable change, a much-needed change I should add.

Catharsis through protests has been negated by our very own human faculties to happen. I hope I'm wrong about this...

I don't foresee StreetlightX's appeal to (essentially an appeal to humanism) emotions, as ever bringing about foreseeable change, a much-needed change I should add. — Wallows

Oh fuck off Wallows, this is not about an 'appeal to emotions', this is about watching supposedly intelligent people delight having politics play out like a real-life Game of Thrones episode, while being contemptuous of the kind of everyday politics of coalition building, cultural change, and idea spreading. Instead, we watch agape as the rich and powerful make moves across a miniature political chess-board while we cheer on the sidelines like the utterly ineffectual political non-players that we are.

Further, a failure to move forward with an impeachment inquiry signals to Trump that he can make additional attempts to illegally undermine political rivals and Democratic candidates potentially shaping the outcome of the election. The failure of the Democrats to start an impeachment inquiry against Trump after the Mueller report was a signal that he could continue to abuse the power of the office for self-gain. — Maw

To be clear, I'm not specifically against the impeachment proceedings as such. I'm against the fascinated glare that it holds for so many, I'm against the celebratory note that accompanies the many discussions around it, and I'm against the wholesale substitution of legal mechanisms for the democratic exercise of power(s) as a primary mechanism for political change.

I should have been more explicit. An appeal to emotions is the only appropriate response to the dehumanization of people of color along with the apparent gross desensitization of our sensibilities.

What do you mean 'only appropriate response'? Insofar as one can identify cases of dehumanizing 'people of color', then that right there is a pretty good case for an argument to... not do that. Emotions, like salivating over impeachment trails, are just more anti-political bullshit.

What do you mean 'only appropriate response'? — StreetlightX

To an extent. What I meant was that we should not ignore and passively let the standards of the US presidency be lowered into oblivion by becoming desensitized to the outrageous comments of a clearly disturbed man-child.

To be clear, I'm not specifically against the impeachment proceedings as such. I'm against the fascinated glare that it holds for so many, I'm against the celebratory note that accompanies the many discussions around it, and I'm against the wholesale substitution of legal mechanisms for the democratic exercise of power(s) as a primary mechanism for political change. — StreetlightX

Sure, I certainly agree with that - although I do want to point out that in this specific case of legal mechanisms, i.e. the impeachment inquiry against Trump, was only able to be carried out - required a democratic exercise of power viz., the "blue wave" midterm 2018 election which enabled the Democratic Party to gain a majority control of the House.

True, but even electoral politics is - or ought to be seen as - a very narrow slice of political life which should be regarded with suspicion. Politicians will not save us.

So, with the above snippet being said, maybe you can see the merit of appealing to emotions, StreetlightX?

No.

Well, do you at the very least agree that we have become desensitized towards the comments of my current prez?

I don't think it's an important question - sensitivity. We live in an outrage economy in which affect is just another commodity working to de-politicize issues. I posted this recently in the quote cabinet, but I'll do so here again because it's relevant; A quote from a recent interview with philosopher Alenka Zupancic:

"Social valorization of affects basically means that we pay the plaintiff with her own money: oh, but your feelings are so precious, you are so precious! The more you feel, the more precious you are. This is a typical neoliberal maneuver, which transforms even our traumatic experiences into possible social capital. If we can capitalize on our affects, we will limit out protests to declarations of these affects — say, declarations of suffering — rather than becoming active agents of social change. I’m of course not saying that suffering shouldn’t be expressed and talked about, but that this should not “freeze” the subject into the figure of the victim. The revolt should be precisely about refusing to be a victim, rejecting the position of the victim on all possible levels.

Valorization of affectivity and feelings appears at the precise point when some problem — injustice, say — would demand a more radical systemic revision as to its causes and perpetuation. This would also involve naming — not only some people but also social and economic inequalities that we long stopped naming and questioning"

I don't think it's an important question - sensitivity. — StreetlightX

Really? I think you're conflating managed affect for affect that becomes a volition towards some effective change. Perhaps this is where we differ on the issue.

affect that becomes a volition — Wallows

I don't know what this means.

I don't know what this means. — StreetlightX

Affect can become a volition if it is adverse to the individual or organism. Like pain... outrage... or sensibility? Then change is demanded, like not putting your hand in the fire or electing business leaders who think they can manage their continued power through instilling a sense of apathy and desensitization towards the very institutions that were meant to allow for change(?)

Do you agree with this?

I don't think we need any of this speculative philosophy. We know that Trump is a fuckhead, and we know he does awful shit. We don't need to mediate this through some high theory of affect and volition.

Ok, so I rest my case. You contend that it's common knowledge between us that Trump is a crook. Yeah, no shit!

But, my point seems to have been swept under the rug or rather you have impeded an understanding of this new phenomenon in the American political process.

Here you say; but, this is the new normal, or something like politics at play, nothing new here.

But, the sheer amount of lies, crazy comments, and batshittery have emboldened everything that American democracy never really ever stood for. Furthermore, if we accept this as the new normal (which I have been blabbering about arising due to becoming desensitized towards this new phenomenon), is a strong factor in understanding how he is getting away with all said comments about shooting migrants in the legs, building moats on the border, and filling said "moats" with alligators and snakes.

Does that make any sense to you?

Man, I know I'm coming off as iconoclastic but I literally could not care less about 'normality' (or the discourse of 'norm erosion', also so popular among liberal critics of Trump). I don't care about politeness, mores, sensitivities, 'polarization', any of it. Politics isn't there so we can be nice to people, it's there so people can change the world, ideally for the better. As one of my favourite political commentators put it: democracy is norm erosion:

"If your highest value is the preservation of American institutions, the avoidance of “dysfunction,” the discourse of norm erosion makes sense. If it’s democracy, not so much. Sometimes democracy requires the shattering of norms and institutions. Democracy, we might even say, is a permanent project of norm erosion, forever shattering the norms of hierarchy and domination and the political forms that aid and abet them."

What we need is the right destruction of normality, not a preservation of it.

What we need is the right destruction of normality, not a preservation of it. — StreetlightX

So when Mike Pompeo doesn't comply with a subpoena to testify to Congress, that's ok because democracy is about "right destruction of normality?" Now the debate is what is "right destruction" of course.

Now the debate is what is "right destruction" of course. — schopenhauer1

That would be a start.

That would be a start. — StreetlightX

Didn't answer the first question :D.

It was beneath response.

Wow, this takes me back a bit.

Continued struggle, strife, and eternal mobilization really come to mind.

It was beneath response. — StreetlightX

Yes, but does the first question pass muster?

Continued struggle, strife, and eternal mobilization really come to mind. — Wallows

(Not necessarily bad things in isolation)

Continued struggle, strife, and eternal mobilization really come to mind. — Wallows

If you want a democracy you'd better get used to it.

But for the thousandth fucking time, who cares about GOP voters? — Maw

You should. They're your neighbours so you'd better work it out.

We’re not looking to elect a pope, or someone to sing us lullabies. Those days are over. The idea of president as father-figure has proven to be a charade with someone like Trump in office.

Love him or hate him he managed to accomplish whatever in his addled mind he set out to do.

But, I'm really liking the eternal mobilization theme that cropped up...

It's worth noting, speaking of 'normalcy', that some of Trump's most insidious policies were enacted precisely through the institutions that liberals like to hold as an apparent bulwark against Trump:

"Many of the worst things Trump will do and has done are not through norm erosion but through the normal operations and institutions, even constitutional values, that liberals hold dear. So, for example, it's not by Trump intimidating or assaulting the courts and the rule of law (as many have feared) that the travel ban is being upheld and legitimized; it's through the Court doing what the Court does—interpreting the Constitution, applying precedent (including a precedent about executive power that the Obama administration, represented by none other than Elena Kagan, argued for in Court), and the rest—that the travel ban has been consolidated." (via Corey Robin).

It's like people like to portray Trump as norm eroding so as to better hide just how fucked up 'normal' is from the very beginning. Everytime someone talks about Trump's latest media gaffe and not his latest court appointment, they're part of the problem.