Ah yes, I too remember the post where we said we were discussing actual policy. Fine recollection you have, brother bear.

And yes we were talking about the fascism of those who want to deprive the voting rights of political opponents supporters of political opponents, that is correct. 100 points to you.

Look, if you have anything of substance to say beyond making things up and not following conversations, come back to me.

I too remember the post where we said we were discussing actual policy. — StreetlightX

conservatives like punishing women (cf. Texas) — StreetlightX

You mentioned this actual policy and ask us to compare it with something but neglect to give a comparison.

Cool, not following conversations it is. Thanks for your time.

Maybe it would help if you thought like a Trump supporter. I’m sure they could come up with all kinds of examples where liberals actually punish the uneducated.

And in the US of 2016, 2020, and god help us likely 2022 and 2024, the assumption that we collectively have common sense is open to question. 2020 we got by, but not by enough. How, short of trauma, is common sense restored? — tim wood

That is the real question here.

How do you assume that the polarization would stop? There really is the danger that the election of 2020 (and it's aftershocks) is going to be the new normal. I'm not seeing a way it would get better. Populism rules supreme.

You’re saying that silencing opposition and controlling the truth may both be strategic power plays? — praxis

May be? I think they are quite obvious ways. Political power is to control how things are talked about and how people see the issues. It's not only about truth and lies, the discourse is important too.

Epic OP on Trump as a real and mortal danger to American constitutional democracy. (It's Washington Post so may be paywalled although I was able to read it linked from another OP.)

It's so dissappointing, and also really scary, how many senior Republicans have fallen back into line behind Trump, after initially condemning the Jan 6 coup attempt. At the time, they were saying 'he's gone too far, this time it really is too much.' But now they're all rationalising it again. Mike Pence has proven himself a total brown-noser (no surprises there, true colors only come out in real peril). Republican functionaries who stood up to the Big Lie are being picked off one by one, the electoral rules changed to favour the GOP. So Trump's threat to the Constitution is still not over.

A reassuring counter-opinion to Kagan in NY Times. Trump may be a meglomaniacal narcissist but still too bungling to actually bring down the Republic.

I read this when it came out and I think it's almost exactly right.

Pretty damning and in a way still missing the point. His solutions are still technocratic, a tweak here and there, but the problem seems now fundamental to me.

Yeah. "We need a couple of Republicans here and there to stand up" is just the bit I thought was not very strong.

Pretty damning and in a way still missing the point. His solutions are still technocratic, a tweak here and there, but the problem seems now fundamental to me. — Benkei

If a person starts with:

with a reasonable chance over the next three to four years of incidents of mass violence, a breakdown of federal authority, and the division of the country into warring red and blue enclaves. The warning signs may be obscured by the distractions of politics, the pandemic, the economy and global crises, and by wishful thinking and denial.

And then ends with:

Heading into the next election, it is vital to protect election workers, same-day registration and early voting. It will also still be necessary to pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which directly addresses the state legislatures’ electoral power grab. Other battles — such as making Election Day a federal holiday and banning partisan gerrymandering — might better be postponed.

There is something obviously something out of touch. If you assume that there is a reasonable chance of mass violence and breakdown of federal authority, arguing about election technicalities is a bit strange. This is simply because with mass violence and breakdown of federal authority election technicalities don't matter.

If the US would be, as Kagan writes, "is heading into its greatest political and constitutional crisis since the Civil War", election technicalities aren't the answer. To do something about the polarization of politics is the problem. The political discourse is just spiraling out of control. It's like people are just waiting for the next clash to ensue. Who would want to join politics in this kind of political environment? Basically seeing part of the voting public as the problem won't help: it's a way to advance the polarization, encourage alienation and separation of the voting blocks. And naturally the right in the US has already for years has been on this path: the other side simply hasn't lousy policies, it's a mortal threat. And this drumbeat just continues.

Anyway, the next mid-terms will be ugly. Not a great start then for the 2024 elections.

If the US would be, as Kagan writes, "is heading into its greatest political and constitutional crisis since the Civil War", election technicalities aren't the answer. — ssu

Douthat points out, in the other article I linked, that Kagan also said back in the day that it was absolutely imperative to take out Saddam Hussain as he was a threat to the whole world.

If the US would be, as Kagan writes, "is heading into its greatest political and constitutional crisis since the Civil War", election technicalities aren't the answer. To do something about the polarization of politics is the problem. The political discourse is just spiraling out of control. It's like people are just waiting for the next clash to ensue. Who would want to join politics in this kind of political environment? Basically seeing part of the voting public as the problem won't help: it's a way to advance the polarization, encourage alienation and separation of the voting blocks. And naturally the right in the US has already for years has been on this path: the other side simply hasn't lousy policies, it's a mortal threat. And this drumbeat just continues. — ssu

I seriously think that large part of this problem can be solved by prohibiting any type of targeted advertisement, news, videos, links etc. and break the bubbles. I suspect that as a result most narratives will become more centrist, more "the average" etc. and people will be more readily confronted with opposing views, learn to deal with those views and talk about it with unlike minded individuals. You know, actually have a conversation with a neo-Marxist, paedophilic fascist or a right-wing, racist, dungeree-wearing-pitchfork-wielding, fascist only to find out those caricatures have nothing to do with who your fellow citizens are.

I seriously think that large part of this problem can be solved by prohibiting any type of targeted advertisement, news, videos, links etc. and break the bubbles. I suspect that as a result most narratives will become more centrist, more "the average" etc. and people will be more readily confronted with opposing views, learn to deal with those views and talk about it with unlike minded individuals. — Benkei

You have to be very careful how to do this, because more censorship likely isn't the answer as likely many politicians aren't so inept as Trump, who hasn't been able to communicate so well as once off Twitter (as he of course has minimal leadership or organizational skills). It will likely just irritate people more.

There is the ugly path from political polarization to political violence, which then can become the "new normal" that further erodes the democratic process and strengthens calls for authoritarianism. You have had already prime example of political violence in the US, naturally with the Jan 6th riot, but also starting from the shooting incident of Gabrielle Giffords in 2011 and the other incident that happened at a congressional baseball game for charity in 2017 or the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords. The shooter in the baseball shooting incident was actually an leftist terrorist. Luckily some of the Republican members had army medical training and could immediately give first aid to Scalice and the Capitol Police could pin down the terrorist that he couldn't continue firing at the congress members.

President Obama with Giffords after the shooting:


The real worrying sign is how little these incidents actually raised any debate about political violence. Of course this is very typical: political violence is a taboo. It happens only in "Banana-republics", not in civilized countries. And this is true both in Netherlands and Finland as in the US. For someone lets say going to a political demonstration and then getting killed or the event of a political assassination are not the things either the media or the political leadership want to remember. Nobody will admit it would be anything else than a extremely rare thing that doesn't have any links at all to the present political climate. The sad thing is that usual it does.

No, my fear is how bad it will have to become before Americans will admit that they do have a problem with violence. Because on the positive side, it really isn't yet a real problem, but all the hallmarks that it could be in the future are there. Yet again, things can also get better.

You have to be very careful how to do this, because more censorship likely isn't the answer as likely many politicians aren't so inept as Trump, who hasn't been able to communicate so well as once off Twitter (as he of course has minimal leadership or organizational skills). It will likely just irritate people more. — ssu

How is this censorship? I'm just prohibiting Google from offering you another conspiracy theory video in Youtube just because you looked at one a second ago. You know, force people to get information how they did in the 90s.

How is this censorship? I'm just prohibiting Google from offering you another conspiracy theory video — Benkei

Define conspiracy theory video...to the goddam algorithms already present in our searches. Don't think that you could micromanage the issue far better.

It's not about the conspiracy theory per se. It's that if I look at a video of Mario Brothers, the next video suggested will be about Mario Brothers II and Mario Kart. Or if I look at a cute cat, I get another cat or perhaps a dog. etc. etc. It's the "targeted offering of information based on a persons behaviour" that I want to prohibit. So if I look at a cat the next video offered could be a documentary of war crimes in Vietnam in the 1960s instead another cat.

So if I look at a cat the next video offered could be a documentary of war crimes in Vietnam in the 1960s instead another cat. — Benkei

The next video should be about aboriginal dot painting. Then one on the plight of coffee growers. Then one on the origin of the word "Idaho"

They should let me be in charge of this.

Epic OP on Trump as a real and mortal danger to American constitutional democracy.

More deep-state, neocon dinner theater from Kagan. The specter of Trump’s fascism was already proven to be a canard, and has long been eclipsed by the efforts of run-of-the-mill collectivist politicians, most of whom have ruled by diktat, seized entire economies, erected police states, denied basic liberties, prohibiting people from leaving their house, opening their business, going to work, going to school. The worst thing is this is the type of febrile projection that ushered it all in.

Already sounds more interesting than my current youtube feed.

I just checked mine. It's queued up to play some movie.

I'm listening to Schubert Fantasie for 4 hands now and it updated instantly. It's all classical music now. Much better than anime. But bloody fickle.

It's not about the conspiracy theory per se. It's that if I look at a video of Mario Brothers, the next video suggested will be about Mario Brothers II and Mario Kart. Or if I look at a cute cat, I get another cat or perhaps a dog. etc. etc. It's the "targeted offering of information based on a persons behaviour" that I want to prohibit. So if I look at a cat the next video offered could be a documentary of war crimes in Vietnam in the 1960s instead another cat. — Benkei

Well, if I put "Conspiracy Theory" into Youtube, I'll get "Finland doesn't exist (Conspiracy Theory)". Yet basically this is basically how the internet works.

On most occasions that targeted offering is basically OK. And you can get the personalized searches off. And you can choose your friends and what they link to you. Yet I think that there's an internet that is full of garbage is the reason for this.

That the political environment is so toxic is far more to do with politicians and the political parties themselves. No need to make coalition governments means that you can be as mean and aggressive as possible towards other parties and it's a well known way to get people to vote your party. When actually there isn't much options for the voter to choose on.

The specter of Trump’s fascism was already proven to be a canard — NOS4A2

Yep. As Trump didn't have any leadership skills, he couldn't do what he wanted to do. Hence the strange admiration of Putin and other authoritarian leaders.

You might want to read a bit about the information apocalypse to get an idea how far this goes and how insidious it works. The polarisation these politicians thrive one can only exist in a society that supports it. The most important factor in that is how people get information. In other words, I think you underestimate the effects of almost everything you look for being pre-screened by algorithms. Whether that's a book, trousers, news or movie to watch.

All of it in the context of unjust political investigations and impeachment inquiries, not to mention the fevered media treatment unlike the world has ever seen, peering into every facet of his life. No wonder the strange admiration for authoritarian leaders: they don’t have a corrupt opposition party and administrative state obstructing their every word and deed.

Golly gee, nos4, is it your position that Trump is really a Mr. Nice Guy, just misunderstood and a victim of all the bad things people say about him and accuse him of, none of which, of course, being true?

the fevered media treatment unlike the world has ever seen, peering into every facet of his life. — NOS4A2

You’re starting to talk like Trump, at least when you’re too rushed to consult a dictionary. And the fevered media treatment, seriously? Biden can’t use the wrong fork at dinner without it being dragged through unfriendly media outlets and them calling for impeachment. I exaggerate of course.

It’s writing, and yes I’m serious. The coverage is vastly different.

https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2021/04/28/at-100-day-mark-coverage-of-biden-has-been-slightly-more-negative-than-positive-varied-greatly-by-outlet-type/