There is a tendency (of anti-Westerners), to romanticize or glorify the "little guy" no matter what- to admire their way of causing small areas of chaos. — schopenhauer1

What's romantic about helplessness?

Whether we're talking about Iran or their Sunni counterparts, it's imperative to view such ideologies as disastrous, and with contempt. — schopenhauer1

Really? It's okay for a big global power to overthrow the democratically elected and set up a horrible shah, for contempt?

While acknowledging that the West might sometimes act against its own interests, solely pointing fingers at "the West" for these issues oversimplifies the intricate geopolitical landscape. — schopenhauer1

I wasn't. All major powers interfere with other nations to promote their own economic and strategic ends.

Also in the mix, that cannot be denied in the Global South is the influence of Russia/the Soviet Union in creating socialist "liberation" movements that used ideas of liberation and hatred of the West and the Global North. — schopenhauer1

Did i forget to mention the USSR? And China? In other times, England, France, Spain, Portugal, Japan... All great global powers, in all eras, have their own agenda and use the weaker nations as pawns.

The West's failures lie in its inconsistent promotion of freedoms using soft power or, at times, misusing hard power. — schopenhauer1

Now, that does sound partisan.

France didn't help the US right away, but eventually they did in 1778 when they saw the the US was winning at the Battle of Saratoga, and their involvement is what tipped the scales to defeat the British in the American Revolution. — schopenhauer1

Yeah, and it helped bring about their own revolution.

In the late 18th century France was on the brink of bankruptcy due to its involvement in the American Revolution and King Louis XVI’s extravagant spending.

Not that their regime wasn't riddled with inequities and stupidities, but that decision, because they had a long-standing feud with England, was very bad from their own POV.

It takes democrats — jorndoe

So, it must happen internally. But what if an outside, much bigger power - say the USA or some imperialist nation - interferes? Or actually invades? Or undermines the economy? How are the democratic factions in a small country supposed to defend it?

understand, and that's a lot of good stuff to think about. Do you mind if I ask you what you think is likely to happen next given our actual situation as you see it? — Elysium House

Sadly, either civil war or fascist-style dictatorship... unless... either the military step in, and I can't see where that goes, or climatic disasters or nuclear war put paid to the whole shebang. I don't see it as an American problem: the whole world is mad with closing panic.

Can elaborate on what sense in whcih you think this is the case? cause, like.. they are the United States? — AmadeusD

It's just a name. The states haven't been united since the drawing of the Mason-Dixon line. Some federal governments, in some economic climates were able to hold it together more effectively than others, but in the last 40 years - since Reagan - the divide has been growing wider, while other rifts have been opening up. I see no way to reconciliation.

Though this is mainly focused on the United States, ideas concerning other countries and similar thought experimentation are certainly welcome. — Elysium House

That's a problem for me, since a) I don't believe the States are united anymore, or should be; I don't see any way to reverse the process at this stage of dissolution. Maybe there has been no way back since Lincoln's decision to go to war... or even earlier, from the framing of the constitution and b) I can only envisage a workable solution on the global scale. (and c) I doubt any solutions is possible in the current climate)

Experimentation rather than over-arching uniformity. — Elysium House

It's not experimentation. The far right is in lock-step.

This, of course, opens the pandora’s box as to different ideas about what “citizen’s rights” means, since your take (or a “New York” take) may very well be different than mine (or a “Idaho” or "Arkansas" take). — Elysium House

I'm using my notion of democracy, freedom of speech, equality and individual liberty as a guide.

Should we be allowed to explore these differences, or is it winner takes all on concepts like justice, freedom, etc. brought down from on high? — Elysium House

It's winner takes all in elections, many of which are either rigged or corrupted in many instances, and in the US, badly designed in the first place. Obviously, the second part is a matter of opinion, but the first part is well documented.

It seems this may be a bigger topic than we can get to here, so I’m planning on starting a new discussion narrowing things down a bit. — Elysium House

Good idea.

I believe this is often the case but efficiency matter too, more than you would think. — mentos987

In social services, that usually means low overhead - like fewer salaries, no union, shorter staff training, cheaper safety precautions, food quality, laundry, leisure activities and fast turnover. Not ideal for the client/victims.

Public sector work is not as efficient (in general). — mentos987

If that's your conviction, I won't attempt to change it.

Youth rehabilitation + full ramifications shown within a decade => does not add up. — mentos987

Does to the government officials taking the kickbacks and campaign contributions.

Nursing homes need governmental oversight and youth rehabilitation need it even more. — mentos987

Exactly!! Profit for outsourced services comes out of the budget which comes out of the tax revenue. Profit, therefore, can only be had at the expense of service.

*sigh!*

Government workers are more inefficient not only due to complexity but also due to less pressure in the workplace. — mentos987

This may be true or not, depending on the leadership, organization, executive decisions and employee satisfaction. I've known corporate departments (computer programming, from an insider) to be quite inefficient, due to department heads desire for promotion or vested interest or incompetence. And I've known civil servants (as an insider) to be conscientious and dedicated.
As well as the other way around.

Therefore, you can't force governmental positions to follow concrete financial results like you do in the private sector. — mentos987

It's true, government ought to make long-term investments in the welfare of people and in infrastructure. However, this not the case when an administration lives and plans from election to election, and when government officials either or reward patrons with government contracts and executive appointments or outsource functions to the private sector (under the guise of efficiency and economy) In my experience, every time something was privatized, the cost rose while service declined.

Any work that will have its full ramifications shown within a decade can be entirely profit driven. — mentos987

Like nursing homes? and youth rehabilitation?

By working with pro-democratic forces. — schopenhauer1

Who is to do do this "working with"? And how would it possible without an economic upswing in that country?

I would like to explore a different path, focusing on a hypothetical decentralizing of the federal government. This would be one in which the US Fed, and the power that it has been amassing since the nation's conception, would be be returned to the states, resulting (sooner or later) in a more localized government system. — Elysium House

The problem I see with that is how differently states have been doing so in various government responsibilities. Some have been less democratic and less concerned with citizen's rights than others. Should they really have more power? How do you organize revenue collection and the funding of services? How do you finance the many, many wars? Can you even keep the union going? (States rights have nearly wrecked it once, and there is a very strong movement to change the constitution.... and of course T***p wants to tear it up and declare himself Chancellor or something.)

At any rate, if you want to get into a thinking exercise about going smaller with government I am happy to oblige. — Elysium House

I'm not sure I know enough, but there are several issues I'm interested in.
Like: Does the nation still work? Should it be a federation at all?

A complex society in a complex world requires a complex government capable of meeting very large and unexpected threats to our stability and security — BC

I agree. I'd been wondering about all the perennial conservative campaigns calling for a reduction in the size of government, without specifying where why or how. If they do get into power, the end up appointing political supporters instead of experts to head departments, cutting social services, privatizing schools and prisons and expanding the spook and military agencies. No savings, no return to the taxpayer. The liberal ones are accused of bloating government, because they tend to add (or repair) social services, but they're afraid to cut or reduce the 'security' departments, the military or the foreign meddling. It looks like a no-win for liberalism.

Distribution of resources WITHIN the governmental agencies could be organized along different lines. Less money should be allocated for defense. — BC

Absolutely. An awful lot of it seem to be offensive. Not to mention wasteful.

Tax laws are a good example. These are unfair to start with, and moreover reduce the productivity of the economy. — BC

Allowing both money and industry to be removed from the country, while the working people and the government both lack the mobility of corporations and making people pay extra for services their taxes are already paying for.

The economy is everybody, and while banks, government controls, and so on can speed up or slow down the economy, nobody is "in charge" of it. — BC

Maybe not, but some sectors have more control over it than others. Especially when trade unions are legally kneecapped while the boss class is given greater license.

A lot of what the government does, and does well, does not touch everyone, so many people think the government does nothing. — BC

It does touch them, but they don't seem really aware of how much and how necessarily. The anti-'Obama-care' protest sign comes to mind.
I very much doubt that Americans (or Canadians, for that matter) really know much about their government and what it does, or how.

More well-rooted liberalism is proven to work pretty well, and provides the maximum personal freedoms, which some would say in a political sense, is the optimal and most just circumstance. — schopenhauer1

Sure. How does that take root in oppressed, economically and socially exploited populations?

and a spookily familiar sequence of events

Democracy alone doesn't mean much. — schopenhauer1

Especially if it's corrupted and systematically undermined.

During its first four years, Weimar was under constant attack—above all, from the Big Lie that the republic was a totally illegitimate government because it owed its genesis to a “stab in the back” delivered on the home front.

then weakened by a global economic depression and crushing debts from a previous war
and then coerced

..
The conservative parties did not manage to win enough votes. They pressured president Paul von Hindenburg to appoint Hitler chancellor. They hoped to form a majority cabinet with the NSDAP. The fact that they expected to use Hitler for their own agenda would turn out to be a fatal underestimation.

30 January 1933 was the day: Von Hindenburg gave in and appointed Hitler chancellor. ‘It is like a dream. The Wilhelmstraße is ours', Joseph Goebbels, the future Minister of Propaganda, wrote in his diary. So, although Hitler was not elected by the German people, he still came to power in a legal way.

At a glance, the causes are fair enough, though some resulting violence not so much. (History seems to indicate that societal change often is accompanied by strife and violence.) — jorndoe

The violence seems, in the majority of cases, to have originated with the rulership. The protests began peacefully - as they often do - and the oppressive regime reacts with force, whereupon the populace, which is already unhappy, frustrated and justifiably angry, responds in the most natural human way: they fight back. Of course, they haven't got a chance.

Were the causes reasonable? — jorndoe

More than reasonable. Decades overdue.

What might we expect in the future (if anything)? — jorndoe

More of the world will keep erupting into violence.

Haven't heard of in Ontario, either, though we have Ojibwe acquaintances and plenty and plenty of snow. Guess either the game belongs to some other nation, or the weather phenomenon occurs elsewhere also, or it's not that popular. I know I'll never play it.

https://twitter.com/BillMarchel/status/1611724672982474752
I have heard that the only antidote to its venom is a stiff chug of Aquavit.
My brother-in-law lived there some time ago.
What he didn't know, and nor did I until today, is that the local Natives had made a game of the phenomenon.

Ever been bitten by the Minnesota Snow Snake?

I already gave non-Israel examples of antisemitism. — Ennui Elucidator

I didn't deny the existence of antisemitism. I do maintain that labelling every remark on the subject antisemitic is ridiculous.

In any event, I already pointed out that things can look supportive of Jews (or Israel) and yet be antisemitic. — Ennui Elucidator

Facts, logic and history ain't gonna prevail against blind partisanship.

Did anyone care about Palestine before? — Ennui Elucidator

Yes. Lots of people did. They were generally shut down by pro-Israeli western governments and media.

t is covered because the West is antisemetic — Ennui Elucidator

Are you sure?

Foreign Secretary William Hague said Israel is a "friend and a strategic partner" of the UK in a speech to Chatham House today.

This cultural and political affinity is behind the U.S.’s current unconditional support for Israel, as well as the fact that the U.S. is seen in the region and beyond as deeply implicated in Israel’s actions.

the U.S. is by far the biggest supplier of military aid to Israel, contributing around $130 billion since its founding.

Israel and Canada have nurtured a friendship and partnership based on shared values since Canada voted in favour of establishing a Jewish state at the United Nations on November 29, 1947.

They don't look all that hostile to me.

You don't know any better. — Ennui Elucidator

Of course not!

And yes, you are right, speaking about any group puts you in ambiguous territory. Seems pretty simple. The question is whether there is sufficient intellectual warrant to speak in those terms and potentially be misunderstood. — Ennui Elucidator

Which are "those terms"?

Whether or not you are entitled to your opinion is neither here nor there, what is being discussed is whether it is useful to speak in terms of religion. — Ennui Elucidator

Whether anyone is entitled to an independent opinion is very much here and also there. Freedom of speech is supposed to be fundamental to democracy. Whether any discussion of religion is 'useful' depends on what one wants to use it for. As a subject of discussion, all religions are eligible and fair game.

"I want you to stop cutting down my lawn" — Ennui Elucidator

Doesn't require any kind of justification. Defending your turf is a fundamental right also.

pretending as if you are discussing individual ethics rather than communal ethics is more trouble than it is worth. — Ennui Elucidator

Huh? How does the singularity or plurality of ethics affect a conversation?

The same does apply to the US and Japan. When people who hate the US talk about the US in negative terms, it is a) evidence that they hate the US and b) might be true. — Ennui Elucidator

But why do you think disagreement with some element of US policy or practice amounts to hating the US? This is exactly the prejudiced conclusion apologists use to shut down critical discussion - even among those who love their country more than the ones making the bad decisions.

Do you think Jews are the only group/people capable of being hated? — Ennui Elucidator

Everyone may be hated. And anyone may be discussed, their actions questioned, even criticized, without hatred.

That Israel does bad things is self-evident, but also insufficient to explain why it is the topic of conversation. — Ennui Elucidator

Maybe because it's in the news? Maybe because people are suffering and dying? Maybe because there is cause for concern regarding the direction in which events are going? Maybe because some people have questions about the leadership? If you talk about the weather or goldfish or a possible cure for Parkinson's or how to grow cabbages, you don't have to produce a "sufficient explanation". Again, I ask you, what puts Israel in a special category?

It doesn't take a thesis to know that most people talk about Jews and Israel because they are antisemitic — Ennui Elucidator

Yes, that's the one: the automatic defensive posture and labelling.
Seemed acceptable to talk about how they "made the desert bloom", when books were written about the valiant struggle and movies made about Israel's progress and successes.

Now, here is the truly odd part of the story. His church was protestant, and my friend wrote published articles about the dangers of Catholicism. Then, one day, he and his wife and family converted to the Catholic faith, and he became a Deacon of the Church, working with the homeless. — jgill

If this is true, all he did was change the label on his good works. It's the same god, the same basic belief, with slightly different by-laws.

"Antisemitism" is a euphemism. — Ennui Elucidator

What?

a mild or indirect word or expression substituted for one considered to be too harsh or blunt when referring to something unpleasant or embarrassing.

It sounds pretty bad to me. Especially when applied to someone who has never harmed, berated or done anything mean to a person who identifies as Jewish.

A simple heuristic is that anytime you speak about (or react to) Jews or someone's Jewishness you are in ambiguous territory. — Ennui Elucidator

In that case, speaking about any self-identified national, gender, political, ethnic or religious group puts you in ambiguous territory. So just never talk about any groups at all - or accept some degree of ambiguity.

Obviously if you are talking about banning ritual slaughter of cows in the EU and you fail to account for Islamic or Jewish views on the subject, you would be missing a significant consideration in the conversation. — Ennui Elucidator

So what? You're still entitled to an opinion about the practice itself. You don't have to talk to any Incas to consider child sacrifice distasteful. You don't have to take a medieval Muslim tradition
tradition into consideration when banning in France or Canada the murder of daughters who disobey their father's strictures.

Israel (whatever you think about it) is far too complicated to be a helpful example of what antisemitism is or isn't. — Ennui Elucidator

True. And yet, remarks about Israel, its leadership and activities are the fastest and most likely triggers for calling someone antisemitic - thus:

In some respects, merely discussing it is evidence of antisemitism unless such discussion is happening amongst people meaningfully effected by it. — Ennui Elucidator

Why does the same not apply to The US or Japan or India? In what way, and for what reason is Israel exempt from commentary?

Except for health-care workers, of course and a few store-clerks here and there, I mostly just see old people wearing masks. Some of us have particular vulnerabilities. I've taken the standard precautions from the start, had all available boosters and never contracted the disease. I'm content with that state of affairs.

We indeed need to talk about history for this question. — YiRu Li

I only wish we could have discussed the actual OP question, and with less of the cultural drum-beating.

I don't see much point in emphasizing that the entire Middle-eastern population is designated 'semites' by their one-time conquerors

A member of any of the peoples who speak or spoke a Semitic language, including in particular the Jews and Arabs. The name comes via Latin from Greek Sēm ‘Shem’, son of Noah in the Bible, from whom these people were traditionally supposed to be descended.

Even if the term were not obsolete, most people who refer to antisemitism either are not aware of the inclusion of Arabic-speakers, or don't care: they just mean 'discrimination against Jews' either as an ethnic minority or as a religion, usually both, they never include the anti-Arab sentiment so prevalent today in various countries.
Of course, most of the people who throw around the term antisemitism rarely bother to make the fine distinction between criticism of a nation's actions - which does not in way include barring anyone from university or housing or golf-club membership, nor denying them employment opportunities and legal rights - and actual discrimination. Try to ask a Zionist or supporter: "Does the present state of Israel really have a right to be where it is, as it is? If so, by what moral authority?"

Yes. Only, I thought you were talking about the United States, which handled it very badly at the political level (All my sympathies to the medical community) though some states did better than others.

Wouldn't it be more correct to call the Muslim, Asian and African opponents of Israel "anti-israelites" instead of calling them antisemitic? — Eros1982

Generally, yes, with local exceptions, such as the periodic resurgence of systemic discrimination in South Africa. However, many western Jews consider any criticism of Israel antisemitism, just as many Americans call any criticism of their foreign policy America-bashing. People are sensitive to blame for collective action by nations, ethnicities or religions with which they identify. While American's may protest against American injustice and Jews may censure Israeli misdeeds, they become defensive when outsiders do so.
These days, we tend to reach for facile labels without a second thought.

s there really nothing you could change to reduce your suffering? Have you explored all the options? — Vera Mont


I don’t really know. I’ve tried CBT with and without meds (like 10 different meds so far), I’ve seen a total of 5 psychologists and now with a 3rd psychiatrist. I’ve spent endless time discussing my problems with my close family — rossii

No, I mean is there nothing you can actually do? Just asking for help and rejecting it won't get you very far. You need to get off your ass and go out of your way to be useful. Find a flood or earthquake from which you can rescue people; find a foodbank or animal shelter where you can help somebody and stop gazing into your own bottomless belly-button.

Uh-hu

This we may need to ask Hanover, Lionino, Beverley, Tom Storm. — YiRu Li

I'm asking you, since you introduced both subjects and have not, as far as I can tell, given comprehensible answers to questions about either.

So our discussion may be related to all other civilizations. — YiRu Li

But how is it related to the OP?

Chinese history has a very strong civilization and culture supports the truth.
But if other countries don't have that similar civilization and culture, I can't say the truth in history is there. — YiRu Li

What makes you think any one culture has more or less truth than any other? Chinese chroniclers can't embellish, exaggerate, concentrate on one aspect of time while ignoring another? Ever hear of the cult of Chairman Mao? The whole China derail seems to me irrelevant to a current discussion.

I thought I already identified 'inequality' as
e.g. good <-> evil, rich <-> poor, beautiful <-> ugly, young <-> old, high <-> low, correct <-> wrong, have <-> not have, strong <-> weak, left <-> right, subjective <-> objective, absolute <-> relative, Life <-> Death — YiRu Li

This makes no sense in any measure of equality that I've ever encountered. It's a list of equal opposites. Among what or whom are you seeking equality - and what kind of equality? Or do you mean similarity?
An apple from the grocery store is equal to a car in some ways, unequal in others. Two apples from the grocery store are also unequal in some ways, to some degree. None of the examples are opposites and none are alive.

I really don't understand this part in his trial. — YiRu Li

He was making a point. In order to understand the trial, you first have to understand his life and principles, as well as the tenor of his times. https://www.history.com/topics/ancient-greece/socrates

The previous night we went out at 01:30 to see some fireworks and get some free vodka and mulled wine. By that time I had had several beers, two Irish whiskies, a bottle of Georgian wine, two Baileyses… — Jamal

Your constitution is formidable!

But I haven't had time to research what his death is teaching.
If anyone can tell me? — YiRu Li

It wasn't about teaching. It was about integrity. The accusations against him were bogus - politically, not morally motivated. He might have been granted exile, since all they really wanted was his silence, but he chose instead to make a stand: he demanded to be rewarded for his service to Athens.

Not everything a philosopher says and does is meant as lesson, and hardly anything in life and death is about equality.

I'm in a northern state. — TiredThinker

Good! Then you'll be informed of approaching danger before people who live in states where it's illegal to tell the truth.

What country are you from? — TiredThinker

Canada. Does that make a difference to the virus?

When did the virus first particularly impact there? — TiredThinker

Which variant? The first one hit ship- and airports, unsurprisingly. After that, I don't know. The latest wave looks superficially like New Brunswick in late August. I'm not familiar with their rate of prevention compliance.

A new mutation there? — TiredThinker

Not there; it was in the US a little earlier.

HV.1’s growth has been quick—it made up just 0.5% of cases in late July and has now nearly overtaken EG.5, the dominant subvariant in the U.S. since mid-August.1

So I'm back to my confusion about suicide. — rossii

It comes down to suffering, doesn't it? Are you really? How much? Is there really nothing you could change to reduce your suffering? Have you explored all the options? If your suffering is unbearable, death is a reasonable choice. If you have alternatives, it's not.