Banned Bruno Campello. @BrunoCampello, for sockpuppeting and advertising. — fdrake

That thread was erased? Ok.

Trump firing Comey is what lead to the Mueller — Michael

Which is the tragicomic thing here.

I firmly believe that without Trump firing Comey the FBI simply would have gotten out a report that would have said "Yes, the Russians were active in the 2016 elections." Period. And nothing else. Comey wouldn't have said anything more of Trump (would have been as silent as Christopher Wray is now) until he would have retired.

The simple fact was that Trump could have just stated that, yes, apparently Russians tried to meddle in the elections, just as they did and supported JFK, for example. Case over. But Trump being Trump, of course, is so inept that he desperately wants to show his guilt.

What's the shame of the highest echelons of American security and intelligence (services) doing their job?

The fact is, that all people connected to the Russian active measures campaign were quickly sidelined in a few months during the Trump administration, now later have been put to jail (for Trump to commute them). Yet multiple people in the Trump administration genuinely had nothing to do with this, so this really was a limited case. Mattis, Kelly and other had nothing to do with this and weren't at all in the pro-Russia camp. Bannon had nothing to do with this. Even Rex Tillerson, who the Russians liked and had done business with them, truly wasn't some stooge of them as obviously the CEO understood who he was representing in the role of the secretary of state.

I stated, “The Steele dossier was payed for by the Clinton campaign and sourced from Russian intelligence, leading to unwarranted spying, investigations and a misinformed western populace, all for the purpose of winning an election—Russian collusion.” — NOS4A2

Btw, from the site: https://www.fbi.gov/about/mission

"Our Priorities

Protect the United States from terrorist attack
Protect the United States against foreign intelligence operations and espionage
Protect the United States against cyber-based attacks and high-technology crimes
Combat public corruption at all levels"

So how dare they do what they say their priorities are. It's a conspiracy! :grimace:

And as I pointed out, it wasn't the Steele dossier that lead to the investigation, as the investigation started before the FBI knew about it. — Michael

Well, NOS4A2 is playing a broken record when it's this subject.

At least, all I meant was that things become clearer with time and easier to digest, so waiting a little while for more to come out can be a good way to go. — Judaka

Sure, if the bureaucracy functions and the archives genuinely do exist and aren't burned. :roll:

I think it's fair to say that news reporting can be and has been influenced by big companies due to advertising rights. It can be argued that from the perspective of increasing viewership, choices will be made that take the focus away from objective news reporting or simply toss out objectivity because it isn't as interesting to viewers. — Judaka

But I do assume we can typically notice this, right?

Sure, if there a total block on some issue, we won't know, but otherwise there's enough of different media outlets to notice which bias or agenda some media outlet has. Hence noticing the differences how Fox or MSNBC, BBC or RTV report on something is quite easy (assuming that you have the time to follow them). And once you know their modus operandi, it's easy to listen to them.

All in all, China was primarily an agricultural country where the vast majority of the population had the traditional, ancient culture and style of life. Mao mobilized “cultural revolutionaries” to accelerate the country and tighten his grip on power. — Number2018

Which ended up in cannibalism, btw.

At least Deng Xiaoping first ended the utter insanity of the Cultural revolution with Boluan Fanzheng (meaning eliminating chaos and returning to normal) and started the dramatic transformation of China with programs like Four modernizations and Reform and Opening up what were continued under Jiang Zeming. But that hardly interests any Western leftist intellectuals as those policies showcase what true development looks like (that reeks too much of capitalism and modernism). Which fits the picture perfectly. The only thing they'll see happening in China is that China opened it's borders to Western sweatshops and, oh yes, the Tianamen Square massacre happened. That's it. Otherwise nothing remotely important has happened in China, which is a truly condescending attitude.

Likely, what we deal with right now, is not ‘a culture war’ or ‘a cultural revolution.’ If our culture, our symbolic order, has not been maintained via ‘traditional symbolic means,’ our ‘cultural revolution’ has already happened. — Number2018

Fishfry is correct. There is an American culture war going. And no, it's not like in China.

It is similar to the era as the British experienced in the 20th Century and especially after the Suez crisis, basically the time when the Britts started questioning their own Empire. The UK faced such dire situation after fighting WW1 and WW2, that the bureaucrats in the halls of power in London simply didn't think that they had much anything to salvage from the wreck. The UK was still in the technological race in the 1940's and 1950's for example in aircraft development, but what killed it, just like what killed the British space program at the cusp of the satellite era, was lack of vision from the government. Add to this the losing of the colonies and putting aside the Commonwealth... as if not having a war for Australian, South African or Canadian independence and having the queen still as their monarch isn't something that the British should be proud of.

The Empire came to be a joke, perhaps in the most brilliant way depicted in the sketches of Monty Python. The monarchy came to be a tourist attraction and a cornucopia for the tabloid media to feast on. And now, the UK might even break up because...why not? The USA isn't still there, but I guess there will be a time when the Founding Fathers are the most hilarious butt of jokes and everybody around is laughing. That will just tell that then Americans believe that the myth of the US is a joke. And if it's a joke, then, why wouldn't the Texans opt to be independent again? How do change this way?

Self-criticism turns quite often to vicious self flagellation and to throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Self criticism is good, but too much of it and people will think that nothing good came out of the experiment. The critic seldom ends his rant by saying "but on the other hand, there is also some good". Hence the good aspects will be forgotten. Americans aren't still there, they still have great pride and belief in their country. Such belief in one's country isn't shared by many others.

And this isn't any sinister conspiracy: if people have doubts of the righteousness of the cause, the cause will falter. Those practicing self flagellation will see those who aren't flogging themselves as sinners. It's not that people would be against the freedoms on what the US was built. They will question if the US was ever built on them. And many will come to the conclusion that no, they never meant anything in reality: Others believing they are important are simply utterly naive.

Is this all really an urgent problem as fishfry says? I think that it is. Hence when a life long dedicated critic of US foreign policy like Noam Chomsky underwrites a letter on 'Justice and Open Debate' arguing that the "The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted" and not only from the political right, in my view the alarm bells are ringing. The liberal society is at threat.

It is a vicious circle that we must avoid, and it's not avoided by thinking that you can win the other side. That kind of bickering will lead to a worse situation.

I don't even want to form an opinion until all the facts are out anyway. — Judaka

All the facts?

Wait about 10 years and you'll have a pretty clear view what happened in the best histories written about the Trump era. All the secret files come out in about 40 years or so, so then you clearly have the best view possible about the facts. At that time with good luck, you perhaps even can have the Russian archives open and Russian history done about the Trump era, as likely Putin isn't in power anymore.

At worst case there's this Trump mystery, something similar to JFK assassination.

Just what you quoted there tells what an awesome spymaster Vladimir Putin really is.

Forget the Cambridge Five, forget the top spies of WW2 like Richard Sorge. Vlad really is the all time great. It will be very interesting how the American history depicts this time few decades from now. It's going to be interesting reading.

Wow. First off let's start with apartheid and how it totally affected the black Africans. — Anaxagoras

No need even for a history lecture to counter the argument, anaxagoras. To be a black farmer in South Africa is as dangerous if not more dangerous, so the statistics simply tell there is no revenge ethnic cleansing going on. The simple fact is that South Africa is a dangerous country and what better places to rob than a lone farm in the countryside separated from other population far away from any police patrol. And the USA surely isn't South Africa, just to start with how crazy these ideas are.

The bottom line is that no step in ending racism or systemic racism requires identity politics.

Identity politics just distracts from the real issues such as poverty, police brutality, the mass incarceration and so on. I think fighting racism is a bit of a game of wack-a-mole, you see it and you give it a whack.

Otherwise, most problems that affect black Americans can simply be characterised as bad policy and poverty, as you say. — Judaka

Very well said.

I would go further and say that identity politics is not just a distraction, but a deliberate way to further polarization of the political field and reinforce the status quo where bipartisanship or any kind of consensus seeking doesn't exist. Both parties encourage their own view of identy politics and welcome it with open arms.

Few months to go before the elections. And not so much time to the next inauguration of the new president. So now wonder.

People in the Trump administration likely are thinking how to make their quick buck before January 20th 2021.

Comes to mind the Berlin wall with it's famous Checkpoint Charlie. The wall was actually first demolished only to be partly built up again as Germans understood what a great piece of history and a tourist attraction it would be. But at first tempers were high as so many had died there. I did have the opportunity to go from West Berlin to East Berlin via Checkpoint Charlie when it was still functioning.



Now what Checkpoint Charlie looks like:


Some remains of the "anti-fascist protective wall" as it was known in East-Germany:

Typically US presidents make these political pardon's on the last day of office. Bill Clinton pardoned Susan McDougal from the Whitewater controversy on the last hours of his presidency. But I think Trump has a lot of people to pardon, so better start now.

One could argue that Socialism and Democracy are inherently antithetic concepts.

Socialism is nothing more than a provisional form of totalitarian International Socialism/Communism or, for that matter, a provisional form of totalitarian National Socialism/Fascism. — charles ferraro

No. It simply isn't.

That isn't what the left in it's entirety is. You have to look at if from a wider more thruthful perspective.



You are totally forgetting how a crucial and long standing role social democrats have had in capitalist Western Europe. The United Kingdom has had eight labour administrations with labour prime ministers and democracy has survived in the UK. France has had three socialist Presidents: Auriol, Miterrand and Hollande. Germany has had eight chancellors from the social democrats last being Helmut Schimdt and Gerhard Schröder (and typically erraneously though Angela Merkel is from the CDU). Sweden has had nearly all of the 20th Century the Social Democrats as the largest party with even getting twice (1940 and 1970) and absolute majority in the elections. Still, Sweden, the UK, Germany and France and other West European countries have remained capitalist and have not gone the way of Venezuela.

And during the 20th Century Marxist Leninists opposed Social Democrats and vice versa, which can be seen from this German election poster from the 1930's, where both communists and nazis are depicted (rather correctly, actually) as the enemies of democracy:



Hence if you argue that socialist (meaning social democrats) are nothing more that a provisional form of totalitarians, you might in the same way bunch every conservative and right wing person to be a nazi. And from there it's meaningless to continue forward any discussion.

You know that in the last couple of days some of the signatories have actually apologized for daring to agree to something that J.K. Rowling agrees with. I won't bore you with the details, those who follow the transgender wars know the story and if the rest haven't heard it by now they're not interested. — fishfry

I've noticed this and many media outlets have noticed this too. Which just makes it more hilarious. So seems like the Harper's address really made some waves in the glass.

This frightens me greatly. Not just because of the mob, but because the entire corporate apparatus is behind it. If you're not woke you're ostracized and the very idea of free speech comes from privilege. — fishfry

It tells extremely well just how off the track public discourse is going. You see, I object to the idea that all this is because of a few 'cultural marxists' infiltrating somehow corporate boards or newsrooms. That I think is nonsense. What I think has happened is simply that a) the social media has created a mob mentality by itself and b) people are afraid of this "mob" and then self-censore themselves and react by excessive virtue signalling. Then a small contingent of very loud actors know how this now system operates and get their voice heard when they cry out. It's not that they are all "cultural marxists", a lot of those that fire then the people, make the decision to cancel somebody have little if any ideological support of cultural marxism. Likely many aren't even leftists.

Just as an example of this from the opposite side, in order to show how this is more of an "environmental" problem: let's take the cancel culture / attacks from the right. Some time ago, when Trump was more popular than now, a Republican or another commentator would get attacked by Trump supporters if they criticized Trump (and weren't part of the normal anti-Trump crowd). Hence the majority of Republicans who may have some criticism towards Trump were silenced by the fear of this mob. It's not that Trump was behind these attack, not even likely the Russian trolls (as they are still few of those), it's just the way how vitriolic the social media has become.

As Israel is for Jews, the US has been for White Saxon Protestants and neither nation embraces equality. — Athena

I would really dispute this. Americans might have this hubris of "Manifest Destiny", but their attachment isn't similar as the Jewish have for their homeland... starting from the religious texts of the Hebrew Bible / Old Testament.

There two concerns in that paragraph. Both sides of the Civil war believed God was on their side — Athena

Yet every side in every civil war believes that their cause is righteous, morally right and justifiable. Why would they otherwise resort to violence in the first place than to defend what is right? Civil wars aren't fought just by mercenaries, who are quite rare in reality.

This prejudice is part of people's identities just as military prestige is part of some people's identities. "I am important because you are not and as the police officer kneeling on a Black man's throat I am gloating with my sense of power". — Athena

And how many do you think there are who believe this today?

Any form of dictatorship is NOT communism. — paganarcher

That's not what is said.

What I said is that communism historically has lead to dictatorship and that this has happened is evident from the ideology itself. Not that there aren't other ways to get a dictatorship (which there are many). The simple fact is that once you start to demolish the institution of private property, you will get a backlash and you have to resort to violence. Marxism, that is believing that Marx was correct on the way how capitalism is overthrown and we get to communism, will basically create that dictatorship: you have a class enemy, you start with that juxtaposition, you have a proletariat that has to form a dictatorship and Marx doesn't believe that the transformation will be peaceful.

A rose by any other name! I perceive no clear divide ideologically, just shades of difference, or degrees of extremism. They all seek to demolish and replace the best (certainly not the most perfect) system of governance yet devised by humanity with what? More centralized, more totalitarian versions of governance based upon political correctness, cancel culture, group think, and even mindless violence? — charles ferraro

I think that you shouldn't the same mistake that leftist people do when talking about the right. Not everybody on the right is marching with tiki-torches fearing the jews will replace them, and so aren't the people on the left a homogenous mob.

I have to disagree with you, because I do see a clear ideological divide with someone supporting social democracy and someone supporting marxism or anarchy. The social democrat like wouldn't be for abolishing capitalism and replacing it with central planning, he or she likely will want to "curb the excesses" of capitalism, focus on income distribution and implement social welfare programs. That's not demolishing the system of your governance. The marxist genuinely wants to replace the capitalist system and likely is very hostile towards the social democrat. The anarchist on the other hand, hates both of them and wants to get rid of the existing society itself altogether.

As it was intended by the Founding Fathers and as it is structured still to this day, our system of governance does allow for significant change to occur through new legislation, through the courts, and through the vote! — charles ferraro

And do notice that many leftists do think so too and want to further their agenda exactly through the democratic process. And have no trouble with the values that the US was based on (the constitution and so on).

That would be the days of a shared narrative, the shared myth. — Brett

There was a time of limited news outlets that we watched and listened to. And in many cases they did separate "the news" and the "the program discussing the news". Perhaps people don't know (or remember), but for example in the US Walter Cronkite was highly respected and trusted during his time.

How can objective news even mean anything anymore? How many people can it hold together? How many no longer relate to it? It’s so alien to them as an idea that they no longer trust it. A collective truth? That seems absurd these days. — Brett

Things that happen are true. We still can agree on such. Why they happened, what do they mean or are they important is a different matter.

Today, the preferred method among Cultural Marxists is to bring about a Communist revolution through the infiltration and the subversion of the traditional, prevailing cultural values that support and help define our educational system at all levels, our economic system, our historical memory and identity, our military, our kinds of entertainment, our types of news media, our Judeo-Christian religious values, our public taste and moral standards, our Constitutional rights, our executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government, and the separation of powers. — charles ferraro

That's a lot of infiltration and subversion.

But first, who are the cultural marxists?

What defines the difference from a cultural marxist and let's say a social democrat (or in the American style, democratic socialist)? In history and still there's quite a divide between social democrats and the marxists.

Or do you think that it's only cultural marxists that change our prevailing cultural values? Could those cultural values change not instigated by some specific people, but change as the environment, the economy and our society changes around us?

I think you have to take into consideration the physical changes that have happened in the media that are partly the reason why impartial news coverage has diminished and more is commentary about events.

There was a time when people actually got their news from reading a newspaper that basically had everything that had happened the day before or earlier. That "deadline" when printing machine is turned on gave some time for journalists. But then not only came radio and television, but 24 hour news channels and finally us having computers disguised as phones in our pocket that instantly tell us about if anything important happens. And then people learn about things through the social media. The role of being like the Associated Press (AP), a not-for-profit news agency, is very limited today.

The blurring of a news and "news commentary" is the basic problem why we are talking about fake news. Old school journalism isn't popular anymore, it seems that we are going back to the 19th Century where the "workers newspapers" and the "newspapers of the bourgeoisie" described alternate universes. Once you started having national newspapers, these then applied a tone that felt good for the general public. And if earlier the political tone of a media outlet was subtle, today it isn't with many anymore. Perhaps it's an answer to the rise of the social media.

Suppose Schiff was derelict. Does this somehow imply Trump was not? — Relativist

If members of an intelligence committee are briefed with secret material, they cannot talk about it. Yet it's the action that counts. That is what matters.

And Trump acted just as I predicted him to do: he won't do anything. Even it say that there would have been some possible truth to this, would have been too much for Trump. For Trump, this has to be fake news.

And Putin could actually predict this outcome very easily. He's a brilliant case officer.

(Seldom Vlad smiles so happily:)

Why should they tolerate them?

As an European, I made the point how in Europe statues from a very painful past of a totalitarian dictatorship have been dealt with. You don't have to destroy the statues, you can put them into a statue park as a reminder of the past history. And those who glorify the ideology that caused so much misery today? They are annoying, but they aren't exactly the same kind as their historic predecessors. Those statues do tell of a past, just as does the ruins of the labour camps. Yet then comes the question what about any slave owning American politician in the past starting from George Washington? How Americans deal with their past is their thing.

How do you deal with political parties that have risen up in arms against the country and lost? It's actually easy, if after defeat they change their ways, they can be accepted back. That's how you get past civil wars. The leftist party that started our civil war and then luckily was defeated, is now at present in the government here. And nobody, neither the prime minister or any other member of the party, is thinking about a bolshevik revolution as they did in 1918.

We still do not know if we witness the culmination of the process or it is just the beginning. What will shape the parameters of the allowed debate? — Number2018

I don't think we have seen any culmination here. Let's remember that even if similar uproar was in the universities in the sixties and seventies, this started basically just in the 2010's. I figure this thing will endure at least this decade or so.

This is how Jordan Peterson — Number2018

And this is where many stop instantly reading.

Yet the example Peterson gives is actually a perfect example how cancel culture works today and how the culture war is fought in the academic circles.So the horrible racist attack against human rights, women, minorities and diversity that Hudlicky did is to write the following:

In the last two decades many groups have been designated with ‘preferential status’ (despite substantive increases in the recruitment of women and minorities). Preferential treatment of one group leads inexorably to disadvantages for another. Each candidate should have an equal opportunity to secure a position, regardless of personal identification/categorization. Hiring practices that aim at equality of outcome is counter-productive if it results in discrimination against the most meritorious candidates. Such practice has also led to the emergence of mandatory ‘training workshops’ on gender equity, inclusion, diversity, and discrimination.”

You can judge what Hudlicky says, but what is noteworthy is the dramatic response. First was the absolute crisis that the journal Angewandte Chemie endured:

Editor-in-Chief Neville Compton said Hudlicky’s views “do not reflect our values of fairness, trustworthiness and social awareness,” and added aside from “spread[ing] trusted knowledge,” his journal also must “stand against discrimination, injustices and inequity.”

Compton said publishing the article was a “clear mistake” and two Angewandte Chemie editors were suspended. In addition, 16 members of the journal’s international advisory board who criticized the piece submitted their resignations.

So suspensions and resignations. Yet this wasn't the only actions that the Journal took to cleanse it from such ugliness that had creeped into the Journal (for an hour) with Hudlicky's article:

The journal says it is introducing a new process for peer-reviewing opinion pieces that will rely on experts in the topic of the essay instead of reviewers from the field of the journal. The journal also pledges to build more diversity within the editorial and advisory boards and develop new editorial guidelines incorporating diversity equality and inclusion principles and practices. An external review is planned to evaluate the journal’s processes, while an internal review is ongoing.

The official response from Hudlicky's university, Brock University, is telling:

On Friday, June 5, the University became aware of a paper written by Professor Tomáš
Hudlický that was published and then retracted by the journal Angewandte Chemie.

The paper includes highly objectionable statements that contrast the promotion of equity
and diversity with the promotion of academic merit. These statements are hurtful and
alienating to members of diverse communities and historically marginalized groups who
have, too often, seen their qualifications and abilities called into question.

Luckily the university has done a lot to advance human rights and reconciliation with the following organizational reforms, which it proudly states (to separate the fine university from Hudlicky):

Together we have made significant strides to foster an institutional culture advancing
human rights and reconciliation. Among other actions, in recent years the University has:

• established a Human Rights and Equity Office;
• created a new Ombuds Office;
• hired its first Vice-Provost, Indigenous Engagement;
• launched the President’s Advisory Council on Human Rights, Equity, and
Decolonization;
• invested significant resources in training and education, including sessions on
unconscious bias;
• collectively made an explicit commitment to foster a culture of inclusivity,
accessibility, reconciliation and decolonization, under Brock’s Institutional
Strategic Plan.

Despite this progress, and the shared values that animate these efforts, we recognize there
is still much work to do. The University released a statement Friday outlining its deep concerns and strong opposition to the views expressed in the article. Today, I sent a letter to our graduate students in Chemistry to let them know there were supports available to them and to provide further assistance should they have questions. Please be advised that further steps are being considered and developed and these next steps will be shared with the community in the next few days.

At least the graduate students weren't offered crisis help, but it's good to hear that the Canadian university is deeply committed to the decolonization of it's chemistry department.

Communist ideology stresses how crucial it is to bring about "classless societies." — charles ferraro

Yes, by the extermination of unwanted classes.

When he was elected, it was quite common to determine it as 'a fascist upheaval'. — Number2018

Well, that is typical leftist rhetoric. Just like the rhetoric of marxists taking over the Democratic Party/the DNC is common at the right. One has to learn to tone down the rhetoric, you know.

I just do not understand why it was written in the letter. — Number2018

Let's say Trump's praising of authoritarian leaders makes people worry as the US President is still one of the most (if not the most) powerful person in the World. Yet of course Trump's ineptness evidently shows he's not a person that could change the US to an authoritarian state. What he can do is create a huge mess.

I think this interview below with Stephen Pinker makes the case pretty well as he was one of the signatures of the Harper's letter and someone who has been tried (unsuccessfully) to be silenced in the typical fashion after making "politically incorrect" points. Freddie Sayers interviews Pinker and here they discuss the letter, the culture war, why the illiberal woke left and the nationalist populist right pose a threat to freedom of speach and also how the two sides share a lot in common, both for example eager to deploy the race card. Pinker as usual makes good calm arguments.

Lol.

Well, something being simply ugly is a bit different!





The above was so f*cking awful that nobody wanted it, because president Kekkonen is still respected by many in the country. As it was transferred from place to place it finally broke (so no iconoclast was the culprit here below). My old grandmother felt bad for the artist as he was for a time the butt of jokes in the country.

It is not clear what are the forces that are fighting for the liberal values. The letter appeals to resist primarily just one wing. I still do not understand: Trump declares that he is the defender of free speech, but he is represented as a real threat. — Number2018

Perhaps the letter should be examined a bit:

But this needed reckoning has also intensified a new set of moral attitudes and political commitments that tend to weaken our norms of open debate and toleration of differences in favor of ideological conformity. As we applaud the first development, we also raise our voices against the second. The forces of illiberalism are gaining strength throughout the world and have a powerful ally in Donald Trump, who represents a real threat to democracy. But resistance must not be allowed to harden into its own brand of dogma or coercion—which right-wing demagogues are already exploiting. The democratic inclusion we want can be achieved only if we speak out against the intolerant climate that has set in on all sides.

The fear basically is that fire is fought with equal fire, that the resistance "hardens into its own brand of dogma or coercion". You see that illiberalism which the paper refers to is basically pushed from both sides. Remember that populism, the idea of "the people" who are forgotten and even discriminated by "the elite" is a juxtaposition which creates an enemy, is much used both on the left and on the right. Populism doesn't seek to discuss things, it seeks to dominate and stifle other opinions.

What's the problem with removing a couple of statues? — Benkei

What's the problem with statue cemetaries I say?

I'm probably the if guy to ask because I think the veneration of anybody is just insanity. The idolisation of people who were just as fallible as you and me. I don't like how people look up to successful businessmen, soldiers, politicians or historic figures. They're just men and women. — Benkei

Well, we don't worship statues and we don't adore those who have statues made of them. As a person who loves history I cherish remembrance of history. I don't like iconoclasts. Old catholic churches that have been painted over in white during the days of protestant fury simply look sad. Iconoclasm and the need to destroy statues and art tells clearly that non-permissive idealism is on the rise.

Statues belong in musea, not the public sphere. — Benkei

Statues aren't for this time, it seems.

The Harper letter is funny — Benkei

Why do you think it's funny? You think all those that signed it don't have any point?

For years, and even to this day, Marxist thought is all but banned in the US. — Benkei

It wasn't banned. Americans just have these "scares" from time to time. The focus of the scare just changes.

Now a couple of rabid racists and their enablers are barred from a couple of shows, because - hello - racism is out of vogue (Fucking finally, right?!), and all of a sudden it's a problem. — Benkei

Who are the rabid racists you refer to?

Those cancellations are profit driven and not ideological. — Benkei

You should give an example.

Live goes on and the racists will retreat in their "cultural norms and values" code and how it's under threat from everything they don't like, which includes leftists and anything with pigment. — Benkei

Life will surely go on. Just hope that the only body count we follow will be with the pandemic. As I said, in the fall a lot of Americans will go off their unemployment benefits. And they have toxic elections in front of them. Hope everything goes well and we are just a couple of foreigners talking nonsense here.

First of all no non totalitarian form of communism has ever been tried. — paganarcher

Because it doesn't exist.

The ethos of communism is the opposite of dictatorship, we are simply not grown up enough to try it. — paganarcher

Never heard of the proletarian dictatorship? You don't have to be a Friedrich Hayek to understand that the dictatorship of the proletariat will destroy personal freedom as completely as does an autocracy. Add to the ideology a "class enemy" and class struggle, and you surely will have a dictatorship.

Besides, why consider something to work when we aren't "grown up enough" for it to work?

Consider, though, that the US has statues of CSA rebels everywhere. These enemy leaders fought to maintain the institution of slavery.

Why should black citizens (and not only them) be expected to tolerate such statues? — Yellow Horse

And why were they tolerated before and not anymore? I think one mass shooting doesn't answer everything here. Why are there even now, in the halls of power in Washington DC, statues of those CSA rebels? That's the important question.

I guess many will eagerly argue that it shows the inherent widespread racism that prevails in the US still today. Others will correctly point out the "Lost cause" myth making and those southern politicians that were putting them there well after the civil war. That is a fact which is now often mentioned: statues being put up as a way to support a cause of Jim Crow. Likely nobody will dare to say now anymore that northerners accepting these statues in the first place was part of consolidation, trying to get over a painful civil war. I of course can mention that as I'm just an ignorant foreigner. Luckily there was a time that at least the old veterans could meet peacefully afterwards and respect each other, which still is quite rare after civil wars.



But that is ancient history that has no use for this time. Now we can use that history to divide Americans again. So that's a no to Confederate statue parks like what they have in former countries of the Soviet Union and Easten Bloc for socialist statues. Better be like it never happened.

I think that the letter is appropriate to be fully quoted:

Our cultural institutions are facing a moment of trial. Powerful protests for racial and social justice are leading to overdue demands for police reform, along with wider calls for greater equality and inclusion across our society, not least in higher education, journalism, philanthropy, and the arts. But this needed reckoning has also intensified a new set of moral attitudes and political commitments that tend to weaken our norms of open debate and toleration of differences in favor of ideological conformity. As we applaud the first development, we also raise our voices against the second. The forces of illiberalism are gaining strength throughout the world and have a powerful ally in Donald Trump, who represents a real threat to democracy. But resistance must not be allowed to harden into its own brand of dogma or coercion—which right-wing demagogues are already exploiting. The democratic inclusion we want can be achieved only if we speak out against the intolerant climate that has set in on all sides.

The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted. While we have come to expect this on the radical right, censoriousness is also spreading more widely in our culture: an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty. We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters. But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal. We are already paying the price in greater risk aversion among writers, artists, and journalists who fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus, or even lack sufficient zeal in agreement.

This stifling atmosphere will ultimately harm the most vital causes of our time. The restriction of debate, whether by a repressive government or an intolerant society, invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation. The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away. We refuse any false choice between justice and freedom, which cannot exist without each other. As writers we need a culture that leaves us room for experimentation, risk taking, and even mistakes. We need to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences. If we won’t defend the very thing on which our work depends, we shouldn’t expect the public or the state to defend it for us.

It's in a sense baffling that the political creativity in the US is so stunted that their solution to most social ills is "police". It's not as if the policy research isn't available what other solutions are available to combat poverty, community health and crime prevention.

What causes that? Lobbying? — Benkei

The US has a problem in adopting social programs as they are seen as outright socialism and the preference is that various voluntary organizations giving charity is enough. Anything "collective" done by the government reeks of socialism. In other countries programs combating poverty and alienation are seen as smart ways to prevent crime, but not so in the US.

Do you support taking down historical statues? — Number2018

Taking down statues means that you have something so traumatic in your history that you cannot face it otherwise and cannot accept it being a part of your history, but see it as something needed to be erased away. If you cannot even move the statue away somewhere else from a prominent place (as the prominence of the place of a statue gives respect to it), but you have to destroy it, I'd say there's a trauma and people have problems with their history.

(Statue of Joseph Stalin, now in a park 130km away from it's original place in Vilnius, Lithuania.)


As a history buff I always enjoy statues as they tell a lot of the time when they were put up and what some people (at least those who participated in the statue project) saw as important "to exist to be a reminder future generations". Also that the authorities did then accept them is notable too.

So I'm all in favor of the "World Peace" statue in Helsinki, which was given from the city of Moscow at the last year of the existence of the Soviet Union. The statue, which is a perfect example of socialist realism and can be found in multiple copies in the former Soviet Union, is a great reminder for us Finns just how much we bowed to the Soviet Union, how we truly had Finlandization going on and how much the official lithurgy of "friendship" we had with the Superpower at our eastern border. Tearing it down won't change history. I think it's a great statue of our appeasement of a totalitarian system next door.

(World peace, Helsinki)

I'm totally surprised though that their economy took the same hit as the other countries in Europe already. — Benkei

I'm not.

Remember that they still are a rather small export oriented country and all it takes is the global economy to get a mild flew and Sweden (just like us here) is down and out for the count. And if one third of the population voluntarily self isolated themselves, that in itself has a devastating effects on any economy. Remember that there isn't much leeway in the modern economic machine of our time, so even a minor hickup will have large consequences. Now you are looking at an economic abyss in Europe, so it's a major hickup, not a minor one.

How can you stay above the fray? What is your position? — Number2018

People usually have some point in what they are saying. Often they describe well certain a problem. Yet especially with what they give then to be the solution, one should be extremely careful and critical. If you can find things that you agree with even if on the whole you disagree with many other points, you aren't falling into the mold of the tribal culture war. One only needs to actually listen what people say to stay above the fray. People seldom do that.

You see, the culture war needs you to be totally against the other side. Understanding any point from the other side is something like appeasement and giving up your ground, a sign of weakness. But you shouldn't let be get played how the culture war does it. Are you for or against taken down historical statues? Are you for or against defunding the police? Are you for or against abortion? These kind of questions want to lure you to give clear "yes" or "no" answers in order to draw you to be either on one side or the other.

Real answers, the one's that actually work, are usually long, complex and, well, boring. People get excited about short snappy answers that one can yell out. "Build a wall and let Mexico pay for it!" is a perfect example of this.

I think we can conclude now that Sweden's policy was a failure. Sweden isn't anywhere close of herd immunity. Yet it should be noted that one third of the people voluntarily self-isolated, which did have a big effect. Let's remember that Italy, Spain, Belgium and the UK have higher per capita death rates than Sweden.

"The danger is not over," Health Minister Lena Hallengren told a press conference, as she announced plans for how Sweden should act quickly in case there is a renewed rise in serious infections later this year.

The government on Monday ordered four government authorities – the Public Health Agency, the National Board of Health and Welfare, the Medical Products Agency and the Civil Contingencies Agency – as well as the country's county administrative boards to start drawing up plans for how to tackle such a second wave.

Among other things we want back our industrial base and an acceptable standard of living for hard working people. We want human values to come back and we aren't buying over priced designer things in a competition to be better than others any more. US is coming back! And we are going to take down the controllers who stole our national wealth and put it in their pockets. We are mad and glad to be united again. — Athena

Maga.

Wasn't that above what the people who voted for Trump wanted? Didn't they want to "drain the swamp"? Didn't they want to believe in all of that?

No. No way, you will be divided into two camps that hate each other. The white racists against the marxist iconoclasts. Pick your side, pick your tribe.

Divide et impera

Who knows the actual meaning of these words today? Historians should not be counted.
Probably, activists that are using this words do not know the history. — Number2018

This is actually a bigger problem than we often think. You see, part of "struggle" in the "culture war" is to redefine terms like "marxist", "nazi" or especially what being a "racist" means as people are very timid at being called racist. When you take the terms out of the historical context and the original ideology, you can accuse people who don't have anything to do with the ideologies and paint the dark picture you want of those who you oppose.

At least people in the US are allowed to disagree. — Professor Death

The control far is more subtle control in the US. What you disagree about is given to you by the media and by the political elite. You see, disagreement in the "culture war" doesn't threaten any way the economy or those in control.

In a way, the culture war is a way to sidetrack political discourse from present real problems (the growing inequality, the costly and inefficient health care system, hugely expensive education system, low real wages, politicians being controlled by lobby groups etc.) to other issues that arouse a vicious emotional debate to make people see themselves as parts of tribes...and vote for their party (in the US). Besides, what better way to divide the middle and lower class to hating each other than a culture war.

(far easier issues than increasing salaries of employees, with naturally the exception of GS:)

The place to end police brutality is through cultural means, education and media. — Athena

Add things mentioned here alreadt: de-escalatory tactics, use of other officials than just the police in every occasion, a wide variety of methods that have been seen successful in reality, not emerging from some ideological agenda. Yet I really would not put the issue of the police using excessive force into being part of the culture war. Is wearing a mask and combating the pandemic part of "the culture war"?

Unfortunately in 1958 we lost our wisdom and focused excessively on the rapid advancement of technology. We replaced our liberal education that was addressing political and social problems through education from the first day a child entered school, with education completely focused on advancing technology. That meant leaving moral training the church, and only brute force to maintain social order because not everyone goes to church nor can believe the biblical ,and those who do, do not agree on God's truth nor do they have a better way of resolving religious differences than killing people who disagree with them. This change in education has serious, social, economic, and political ramifications. — Athena

Why the year 1958?

I think the "culture war" and the ongoing polarization have made the discourse highly contemptuous. And unfortunately, on purpose. To discuss values and morals in elections is good, yet things normally ought to be far more palpable to the voter concerning real issues. Because now the duopoly of the two ruling political parties use the "culture war" card in my view as a distraction. Both democrats and republicans seeks to use the culture war to their advantage.

I mean stop for a while to think about it: is really a nationwide topic of uttermost importance which toilets can transgender people use? For transgender it might be important, but I do think this is quite a small minority. Before it was burning the flag. Now it's tearing down statues of George Washington and people talk of "a cultural revolution" taking place in the US. In my view which statues deserve to come down and which to stay is not important compared to things like what to do about unemployment as the pandemic induced global economic downturn is a big problem... not to mention the thousands that still will die from the pandemic.

Wow it appears PF knows nothing about democracy! Are you supporting what was said or agruing against it? — Athena

Oh, I'm one of those conservatives who believe in representative democracy, even with it's failures and defects, and believe that changes can happen through consensus, mainly when the at first opposing side finally takes the agenda as it's own too.