An attitude I despise, because it's the source of a lot of problems in the world.

Jamalrob and whoever else made up the rules. You can make up whatever you like. You can change the rules any way you like. Treating the rules as if they're something akin to physical law that you have no control over is ridiculous. — Terrapin Station

The rules do and have changed over time so zero points for you. The mods stick to the rules as they are now and they will stick to the rules when they change and not to the old rules.

Sticking to the rules is short hand for treating equal cases equally and it's converse, to treat unequal cases differently. That's about fairness.

Like so many supporters of capitalism, — iolo

:rofl:

It's not about the Kurds. — ssu

Any time people do the deciding that causes others to do the dying, it definitely is about those dying. I am in the end a naïve human rights proponent.

That's not to say there aren't larger strategic ramifications.

We are far from the time of the Baghdad Pact, the Twin Pillars strategy or the time when the Syrians, Egyptians, Saudis, Moroccans, the Gulf States etc. all fought alongside the US to liberate Kuwait and after that the US heeded their advice NOT to advance further into Iraq. — ssu

Yeah, arguably another mistake that could've avoided the Iraq war and caused a lot of deaths for those fighting against Saddam and then got gunned down by helicopters.

How long before it's no longer taboo to point out that Trump just betrayed our allies and left them for dead? — VagabondSpectre

There is no taboo. It's just totally weird to me that your take away is what a failure for trump this is. As if that's what's important.

Why are former GOP allies distancing themselves from him? Are they really concerned about Kurds? Or are they in the pocket of defense contractors? What does this mean for the Kurds?

All things you could've raised in relation to Trump's decision but easily ignored because, my, my, what a (bloody predictable) failure for him. So yeah, the sole focus on him is misplaced from my point of view.

I think a good think ought to be had about American interventionism and its role as "policeman" of the world.

Before Trump you knew the US would run its own course, regardless of what other nations thought about it. But you could divine the course by paying attention to US newspapers, comedy and political statements. Under Trump the US became unreliable in trade and environmental policy. We can now also include security and military missions - although the Iran sanctions were already a prelude to it.

If I were to describe the US political system in one word, it would be: unhinged. There's no guiding principle left on which others can rely.

EDIT: actually, that's not entirely true. It's solely about internal US politics and how to retain or gain power. That's the principle that guides the US parties regardless of consequences.

It's not the first time I've posted in the thread. In light of what happened and then to focus on what a failure for Trump this was, seems to be totally misplaced or American-centrism at its worst.

While you're hand-wringing that you can finally stick it to him I fail to see how that's going to help the Kurds.

People have been looking for Trump to "fail" from the get-go. It's never been a question of if but when as it was clear from the start he'd be a failure (with Hillary Clinton a close second). As I pointed out three years ago: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/26121

And no, you can't blame Trump for this unilateral decision, with all the unitary executive apologists out there. If there's anything the result of "the system" it is this. It's just surprising it took this long really.

Who gives a flying fuck about Trump when Kurds are dying because they've been betrayed by their ally?

And it must be said: at least the US is doing something with its Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act. Which is more than can be said of the Netherlands or the EU at this point.

Sometimes a bit of distance actually helps but I'm stumped anyways.

I thought there was a mask ban but here's Carrie Lam's veiled threat:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/oct/08/hong-kongs-carrie-lam-refuses-to-rule-out-asking-china-for-help-to-quell-protests

I wouldn't worry too much about it if I were you. Written arguments from the security of anonymity means people will overreact as there are no verbal clues that normally mitigate a lot of the excesses you see here. It's par for the course of an Internet forum.

I'm pointing out there isn't a clear line between various cultures and you reply with "our culture", "our language" and us vs. them and how it shouldn't change: that is a interpretation of culture as monolithic par excellence.

I'm not answering your question because I'm not going to speak for an entire "culture" as to what they should do. That would be hubris.

Culture isn't monolithic and certainly not defined by language alone. Western culture overarches several languages. At the same time the culture in my city is distinct from other areas in the Netherlands, which is still Dutch culture. And just look at the history of the development of the guitar (or most any other instrument for that matter) that cultural differences are fluid. Cultures exchange, change, copy and merge over time.

Given how culture has comes about, resistance to cultural change is misplaced.

If there are no areas of the Country where the language is used, it ceases to be in any meaningful sense a country. — iolo

Now you're equating language with culture if your quote in my previous post is any indication.

Dunno what they expected with the mask ban. Watch them use this to (more) violently crack down. — StreetlightX

They expected the protesters not to listen of course, precisely to get the excuse they needed to crack down on them. BBC is already on board I see with calling it riots. Violent protest can still be protest. It's the continuation of politics by different means (pace Von Clausewitz).

I'm wondering what a sensible way forward is, strategically speaking, for the protesters.

Maybe they should invoke the right to self-determination? Hong Kong has a different political system, the majority speaks a different language than mainland China and the cultural differences are laid bare in the recent protests.

All with moderation, of course. And while you were fine with it, not everyone was.

The only point of any country is its culture, and if that is destroyed, what's it matter who replaces it? — iolo

And culture conveniently adheres to borders? How quaint.

Well some things that I think are ludicrous:

1. Unlimited cash for political advertisement
2. A winner takes all system
3. Political appointment of judges
4. Disconnect between rich politicians and normal people means normal people's problems aren't taken care of (an issue in most Western democracies, just that Congressmen in the US are filthy rich)

I think the disconnect is that to some extent many Americans still think their political system is still more or less decent where decency matters. In a healthy system, bad people shouldn't float to the top like turds.

For those like Streetlight x, it is obvious that a system that produces Clinton, Bush, Obama and Trump is totally shit. But next to bad policy, Trump is the first that acts like a total asshole.

I disagree, however, that character is entirely irrelevant. People with character would resist the worst extremes the system would allow. Which, although not a solution to any systemic problem, would dampen some of the consequences.

We've seen with the Krim how countries will react to an escalation.

I'm not very optimistic.

For those who don't know, HK just invoked emergency powers to ban face masks in public places. This will be interesting. I can't imagine that this will have any other effect than to further inflame the protests - masks are readily available and this seems almost deliberately designed to provoke altercations and civil disobedience. They are already in wide circulatuon and are useful to stave off the effects of tear gas and capture by facial recognition. It reads as an attempt to push the protesters off a 'legitimacy cliff', and it makes an already volatile situation potentially even more deadly. — StreetlightX

I thought they're already branded as rioters and over the legitimacy cliff?

Perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying. Automatically the people on one side are convinced while those on the other believe it is propaganda. My informants had various political positions, so it seems very likely, but we won't be allowed to know, will we? Don't you, as a person involved with a philosophy site, find that depressing? — iolo

Ah, I'm sure you have good reason to believe them. All I have to say is that it isn't corroborated so you might want to take it with a grain of salt because of it.

I don't find it depressing though. It makes it interesting how to come to an accurate assessment about situations. Usually withholding judgment for a month or three is a good rule of thumb for anything political.

Consider instead the roughly 85 various policy rollbacks on environmental protections undertaken by his administration so far, including the clean water protections just under a month ago. Consider instead the appointment of the roughly 150 lifetime tenure judges that will transform the US judiciary in unfathomable ways. Or consider the relaxation of the Johnston amendments that enabled Churches to play far bigger roles in political life than they could before. Or the relaxation of the Dodd-Frank regulations put in place to stop another financial crisis. Or the concentration camps. And a thousand other things. By comparison, I couldn't give a fuck about Trump's character, and neither should anyone else. — StreetlightX

Here's the reason he's got the uncritical support of the GOP. He's the perfect distraction while shit is happening.

No, my speech doesn't affect your psychological state any ways so it doesn't make you wonder or think in any case.

Yes, whatever should that be showing? Maybe think about it before replying.

Read again, it's in the same sentence.

Here's a thought experiment:

99 persons say punching someone in the face should be allowed.
1 Terrapin Station says it shouldn't.

TS is welcome to his opinion but is punched in the face nevertheless.

We are disagreeing on facts but you refuse to accept that what you think is irrelevant in a society where 99% disagrees with your definition of causality or ethical dispositions.

So putting aside the epistemological issues for a moment, what I said, and I shouldn't have to repeat this, is that I brought up force because per my dispositions, my intuitive moral feelings, that's the only thing that I find morally objectionable. So if we're not claiming force in those situations, I don't find it morally objectionable, whatever other things, exactly, we're claiming. — Terrapin Station

Yes, as I said, your dispositions are irrelevant. That YOU think certain things ought not be punished isn't relevant to the fact most people believe they ought. So your free speech absolutism cannot work because it assumes conditions that don't exist. As I said, everybody should be rich. That's as informative as your position is. E.g., not relevant in any way.

Right... so numerous neuroscientists and psychologists have established the link between abusive language and behavioural issues with children. You are just pretending it doesn't exist by claiming only a specific type of causality exists. Offering up such a persuasive definition is just semantics and ignores the work in the field of psychology. Basically, you're denying the existence of causality between parental speech that is abusive and the consequences to children subject to such speech. Those consequences have been documented and scientifically proved. Your disagreement with facts is noted but can be ignored as inconsequential.

Not a claim that I agree with in the slightest.

For one, I don't agree that all thought is linguistic, and I don't think that meaning is linguistic, either. — Terrapin Station

Of course you don't. And all those people working in advertisement and speech writers are really not influencing anything. Oh wait...

:up: As demonstrated by the consistent demonizing by the left of the right and vice versa. It's only that I'd sooner agree with policies that Bernie, Warren and AOC bring up that I tend to argue more regularly in their favour but I linked and quoted that Princeton study for a reason.

For one, I don't consider any psychological states to be forced by environmental factors such as speech, and I only have an ethical problem with nonconsensual force. — Terrapin Station

Uhm. Why must it be forced (whatever that means) and why not "caused"? I mean, if I shoot someone I don't force him to die. It's just really likely that he will, so it's considered a conditio sine que non. If parents don't yell at their kids and continually tell them they're crap, stupid and not worth a dime, the kids wouldn't have a behavioural problem either as a result. So the presence of their yelling and name-calling is a conditio sine que non for the behavioural problem.

Second, a kid is in a dependent relationship with their parents. It's not as if they can escape to somewhere else to avoid this behaviour, especially at very young ages.

EDIT: come to think of it. It's pure nonsense. All thought is caused by speech that we learned from others. We don't come in this world ready with words. In that sense, every psychological state is caused by speech except the most base emotions but even that is routed through the neo-cortex.

Correct. — Terrapin Station

Why not?

Also that was an example of a non-normative use of the word "correct".

You don't see an ethical issue with removing any protection children would have against psychological abuse from their parents?

Yes, wishful thinking isn't addressing the point. I don't think there's much to talk about if you don't believe protecting children from psychological abuse is more important than parents' rights to abuse their children.

No, I'm asking you, given the reality that psychological child abuse exists what you're going to do about that sort of abuse if your position is that the speech acts of the parents, which cause such harm, is entirely legal because it cannot be limited in any way. It seems you're not going to do anything about it and just accept child abuse, because you're ok with it.

Not having laws "based on psychological effect" isn't a solution because the reality is that people think parents shouldn't get away with psychological child abuse. So your "view" is useless.

I'm not sure what the calculus is behind it that you find this acceptable.

It's the same with your answer to "what to do with lying about a competitor if it causes him losses?". Your anwer was that if you were king, it wouldn't be a capitalist society. Well, news-break, it is a capitalist society. So how are you going to get free speech absolutism given the very profound and relevant fact that it is a capitalist society and that the competitor will want a remedy.

So basically what you seem to be saying is that "if the world worked totally differently I'd be in favour of free speech absolutism". Great. Very informative. If the world worked totally differently I'd be in favour of everybody being rich.

As I'm sure you're well aware, I can and have had multiple conversations with people I've disagreed with, on this very forum and elsewhere, on political topics such as immigration, abortion, wealth inequality, healthcare etc., but that's ultimately irrelevant when faced with the fact that a political party has tied itself, Gordian-like, to morally untenable positions regarding immigration, healthcare, abortion, and attitudes towards the rich and the poor. There is is no "common ground" no "middle position" to adjudicate with people who are content to have their immigrant neighbors ripped from their families and sent to strange countries to die, have children separated, likely indefinitely, from their parents and placed in inhumane conditions. There is no "middle ground" to be found with people who believe that abortion should be banned or severely restricted, or that it is morally acceptable that people can go bankrupt from healthcare or simply die because of an inability to pay for it. And it's certainly not acceptable to cordially engage with a fellow citizen who is part of a party that has a 91% approval rating for a man that, it has recently been discovered, inquired if the US could "shoot migrants in the legs" to deter them from entering the states.

Of course, the GOP has engaging in power politics for decades - increasingly so in the last ten years - and yet it's always the Left or liberals that are admonished for not reaching across the aisle, as if that's a winning strategy in these increasingly polarize ideological times. Sorry, I personally find it morally abhorrent to work with a nascent Nazi party. — Maw

Nice. You've reduced the identity of about half of the population to a few social stances and declared you'll never talk to them. How's that working out for you? Convinced anyone to vote Democrat yet by shaming them for being Republican?

Keep up the useless work and clap yourself on the back for being so righteously ineffectual.

EDIT: For what it's worth. Engaging is not the same as convincing. If you don't listen to others, they certainly won't listen to you.

This is a very difficult issue, especially with the “think of the children” rhetoric involved.

I like to think of it this way: if we educated children in the nature of language, and how to better grapple with their feelings when in contact with abusive words, they will learn to negate the bully’s attempts to exert power and coercion through verbal abuse. — NOS4A2

There is no "think of the children" rhetoric involved and it was one of many examples I provided. I picked it, because it has the most egregious consequences in my view. Psychological abuse is a real problem and it's not just limited to child abuse but that's an example where the State can (and will) step in by separating the children from abusive parents. We do not step into adult-adult relationships the same as we consider them autonomous enough to walk away from that relationship because of presumed independence. Children are dependent on their parents and therefore deserve special protection from parents who do not properly fulfil their caretaker role to the point where the relationship becomes abusive.So the idea "if we educated children" only works if the educators can be trusted. They cannot be trusted in every case, therefore education alone is not a panacea.

Next, you're equating bullying with psychological abuse. They are not remotely the same thing.

I'm telling you what I'd do. What do you want instead--tell you what someone else would do?

I'm okay with "child abuse" when it's only psychological, sure.

With you not being okay with it and wanting to prohibit it, can you answer the question I asked: how would you enforce any laws against psychological abuse? How would you establish that there has even been psychological abuse against kids? — Terrapin Station

First off, I explicitly asked you to reply given the nature of reality where you're not king. I again get a reply "I'm telling you what I'd do" but that's just made-up nonsense if it's not grounded in reality. You keep on doing this and are effectively not answering my questions at all as a result.

I'm not sure what to say to your claim that you're okay with "child abuse". We're not remotely on common ground - ethically speaking - if you're okay with child abuse. Such abuse leads to serious behavioural, emotional or even mental disorders. How is that "okay"? Are you suggesting we should let parents abuse their children to protect their free speech?

Your questions are a bit silly given that children are regularly placed out of their parental homes due to psychological abuse. It's more difficult to assess than bruises but it's entirely possible. So there's no issue there, parents can appeal in the courts against such decisions but there's already a system in place and a method of establishing such abuse (e.g. disorders of kids the source of which can be found in parental behaviour towards those kids).

benkei - competitive international politics is deeply depressing, isn't it! — iolo

I'm not sure how this relates to my earlier comment. What do you mean?

What your reaction betrays is your and the average American's inability to have a conversation with people you don't agree with. If the US is that hopeless that you can't even muster the effort to engage fellow citizens you're better of moving to Mexico.

I have not found anything remotely trustworthy on this so I find it suspect that this would be the case. There's some American flag waving as a symbol of democracy (weird, I know).