"What have you done to earn your place in this crowded world?" Dr. Kevin Christie
From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> on behalf of glen <geprope...@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, November 6, 2024 at 9:35 AM To: friam@redfish.com <friam@redfish.com> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die You're right that the consequences of anti-liberal (including populist) positions are difficult to unify. But, as you point out, so are the consequences of liberal positions. Liberality requires a kind of universality, the ability to translate some principle across seemingly contradictory consequences (e.g. pro or anti natural gas furnaces). What unifies the anti-liberal left and right is the principle that individuals are less salient than collectives. And that collectivism is also somewhat universal. One can target, say, unified healthcare (a lefty consequence) or unified religion (a righty consequence). But whether it's a target of healthcare or religion, it's still collectivist, anti-liberal, a sacrifice of individuality to the collective. The collectivists could band together around principles that take collectivism seriously, which I don't see as that different from syndicalism, the ability to assemble groups. Disassembly is always a problem, of course. But from a collectivist perspective, disassembly should be difficult. So the lefties and righties I'm talking about *do* very much care about regulatory social systems. They care about them *more* than liberals do. But it's easy to think they don't because they express dissatisfaction with the liberal-based social systems upon which the US (and the Enlightenment, I suppose) are built upon. Protecting some moron's ability to use a leaf blower as long as they pay a tax is liberal. Committing to publicly funded infrastructure like healthy humans is socialist, anti-liberal. The problem with social democracy or democratic socialism is that the liberals want to have the cake and eat it too. They don't want to sacrifice their individuality to the collective. (Or, more honestly, they cherry pick which ones to shame others about.) To be clear, I'm a liberal to the core. The position I'm arguing here has little to do with me, personally. I'm just trying to describe the opportunity I see for the collectivists out there. Luckily, I'll be dead soon. And my liberalism will die with me, making room for the kids to make good with their groupthink. On 11/6/24 09:10, Marcus Daniels wrote: > There’s some unstated assumption you must have. For the lefties and righties > to band together, they’d have to have some basis for a coalition. What is it > beyond the price of milk? For example, as a liberal I’m in favor of high gas > taxes. High gas taxes discourage use of internal combustion cars, thereby > reducing CO2 and mitigating climate change. In California, the taxes on gas > and tolls on bridges help to pay to maintain the roads and mass transit. And > I’d say go ahead and phase out natural gas stoves and furnaces too. Other > liberals I know hate that idea because they believe that will drive up the > cost of living which is already high here. Still other liberals just voted > out the local DA because they thought she was soft on crime. Earlier she was > voted in to give young minorities a fairer shot navigating the legal system. > Liberalism is hardly a rigid system of thought. > > Being inclined to adopt a political philosophy gives scaffolding for what > goals are important, how to achieve those goals, and considerations of the > greater good where one might put aside their selfish interests. What I see in > last night’s results is just collective selfishness. I should want to work > with such people, so they don’t go ahead and burn everything down? I expect > that many of these folks in the rust belt will need Social Security and > Medicare more than I will. By the time I need it, most of my loved ones will > be gone. Yeah, let’s do this! > > Perhaps I am a liberal in your definition and not a lefty because I don’t > care about what happens to them as people (they aren’t my friends or family), > but I do care about the kind of social systems that can be sustained. Actual > conservatives, on the other hand, believe that there is an evolved social > system that is not engineered, but nonetheless is of some quality and should > be protected. The lefties and righties I think you are speaking of don’t care > about regulatory social systems at all. They have diverse goals and values > that perhaps could form coalitions, but do those coalitions that have more > depth than list of grievances? This is the new world: Not just total social > atomization, which would be fine with me, but a lack of modeling of others. > None of that cognitive dissonance to deal with if we must march to the same > drum of Project 2025. > > Marcus > > *From: *Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> on behalf of glen > <geprope...@gmail.com> > *Date: *Wednesday, November 6, 2024 at 7:58 AM > *To: *friam@redfish.com <friam@redfish.com> > *Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die > > It's funny, actually. The overwhelming majority of my liberal friends either > object (through passive aggressive tactics or outright accusations of > "nit-picking") or distance themselves from my "moralizing". Nick once did > this in a vFriAM, suggesting that I'm too willing to jump to discussing the > moral or ethical value/consequence of some sentiment or activity. My attempts > to unpack and demonstrate that their liberalism is *founded* in the > assumption of individuality and organismal agency fall on deaf ears because > they'd rather commit to the in-group and avoid the navel-gazing. > > But in order to distinguish between a lefty and a liberal, you have to dig > down into your navel, pry out the lint, and make an attempt at analyzing > agency, where it lies, how it's [de]constructed, etc. My conservative friends > are more willing to do that than my liberal friends, at least to the extent > of a taxonomy of moralized positions. It's right to do this, wrong to do > that, etc. They're less individualist than the liberals. Although the > liberals actively engage with in-groups and disengage with out-groups, they > drop moralized issues like hot potatoes. > > The opportunity I see in Trump's 2nd term is for the lefties and the righties > to band together against the liberals. With 8 billion people on the planet, > liberalism is a fantasy, or perhaps just a fossilized ideology we have to > grow out of as the old people die. Of course, we could depopulate the earth > and resuscitate liberalism that way. But that sounds more painful than > changing our minds. Hm. Maybe it is easier to kill and die than it is to > change one's mind? IDK. > > On 11/6/24 07:18, Marcus Daniels wrote: >> Harris wasn’t a candidate of the left she was a moderate applying the >> technique of triangulation to get elected to keep our institutions from >> being abused and damaged by an inappropriate candidate. I’m not sure what >> else she could have done short of finding a way to push Biden out earlier. >> As for me, I’m not shedding any liberal tears. In a way I’m looking forward >> to how Trump will betray his voters and the suffering they will feel at his >> hands. They certainly deserve it. >> >> *From: *Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> on behalf of glen >> <geprope...@gmail.com> >> *Date: *Wednesday, November 6, 2024 at 6:58 AM >> *To: *friam@redfish.com <friam@redfish.com> >> *Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die >> >> Just for reference, my antifa friends don't recognize any difference. >> Nothing's changed from yesterday to today. And while that may seem myopic, >> there's a lot of truth to it. Harris is fairly right-leaning with her record >> as a prosecutor in CA, position on fracking, failure to denounce the actions >> of Israel, etc. The local antifa has been active in things like blocking >> ports of entry (particularly for Boeing-related shipments and such). >> DDoSecrets has been steadily accumulating data from bad actors. Unicorn Riot >> consistently publishes about ongoing abuse of indigenous communities. Etc. >> >> W.r.t. deeper changes, a break from status quo *liberalism* (the main >> boogeyman of the lefties), could be hastened by another Trump term. I see it >> as an opportunity for actual lefty strategists (as opposed to a warmed over >> righty like Harris) to design a [de|re]construction plan similar to Project >> 2025, but for sane people. Literally *any* of the tactics used by the Trump >> backers could be used by an organized effort from the left. >> >> But the problem is that those with the real strategy skills aren't >> revolutionaries. As Eric lays out, they're too addicted to the institutional >> game to strategize around or to blast through institutions. That's what >> makes the tiny antifa efforts like blocking ports (for a tiny few hours) or >> breaking windows on main street seem so stupid and indulgent, like the >> temper tantrums of an undisciplined child. >> >> And in this regard, I join both my antifa friends and my MAGA friends in >> scoffing at the liberal tears. If you actually want change, then buck up and >> make it happen. Politics is not a day job you leave at the office at 6pm. >> Granted, I'm a tourist in both of those groups - all groups, actually, and >> would be happier if Harris had won. But being a tourist allows me to say >> such things without too much hypocrisy. >> >> On 11/6/24 02:55, Santafe wrote: >>> A change that I think can happen, and I don’t know how fully it can change >>> in four years, which is the time to find out whether the whole electoral >>> system and federal judiciary can be completely rewired, is that Americans >>> become a lot more like Russians. Small, localized, and trying to hunker >>> down and get through one’s own little day and little life, and not be >>> visible enough to become a target for anything. Everything that is a >>> problem and that needs to change, is a problem because it brings together a >>> lot of actors. To change, it needs coordinated commitments. That’s what >>> wasn’t great in the U.S. already, but gets very very hard in an atomized >>> society. I do expect the bullying and belligerent behavior from the MAGA >>> faction, which has already been getting systematically worse over the past >>> 9 years, to undergo a large increase. Maybe by about the same factor as >>> cannabis use increased when it got legalized, and for sort of similar >>> reasons. There will continue to be people who don’t like it, as there are >>> now, and as there are lots of Chinese who still have global and humane >>> views and don’t like the rise of belligerence being driven in their >>> society, but aren’t doing anything effective against it. >>> > -- ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam <https://bit.ly/virtualfriam> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com <http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ <http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/> archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ <https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ <http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/>
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
