Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MetalSlimeHunt]

There is no possibility of Trump's innocence. He's not a person with a real life or real difficulties, he's Donald J. Trump. We all know him, we've all seen his crimes in broad daylight. To commit to system loyalty so fully as to let him do as he pleases, which he can specifically because he doesn't care and you do, is abject foolishness and morally vacuous.

Trump can't actually be removed from office as is, of course. Congress is full of Republicans who know where their allegiance lies. This is simply advocacy to actually fight the right wing instead of endlessly ceding them ground in the vain hope that someday they'll throw you a treat like the loyal hound you are.

[Dorsidwarf]

I see we’re still trying to get the thread closed. To do my part, I shall call you all poopyheads.

[wierd]

I think you misunderstand;

I am perfectly down with impeaching trump, and prosecuting him for the raft of misdeeds he has committed.  I think this needs to happen.

However, one must not, and must never, "Do what it takes to WIN."  The impeachment process should be performed as a consequence of evidence of malfeasance in office, and not because "We have to WIN, and THEY MUST LOSE."

EG-- We must win at chess, because our strategy is actually valid, and superior to theirs.  Not "Win" at chess, because we upended the table, and denied the opponent to play.

[Dunamisdeos]

I'm with weird here. I fully agree with the above.

For my own part though, Metal, I'm literally watching you employ and advocate for the actual reprehensible tactics you say that only the right considers in their lack of moral fortitude, while you are saying it. No metaphor or coyness here, you are factually describing your own last two posts. I don't know what else to say.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Any reasonable person in the modern world understands that morality is consequential. The right isn't evil because of their tactics, they're evil because of their values and the results thereof. Their tactics are generally quite sound, which is why they tend to control things. The only strength that liberalism has against this is that they don't disagree with the economics of the right, at least not beyond reconciliation.

If wierd wants to make things about chess, then the right is a man playing chess against a liberal who doesn't take pieces because it would be in poor sport for them to actually win.

You want to be the good guy here? Put us in a place where we can actually have healthcare for everybody, or stop pigs from murdering on the daily, or stop the ecological collapse, instead of just dreaming about it and following the rules that were so carefully handed down to you by previous generations of right-wing assholes.

[wierd]

I believe you will see that basically all of us have railed against "Corporate democrats."

EG, democrats who's real constituency is not the american people, but instead american corporations and american banks.  Those things you railed about? They are the consequence of one-sided politics, where those demographics have gotten everything they wanted, instead of being denied.

(EG, deadly and powertripping cops, powertripping and killing innocent people, because their malign view of the public goes uncontested, and they have been given every tool of subjugation they have asked for.  People without healthcare exist because the insurance providers and medical associations got everything they wanted in regards to profitability. Etc.)


Continuing the chess analogy-- It is not that these gentlemen are too genteel to risk upset by taking enemy pieces, it is that they have been instructed to throw the game by the bookies.

[Lord Shonus]

No. Wierd is a guy insisting on playing by the rules of chess and taking pieces only when the rules allow, instead of trying to sneak pieces off the board when his opponent isn't looking. You are a guy who is insisting "They other guy doesn't deserve to win this chess game, so cheat as much as you can - and if that isn't enough, pull out a gun and blow him away".

"We know he's guilty, so lock him up even if we can't prove it" is only a few steps -a few short steps- from building gulags and re-education camps for anybody that doesn't bow to your obvious wisdom. It is a door that should NEVER be opened in a modern democracy, and anybody trying to open it should be stopped.

[Dunamisdeos]

To wit, Lord Shonus is demonstrably right via historical proof about opening that particular door, and if morality is consequential then Metal your argument is the farthest thing from moral. You aren't wrong about the things that need to change, such as healthcare or police violence, but your argument specifically venerates winning over consequence.

I'm going to be presumptuous here, and I apologize on principle for that, but I think you've lost hope that it's possible to make progress without employing the same values that make the alt-right wrong in the first place. If that's true, and it isn't possible to make progress without those values, then they aren't wrong in the first place. And I don't believe that, and I think really you don't either.

EDIT: I'm off for the night, and I'm not trying to talk down to you at all. I'm not above you. I'm primarily speaking from my own experience having been in some grimdark places in my life.

[birdy51]

Reminds me of the theory of universality(Or something like that, I can't remember if that is the name or not." If I do X, and everybody else did X too, would the world be a better place?

[wierd]

More Prisoner's Dilemma

It is demonstrably true that if both prisoners tell the inspector to get stuffed, they will both walk free.  However, there is incentive to snitch on the other, Because of this, both snitch. And both go to jail.


In this case, the liberals refuse to snitch, because it leads to the insightful outcome.  The conservatives know that they will do this unerringly, and bank on it. They win because of it. They snitch on them to the inspector, and get the deal, without also being ruined.

MSL is pointing out that we should also snitch.  Never mind that this is the worst possible outcome.  It is NOT "winning."  It is only losing terribly, and ensuring the other side also loses.

[Trekkin]

It's also just a nonstarter on tactical grounds. To continue the chess analogy, you trade pieces when you're ahead in material, not behind.

Or, in more blunt terms, if you start down the road to gulags, they'll happily take that as license to follow -- and they're better at it, having most of the land and guns and lynch mobs already.

[Rolan7]

I understand wanting to believe in "the rules", even treat them as moral imperatives.  I feel that urge very strongly, I want life to work that way.  I'd say I often *need* it to work that way.

But rules like "never lie" or "never kill" just don't work in every situation.  Possibly the most famous is:  "Is it then evil to lie to Nazis if you're hiding people from them?"

Any reasonable person in the modern world understands that morality is consequential. The right isn't evil because of their tactics, they're evil because of their values and the results thereof. Their tactics are generally quite sound, which is why they tend to control things. The only strength that liberalism has against this is that they don't disagree with the economics of the right, at least not beyond reconciliation.

If wierd wants to make things about chess, then the right is a man playing chess against a liberal who doesn't take pieces because it would be in poor sport for them to actually win.

You want to be the good guy here? Put us in a place where we can actually have healthcare for everybody, or stop pigs from murdering on the daily, or stop the ecological collapse, instead of just dreaming about it and following the rules that were so carefully handed down to you by previous generations of right-wing assholes.

This is how it is ^

The chess analogy works like this:  We're playing it for people's lives.  Our main opponents are distributed AIs running on wetware, or stubborn old people who only seek their own immortality through building dynastic power.  They cheat without fear, because they're jaded or literally inhuman.  Cheating is so common and poorly policed that it's really just part of the meta.  Not to mention the distasteful moves which aren't technically cheating (campaign finance reform when).

I want to argue that it's better to follow rules in general, because it helps one maintain an internal integrity which is perceived by others.  I really want to say that, but that's so fricken naive.  It's a lie, a trap set to make the compassionate players hobble themselves.

There are actual discussions to be had about politics, but they don't really happen in the calcified circus of US Congress.  Change starts at the local level and works up.

PS: An example of pragmatic thinking might be *not* impeaching Trump.  By the rules he obviously deserves to be impeached, and thrown in a hole for the rest of his life.  That would be the just thing, the right thing.
But if that happens, we just get Mike Pence as President, which is just advancing a Republican pawn to queen   (as opposed to the Monopoly shoe they currently have)

Should I ignore justice and be relieved that Trump's going to stay in power?  This is truly some 4D chess.

[Folly]

Is it then evil to lie to Nazis if you're hiding people from them?

Lies are always evil. But they are often the lesser evil. A harsh truth can be far more cruel than a gentle lie.

[sluissa]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_ratio

[bloop_bleep]

There is no possibility of Trump's innocence. He's not a person with a real life or real difficulties, he's Donald J. Trump. We all know him, we've all seen his crimes in broad daylight. To commit to system loyalty so fully as to let him do as he pleases, which he can specifically because he doesn't care and you do, is abject foolishness and morally vacuous.

What crimes, exactly, did he commit in broad daylight?

I'm no fan of almost anything he does, either, but my belief in maintaining the integrity of democracy is stronger. Impeachment is only meant to answer claims of actual crimes, which are things whose truthfulness can be objectively decided upon, unlike claims of "doing incorrect politics" which are entirely subjective.

Society only survives by maintaining agreed upon rules on its members. Laws are nothing but ink on paper if people don't agree on enforcing them, even when others violate them. If every time an Alice robbed a Bob's house, Bob would start robbing houses "because she did it!", everything would collapse, would it not? Imprisoning people for supporting a political view that you just happen to disagree with is exactly the definition of dictatorship.

EDIT:

Is it then evil to lie to Nazis if you're hiding people from them?

Lies are always evil. But they are often the lesser evil. A harsh truth can be far more cruel than a gentle lie.

My belief is the "least evil" is not evil at all, and that one should not be punished for doing it. After all, choosing the "least evil" means acting as morally ideal as possible, does it not? So, no, it would not be evil at all to lie to Nazis in that case, and in fact would be very good.