Well now we know for sure who the enemies of the American people are.

[T.Lex]

I actually do believe object to abortion based upon a stance of Liberty. But this isn't the abortion thread. Just thought I would point out that's it's possible.

Fair enough. I don't think that's the basis for most of the "right" opposition to it. (Including my own.)

 

[2A_Tom]

I just noticed this sig line,

Resident Warning Shot Statist.

and was wondering what it means.

 

[T.Lex]

I just noticed this sig line,

Resident Warning Shot Statist.

and was wondering what it means.

I spend (arguably too much) time on INGO.

I think warning shots are a bad idea.

A popular, if opinionated, INGOer called me a "statist" in the relatively early days of my INGOship because of one of my prior jobs in government. I thought it was kinda funny, in an ironic way, so adopted it as part of my sig line. (I think she shootered last year.)

 

[BugI02]

I think using "the left" is vague.

Technically, the further "left" you go (in the US) the more freedom becomes an important principle. Things like prostitution, drug use, abortion on demand - things that the "moral right" object to for reasons other than freedom.

Domestically, I think "progressive" is a better label for that part of the political system. That better captures the gov't-as-do-gooder mentality. Protect ourselves from bad kinds of freedom.

I think you have to extrapolate where the various captains wish to steer the boat (and that's a huge entry point for personal bias). But if you're pulling on the oars, you bear some responsibility for where the boat goes

 

[Woobie]

I quit watching the SOTU a few years back. Very little of the speech is about the actual state of the country after the obligatory opening "the state of the Union is strong!" (And the crowd goes wild) It's just another opportunity for a megalomaniac to make a stump speech, and as a bonus, he can do lip service to a constitutional mandate at the same time. In that way, it is a microcosm of our current system of government. POTUS throws out some softballs that everyone has to agree with, then sneaks in a few from the party line to make his base feel warm and fuzzy.

So is this what the office was meant to be? A grandstander in chief? I submit the great act of disrespect during the SOTU is committed by the man making the speech.

 

[Woobie]

Fair enough. I don't think that's the basis for most of the "right" opposition to it. (Including my own.)

I think you're absolutely right about that.

 

[JettaKnight]

I believe in order to claim not be in an echo chamber, you actually have to listen to the voices/writers that disagree with you. Merely positioning yourself where you can claim some exposure is not sufficient

Well that's not fair - Kut listens to other viewpoints, as evidenced by engaging here. He just doesn't agree, which is not a qualification to escaping the echo chamber.

I guess this is the opposite view of Jamil, but I see the difference that DDrees was simply here to argue, Kut does argue, but in a more open way. Furthermore, I don't imagine that he surrounds himself with like-minded people, IRL. Others here I'm sure eschew any personal interaction with liberals.

Simmering everything down to the point of a popcorn movie is not a wise approach to politics.

I'm sorry the real world is more complicated than simple yes and no answers.

The irony here is that your typical posts can easily be distilled into, "Obama was bad, Trump is good."

 

[T.Lex]

The irony here is that your typical posts can easily be distilled into, "Obama was bad, Trump is good."

 

[jamil]

I'm not sure there is an issue the left has that I agree with. I'm certain there used to be certain principles we had in common and there may still be one or two and we simply disagreed on how best to fulfill or support those principles...but I don't think there are too many principles left we even agree on.

Depends what you mean by “left”. It seems many on what they considered the left are having to ally with some people on the right because the fringes have taken ovet the left. So much to shift the geometric center far enough to make what was once considered left of center, now right.

But I’ll admit that I’d be hard pressed to agree with progressive ideologues on anything. And I’ll also say it’s becoming difficult to agree with right wing ideologues on much.

 

[jamil]

Well that's not fair - Kut listens to other viewpoints, as evidenced by engaging here. He just doesn't agree, which is not a qualification to escaping the echo chamber.

I guess this is the opposite view of Jamil, but I see the difference that DDrees was simply here to argue, Kut does argue, but in a more open way. Furthermore, I don't imagine that he surrounds himself with like-minded people, IRL. Others here I'm sure eschew any personal interaction with liberals.



The irony here is that your typical posts can easily be distilled into, "Obama was bad, Trump is good."

The problem with ideology as a guide to what’re the best policies is ideology is only capable of identifying half the truth and half the falsehoods. It makes your side all good and makes the other side all bad.

 

[Woobie]

The problem with ideology as a guide to what’re the best policies is ideology is only capable of identifying half the truth and half the falsehoods. It makes your side all good and makes the other side all bad.

So if I can't use a political party as a guide to good policies, and I can't use a block of ideologies as the guide, what should I use?

 

[T.Lex]

So if I can't use a political party as a guide to good policies, and I can't use a block of ideologies as the guide, what should I use?

The mainstream media?

 

[2A_Tom]

A moral compass.

 

[Woobie]

The mainstream media?

Phew, you saved me. I thought someone was going to tell me something really crazy.

 

[BugI02]

Well that's not fair - Kut listens to other viewpoints, as evidenced by engaging here. He just doesn't agree, which is not a qualification to escaping the echo chamber.

I guess this is the opposite view of Jamil, but I see the difference that DDrees was simply here to argue, Kut does argue, but in a more open way. Furthermore, I don't imagine that he surrounds himself with like-minded people, IRL. Others here I'm sure eschew any personal interaction with liberals.



The irony here is that your typical posts can easily be distilled into, "Obama was bad, Trump is good."

"Beauty is truth, [and] truth beauty"

 

[BugI02]

The problem with ideology as a guide to what’re the best policies is ideology is only capable of identifying half the truth and half the falsehoods. It makes your side all good and makes the other side all bad.

Well,

“A smart man only believes half of what he hears, a wise man knows which half.”― Jeff Cooper

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Depends what you mean by “left”. It seems many on what they considered the left are having to ally with some people on the right because the fringes have taken ovet the left. So much to shift the geometric center far enough to make what was once considered left of center, now right.

But I’ll admit that I’d be hard pressed to agree with progressive ideologues on anything. And I’ll also say it’s becoming difficult to agree with right wing ideologues on much.

I see what you're saying. I suppose I'm viewing as virtually everything the Democrat party stands for...that left. And I agree and I've even said that progressivism is a disease that infects all the parties of which I'm familiar.

 

[IndyDave1776]

A moral compass.

Is that the one Jack Sparrow uses that doesn't point north?

 

[jamil]

So if I can't use a political party as a guide to good policies, and I can't use a block of ideologies as the guide, what should I use?

What to base it on? What's true, and what's not true? Of course everyone has some ideological bias that sort of guides their values. I'm talking about when ideology prohibits acknowledging what's true and what's not true.

For example, if I am ideologically invested in the idea that the world should be borderless, and so I become an activist, and then a politician and I pursue those policies, that pursuit isn't based on anything that's objectively true. There may be some true things and some false things about it, but a person who is ideologically bent on open borders isn't going to admit the bad or impractical things about it. What ideologue asks how practical it is to do what their ideology says needs done?

Another example is my own ideological beliefs. I tend to lean pretty libertarian on most issues. But I find most libertarians a little insane, because, at some point, there has to be a practical discussion about what those policies would look like and how they would work scaled to a society. Are they practical? In short, no. For example, a pillar in libertarian philosophy is the non-aggression principle. It's interesting to talk about, and would solve many problems, but it's impractical at a society level. It can't be scaled society-wide unless everyone else is a libertarian.

It's just like many other ideologies. They can only be scaled if the society is homogeneous. You can't scale open borders worldwide without creating caos. But try telling an open borders ideologue that and you'll be labeled a bigot.

 

[IndyDave1776]

What to base it on? What's true, and what's not true? Of course everyone has some ideological bias that sort of guides their values. I'm talking about when ideology prohibits acknowledging what's true and what's not true.

For example, if I am ideologically invested in the idea that the world should be borderless, and so I become an activist, and then a politician and I pursue those policies, that pursuit isn't based on anything that's objectively true. There may be some true things and some false things about it, but a person who is ideologically bent on open borders isn't going to admit the bad or impractical things about it. What ideologue asks how practical it is to do what their ideology says needs done?

Another example is my own ideological beliefs. I tend to lean pretty libertarian on most issues. But I find most libertarians a little insane, because, at some point, there has to be a practical discussion about what those policies would look like and how they would work scaled to a society. Are they practical? In short, no. For example, a pillar in libertarian philosophy is the non-aggression principle. It's interesting to talk about, and would solve many problems, but it's impractical at a society level. It can't be scaled society-wide unless everyone else is a libertarian.

It's just like many other ideologies. They can only be scaled if the society is homogeneous. You can't scale open borders worldwide without creating caos. But try telling an open borders ideologue that and you'll be labeled a bigot.

Insightful as usual!