What Now

[Hound of Heaven]

The progressives became overly confident, believing they had secured the Democratic Party's base, and attempted to persuade average Americans that a significant portion of the country consists of Nazis, fascists, misogynists, racists, and transphobes. The progressives transformed into precisely what they claim to oppose, becoming the bully in the room. Their arrogance and pride obscured their judgment, leading them to believe that everyone in America would be better off adopting the same beliefs and lifestyle they have chosen for themselves. The progressive movement has come to view everything deemed good and beneficial in the world as a direct result of their efforts. You accomplished that in your post.

Not sure what to think of that. Without "progressives" willing to shout "slavery is evil" against a majority position, we'd still be engaged in the practice. Everyone in America is better off when freedom is all inclusive.

To me this election affirms some of this "nationalists (edit mine), misogynists, racists, and transphobe". And what we have seen after the election confirms this.

Belief informs action. A plurality of Americans are Christian. A 2022 Pew poll result shows that 37% of Americans still think gay marriage is a "net bad". You can't tell me that belief does not influence voting, especially when one candidate has an past administration that has a history of filing amicus briefs against anti discrimination in the work place for gays, and whose policies include attacks on funding for institutions that have trans affirmative policies.

Fear of difference. “The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus Ur-Fascism is racist by definition.”

We have voting patterns I suspect by folks who don't think they are homophobic, they have beliefs where homosexuality is a sin, so the vote for the candidate that echoes that sentiment. The pew poll above to me that is tacit admission 37% of America is defacto homophobic.

My computer keeps dying mid post, and I think I am in edit insanity.

Could you please elaborate on your perspective regarding the progressive movement within the Democratic Party? This would help me engage more effectively with your post. In your view, do the majority of progressives consider themselves to be democrats? I view myself as a traditional democrat, so my perspective on the progressive movement may be somewhat biased when I describe it as the far left fringe of the democratic party. Do you think my assessment of how the progressive movement is perceived within the party is off base? I would appreciate hearing from several individuals if they believe it would enhance my perspective on the progressive movement. I currently attribute the loss to Trump directly to the progressives.

[¥akaSteelhead]

As an independent I really don't pay attention to the various niches inside the democrat party. I just see that we have voted to double down on a number of societal malfeasances and don't agree with the assessment that pointing that these fires need put out for the betterment of the country at large is "bullying", especially when the other side of the aisle seems intent on continually adding logs.

[Gadianton]

The Democratic Party was once viewed as the champion for the everyday man and woman who sought to maintain their employment, secure a solid healthcare plan, and ensure a comfortable retirement

And how do you think Democrats can realistically provide this? Trump just lies and lies and lies (per his VP), and misdirects; he can say whatever he wants. If he can't bring back coal, at least he can deport a few immigrants to make people feel better. Democrats might do better with the right candidate and messaging (it's tough to compete with high-energy fascism). But just because they message to the working class doesn't mean they can do anything for them. Maybe your point was they already sold out -- well, how would globalization realistically have been prevented? I don't think Democrats could have realistically provided for what you think that they should provide for the long term.

You don't like progressives, but Bernie Sanders is the only candidate I can think of who has innovative policy ideas that even the playing field. Sure, they seem unrealistic, but nothing realistic is going to fix income inequality. It's income and wealth inequality that is the driving factor of populism and fascism, in my view. We can win by lying ourselves and then being less bad than the alternative. But that's about all.

(by the way, I'm not a progressive or consider myself a Democrat)

[drumdude]

The Democratic Party was once viewed as the champion for the everyday man and woman who sought to maintain their employment, secure a solid healthcare plan, and ensure a comfortable retirement

And how do you think Democrats can realistically provide this? Trump just lies and lies and lies (per his VP), and misdirects; he can say whatever he wants. If he can't bring back coal, at least he can deport a few immigrants to make people feel better. Democrats might do better with the right candidate and messaging (it's tough to compete with high-energy fascism). But just because they message to the working class doesn't mean they can do anything for them. Maybe your point was they already sold out -- well, how would globalization realistically have been prevented? I don't think Democrats could have realistically provided for what you think that they should provide for the long term.

You don't like progressives, but Bernie Sanders is the only candidate I can think of who has innovative policy ideas that even the playing field. Sure, they seem unrealistic, but nothing realistic is going to fix income inequality. It's income and wealth inequality that is the driving factor of populism and fascism, in my view. We can win by lying ourselves and then being less bad than the alternative. But that's about all.

(by the way, I'm not a progressive or consider myself a Democrat)

Both the left and right have done a great job trying to portray Bernie Sanders as too extremely liberal.

His policies are very common sense and achievable. Single payer healthcare is completely doable if we didn’t have special interests fighting it.

[Dr Exiled]

And how do you think Democrats can realistically provide this? Trump just lies and lies and lies (per his VP), and misdirects; he can say whatever he wants. If he can't bring back coal, at least he can deport a few immigrants to make people feel better. Democrats might do better with the right candidate and messaging (it's tough to compete with high-energy fascism). But just because they message to the working class doesn't mean they can do anything for them. Maybe your point was they already sold out -- well, how would globalization realistically have been prevented? I don't think Democrats could have realistically provided for what you think that they should provide for the long term.

You don't like progressives, but Bernie Sanders is the only candidate I can think of who has innovative policy ideas that even the playing field. Sure, they seem unrealistic, but nothing realistic is going to fix income inequality. It's income and wealth inequality that is the driving factor of populism and fascism, in my view. We can win by lying ourselves and then being less bad than the alternative. But that's about all.

(by the way, I'm not a progressive or consider myself a Democrat)

Both the left and right have done a great job trying to portray Bernie Sanders as too extremely liberal.

His policies are very common sense and achievable. Single payer healthcare is completely doable if we didn’t have special interests fighting it.

The Democrats sold out to Wall Street donors, and these donors can only handle so much populism at once and so won't support Bernie like policies. Although that is what the Democrats need to do.

[Jersey Girl]

If you’re looking for a bright idea about where to go from here now that the tyranny of the majority (a phrase that will disappear from MAGA vocabulary until they find themselves on the wrong end of a vote) has sentenced all to live in Trumpland, I am sorry to disappoint you. I got nothing.

Well, I have something, but it’s not something I’m going to try and sell to anyone but myself. Despite my best efforts to the contrary, I cannot escape the conclusion that our civilization is terminal. I think that where we are right now is a living solution to the Fermi paradox. We are changing the world so fast that traits that were adaptive in the past are now maladaptive. And we can’t fix that because evolution takes time and we simply don’t have time for evolution to make us adaptive to the world in which we find ourselves.

Climate change sets us a hard deadline, although we can’t identify it exactly. The surface temperature is hotter now than at any time since human civilization developed. Our entire modern civilization was founded and developed during a period of stable climate — stability that we’ve now shattered.

That places our brains in unknown territory. The notion that we could destroy our civilization by just going about living our daily lives is a risk we’re not equipped to deal with in a rational manner. We don’t want to believe it. It requires us to put aside all the cognitive biases that we evolved to help us function in a very different world. Solving the problem requires us to put aside the in group cooperation/out group competition strategy that has served us for thousands of years and think of ourselves as belonging to a single global tribe. But we just aren’t wired for that.

What brought this home for me is the sheer number of people who are convinced that the US is in the midst of a crime wave when, by any objective measure, that’s 100% false. What that says to me is that what science has learned about how the brain works, our cognitive biases, and human psychology have been weaponized against us by smart people who know how easily our reasoning is hijacked. But our brains don’t want to believe that we can be manipulated like that. To do so, I’m guessing, would cripple us in terms of making quick, life or death decisions. Doubting our perceptions when we think we see evidence of a lion would turn us into a tasty meal. Too much uncertainty and doubt might have been fatal 100,000 years ago.

So, our brains tell ourselves that we perceive the world accurately and that anyone who sees it differently is wrong. We’re right because we just are. And anyone who disagrees must be defective in some way. But that’s false consciousness. We may need that confidence to stay sane, but it’s dooming us now.

Propaganda works. At least we think it works on the other guy. We can see it working. But we all think that we have some superpower that helps us cut through all the crap. But that’s false consciousness. It is very hard for an individual to set aside their cognitive biases and reason their way to a good answer. In fact, I don’t think it’s possible alone. Getting to a good answer is a team project. And the team has to view reasoning as a group project that requires each member to call BS on bad thinking and to respond without offense to having BS called on them. It requires a mutual trust in each other to do the best they can to problem solve and get to the best answer possible.

We can do that if we work hard at it, but we’re not wired for it. It requires not only acting in good faith but also presuming that others are also acting in good faith. That’s hard, even among like minded folks.

In the US, We have two huge political tribes at war with one another. Resolving differences generally requires starting from some common ground. But our tribes live in such different information ecosystems that finding common ground often feels impossible. We’re in the post-modern swamp where any claim can be a fact because I say it is. Everything is stories, with no grounding in any agreed facts. Conservatives who recoil in horror at the thought of postmodernism are actually trapped in it like everyone else.

How do we navigate through this postmodern morass? Just the way I said. The foundation is trust. And, sadly, there is money to be made and elections to be won by getting us to distrust each other. It’s not a shadowy conspiracy. It’s people with lots of money doing what comes naturally — making more money.

So, our scientific knowledge and technology have given us ways to create false worlds for each other. Social media algorithms are designed to get us to buy stuff. Gun manufacturers manipulate our fears in a way that gets us to buy stuff we don’t need. And campaigns microtarget specific demographics with advertising designed to make us angry and fearful. There are no problems, only crises.

There is a clip circulating of a student at ASU saying that she voted for Trump because he would not pass a national abortion bill. How did the guy that killed the constitutional right to an abortion become a protector of abortion rights? The answer is in survey results that showed a significant chunk of people think that Biden was responsible for the loss of the right to an abortion. You can almost imagine how this works: microtarget R women who are pro choice. Tell them that Roe was reversed on Biden’s watch and that Trump will leave the question to the states. Technically true, but leaves out the fact that Trump intentionally selected judges who would overturn Roe. And if your brain is predisposed to like Trump, that’s good enough.

So, how do we solve the climate problem before the bottom drops out? I don’t think we can. Getting people to recognize how easily we are fooled and how fragile our reasoning abilities are is a near impossible task. Our sense of being confidently right is just too strong. Building the necessary relationship based on trust takes time. If I can’t do that with Ajax or Ceeboo, how can I possibly do that with someone in Iran or Israel or Palestine or China or Burma or Uganda.

Evolution just didn’t equip us for that.

So, if human civilization is terminal, what is a poor sentient bit of carbon to do? What’s the point? And I think this is where atheism gives me a way forward. Like every other atheist, I’ve had to wrestle with “if death is permanent, life has no meaning.” I think most get to a similar place: we all give life its meaning. We all do it in basically the same way, even if some of us experience it as coming from an external source. We create the meaning.

The death of our civilization doesn’t change that. Everyone dies. Everything dies. Civilizations are borne and eventually die. That they have a finite lifetime doesn’t render them without meaning. Our civilization is terminal and that’s okay.

So, what should the sentient bit of carbon named Res Ipsa do in a terminal civilization? I think something like hospice care. I don’t think that civilization will go gently into that good night. I’m guessing it will be a slow and painful death. People are suffering and that will only get worse. So, my answer is to reduce suffering anywhere I can. Stop worrying about things I can never hope to change and do my own personal harm reduction where I can find the opportunity to do so. And, if I pay attention, there are all kinds of opportunities.

And if it turns out that Civilization is more resilient than I thought, the downside is that I will have given my life meaning through the interaction I have with others. And that’s enough for me.

Which is my long winded way of saying so long and thanks for all the fish. I can’t be a hospice worker hanging around the internet. I’ve got to get out of my head and start paying more attention to real life. Otherwise, I just miss stuff.

I suspect I’ll drop in from time to time to see how everyone’s doing. But I’ve asked to be released from my calling so I won’t have any duties here.

Being here has helped me think through lots of tough stuff that I’ve never expressly talked about. And every one of you that I’ve interacted with has been a part of that. I don’t think that there is anyone I’ve chatted or argued with that hasn’t changed me in some way for the good. So, thanks for that.

Some of you know where to find me. For those that don’t, you can e-mail me through the system. I’m not cancelling my account or anything.

And, as Shades says, see you tomorrow.

RI

You were born to shine...

Thomas Rhett ft. Reba McEntire & Chris Tomlin "Be A Light (Live from the CMA Awards 2020)”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQ-m57LI1zA

[canpakes]

Which is my long winded way of saying so long and thanks for all the fish. I can’t be a hospice worker hanging around the internet. I’ve got to get out of my head and start paying more attention to real life. Otherwise, I just miss stuff.

Seriously? I’ve seen you multitask before. : (

[Dr. Shades]

Nazis were no different, if they could have taken over without bloodshed they would have.

They DID take over without bloodshed.

[canpakes]

I have another thought regarding what you asked me yesterday. You inquired about the definition of a Nazi. What exactly is a Nazi? Does a Nazi cease to be a Nazi simply because the election has concluded? Does a fascist cease to be a fascist once the election concludes? Now that the election has concluded, there are only a few progressives labeling Trump supporters as Nazis and fascists, in contrast to the period leading up to the election. Clearly, a sufficient number of Republicans and rational Democrats recognized that Trump and his supporters were neither Nazis nor fascists. Even Californians were skeptical of the notion that Republicans are Nazis, as evidenced by 10 counties that shifted from blue to red.

Are these two the same thing? They have different names.

Nazis are Nazis, and MAGA are MAGA. These are historical labels. It’s best not to be distracted by arguing over what the name itself means, while the actions go unexamined.

Given what we’ve seen brewing in some corners of MAGA - and with your warnings about the extremes of any party becoming the controlling force within it - how does America avoid a similar path or actions being committed, regardless of the name attached to the people doing so?

I don’t fear that MAGA is fixin’ to follow the same playbook as the GNSWP of 1933. But the unsavory elements within it represent as great - if not a greater - danger to American society as, say, transgender bathrooms.

The (Democratic) party currently focuses on individuals crossing the border unlawfully, those who evade tax obligations, and men who identify as women. They are attempting to persuade us that abortion holds greater significance than employment, the cost of groceries, and the price of gas.

To be fair, abortion is regulated by law, and has been a focal point of Republican Party efforts for elimination for decades. I don’t see the logic of telling the Democratic Party to ignore it. And many Democratic Party leaders are probably aware of the fact that Presidents really can’t do much of anything to change the cost of groceries or gasoline, because the nation runs on capitalism and ‘free markets’, and is subject to global influences.

But trying to get the average voter to know and/or accept those limitations is likely a difficult task.

[dantana]

Which is my long winded way of saying so long and thanks for all the fish.

RI

Yabut, yabut, what about us Res? It's duck season here in the north west end of Shady acres, and I'm not talking college football. The rains have set in. We need your rays of sunlight otherwise it's going to be like Nome on the solstice.

Anyway, I've noticed that my cognitive abilities work better when I participate on here. So, unless you're getting a brain workout by like, being an atty. or something, Oh wait...