The Political & Philosophy Thread

[rms]

Samantha Bee isn't a "minority position" among the left.

I would say the love for FDR's ABC policies trumps anything else he did in office, which then makes the Jew-critique a minority position

 

[Einherjar86]

trumps

As my academic advisor says, "not this year."

I'm sure that most (if not all) of those who do approve of FDR's economic policies don't approve of his refusal to accept Jewish refugees. It's not a minority position at all, it's just not the most frequently discussed one.

 

[Dak]

Discovered Alain de Botton. Very much enjoying his various speeches/talks.

 

[CiG]

And it's actually not an illegal vs. homegrown issue, since most Islamic extremism in the US is done by US citizens. So it's usually homegrown vs. homegrown. Personally, I want protection agencies to address all forms of terrorism, as any reasonable citizen should. When you start dismissing some forms of terrorism, it makes me question.

Well more specifically the issue is between citizens a few generations deep into being Americans vs. immigrants, or the children of immigrants.

When you have Steve Bannon in your cabinet, it makes really start to question.

Because he's the CEO of Breitbart?

I don't believe I ever said that he has passed laws targeting all Muslims, as he obviously hasn't. However, the claim isn't hysterical since he's clearly called for a ban on all Muslims in the past. The difference is you think we should ignore what he said during the campaign. I disagree.

I don't think what he's said in the past should be ignored whatsoever, just that people aren't making a distinction between what he has said and what he is doing or has done.

I'm gonna go a slightly deeper on explaining why this is just lazy pseudo-intellectualism by you. By relying on a data dump from a website with a clear agenda, you are essentially letting them cherry pick from dozens of surveys to create the narrative they want to create. Then, it appears, you uncritically consumed it. Obviously, it would take hours to go through all the surveys and analyze them, and I doubt you did so. However, in letting someone else do the work for you, you're letting someone manipulate a narrative for you.

For example, the first survey link I clicked on was for the following statement.

Then, when we add it that the website didn't even offer data on some of the biggest Muslim countries (for example, I saw no links to articles on India, which has the second largest Muslim population in the world), and your theory about the general Muslim populous hating America is utterly unsubstantiated.

I was just trying to give an overview, you're definitely thinking too deep into my motives. But since you specifically mentioned India (I assume you actually meant Pakistan) here:

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/12/15/do-muslims-around-the-world-really-hate-the-united-states/

Meanwhile, in Pakistan, home to the third-largest Muslim population in the world, 62 percent of the public say they have an unfavorable view of America. But such negative views are down from a high of 73 percent in 2011.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

Well more specifically the issue is between citizens a few generations deep into being Americans vs. immigrants, or the children of immigrants.

That's not what you were getting at before at all. Give up the ghost.

But while I'm looking, I think it's important to point out that even if right-wing extremist terrorism is a greater threat, the difference is our countries are not bringing in people from countries with high rates of white right-wing radicalisation, it's the illegal immigrant criminals vs homegrown criminals argument all over again.

The bolded part was what you emphasized in the original post.

Because he's the CEO of Breitbart?

If you combine the direction that website went in under his management with what he's said in interviews and what he's been accused of, you would have to be utterly naive to not question his motives when it comes to issues on race and religion.

Do a little research into this dude. He's constantly talking about all out war with China and "Islamic World." He's talked about both being inevitable and describes them in terms of culture wars against the "Christian West." To have someone like this so deep into the White House is beyond dangerous.

I was just trying to give an overview, you're definitely thinking too deep into my motives. But since you specifically mentioned India (I assume you actually meant Pakistan) here:

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/12/15/do-muslims-around-the-world-really-hate-the-united-states/

No I meant India, which has over 10% of the world's Muslim population. You learn something new every day!

 

[crimsonfloyd]

Moving away from Trump 24-7 for a sec, there's corruption happening elsewhere in this nation. Have any of you tracked what happened in South Dakota with their anti-corruption law? Long story short, the law would ban politicians from taking lobbying gifts totaling over $100 per year. It passed on a ballot measure in November. Then, the politicians were so devastated that they were gonna lose their freebies that they called a state of emergency and reversed the bill. A state of emergency because you couldn't get your handouts?

http://www.salon.com/2017/01/25/sou...n-political-coup-against-anti-corruption-law/

Since then the governor has ratified the reversal. Hopefully the South Dakota Supreme Court comes down on the side of the people when it inevitably gets there.

 

[rms]

ted cruz started a bill to limit terms for senators and house of reps, max 2 terms. I imagine that bill died too since I haven't heard about it

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Do a little research into this dude. He's constantly talking about all out war with China and "Islamic World." He's talked about both being inevitable and describes them in terms of culture wars against the "Christian West." To have someone like this so deep into the White House is beyond dangerous.

Regarding China, it's something he said before he was even part of the Trump campaign, and it wasn't inaccurate, as evidenced by Clinton's "We discovered Japan" remark.

 

[Dak]

China is a threat, and radical Islam is a threat, and they are threats that prior US foreign policy created. I also think any hot war with China is already lost, while any hot war with radical Islam cannot be won (very important distinctions).

 

[CiG]

That's not what you were getting at before at all. Give up the ghost.

The bolded part was what you emphasized in the original post.

Yes, the bolded part is the argument had about illegal immigrant criminals from Mexico, I wasn't saying the terrorist argument was the exact same, I was saying both arguments are the same in that people always use the same logic to justify bringing in more criminals; that the native population is more criminal therefore stop picking on the outsiders and just let them in. I was pointing out that both arguments use a trope as a defense.

Most terrorists that aren't right-wing white racists/whatever are either born elsewhere and come over with their family (eg Boston marathon bombers) or are born shortly after their family arrives (Pulse Club shooter, who has a very questionable father too).

 

[tagradh]

Apparently the media aren't giving enough coverage to terror attacks.

Haha. So, ignoring that this is total bollocks, it follows that what Trump and co. want is excessive, voyeuristic, blanket coverage of attacks (i.e. what we already get). Who cares if that's exactly what terrorists want? Who cares if that leads to an increase in attacks?

 

[CiG]

Covering attacks leads to more attacks?

 

[Einherjar86]

Covering attacks leads to more attacks?

Theoretically yes, since terrorism is inextricable from the media it relies upon for exposure. Terrorism is a modern phenomenon, and emerged largely after World War Two, at which point tele-technologies were in full swing. Terrorist attacks not only inflict violence on an unsuspecting public, but they permeate media coverage - this is part of the terrorist plot: to spread images of their acts. Furthermore, they videotape and transmit their own practices (from executions to training exercises), which both promotes their message and instills fear in the wider public. So I would say yes, covering terror attacks contributes to their effectiveness and likely inspires more.

Practically, however, media coverage might actually lower terrorist violence, although probably not in the way we expect. Basically, if terrorists were actually aware of how crucial the media is to their actions, they could manipulate their perception in the media without causing any significant harm. There's a great quote from William Gibson's Neuromancer about the close relationship between terrorism and the media. There's a group called the Panther Moderns who are effectively a simulated terrorist organization - they realize the extent to which terrorism relies on media coverage, and so they don't have to commit any serious violence in order to create terror:

The Panther Moderns differ from other terrorists precisely in their degree of self-consciousness, in their awareness of the extent to which media divorce the act of terrorism from the original sociopolitical intent...

The quote in the novel is longer, but this gets to the core of it.

 

[CiG]

I don't think I agree that terrorism emerged largely after WWII, unless we're talking about some very specific definition I'm not really aware of, but sure I understand what you're saying.

Spreading the images aides in spreading the fear and so on. But has the increase in media really actually been shown to improve and increase terrorist activity or is this just some hypothetical common sense thing you're throwing out there?

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't think I agree that terrorism emerged largely after WWII, unless we're talking about some very specific definition I'm not really aware of, but sure I understand what you're saying.

You can trace the history of modern terror back to the Reign of Terror under Robespierre during the French Revolution, but these were heads of state. Prior to this you have isolated incidents like the Gunpowder Plot or the Boston Tea Party, but these aren't non-state incidents - they're examples of state actors inciting unrest from within.

Non-state terrorism (i.e. terrorist groups that are not officially affiliated with any nation-state) didn't really appear until after WWII, and international terrorism is even more recent. As we understand it today, terrorism is a reaction to modernity.

If you have a pattern of examples of non-state terrorism prior to WWII, that would be a place to start...

Spreading the images aides in spreading the fear and so on. But has the increase in media really actually been shown to improve and increase terrorist activity or is this just some hypothetical common sense thing you're throwing out there?

I wouldn't call it common sense, mainly because I don't like the phrase. I don't think it's intuitive that media has increased terrorism, and I also don't think you can draw a direct correlation. Furthermore, you can't prove that media and terrorism are intertwined because in order to do so you would need to subtract one or the other; but as our history has shown, media and non-state terrorism rose alongside one another, meaning we have significant evidence that they're related.

Given the typical assertions of cultural theory, it's easy to fall into the trap that everything is connected to everything else (which, even if it's an accurate statement, isn't a very helpful one). In the case of terrorism and the media, however, I would suggest that their unconscious, even automatic, convergence bespeaks their cultural relation.

The extent of our knowledge regarding terrorism's relation to the media probably didn't form until after 9/11, when the towers falling became one of the most powerful images in Western culture. I think that a lot of scholars are correct when they say that the terrorists weren't only interested in physical violence (although this was part of it) - they were interested in creating an image that would haunt media culture for years (as it has).

 

[CiG]

If you have a pattern of examples of non-state terrorism prior to WWII, that would be a place to start...

I found this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_non-state_terrorist_incidents

I wouldn't call it common sense, mainly because I don't like the phrase. I don't think it's intuitive that media has increased terrorism, and I also don't think you can draw a direct correlation. Furthermore, you can't prove that media and terrorism are intertwined because in order to do so you would need to subtract one or the other; but as our history has shown, media and non-state terrorism rose alongside one another, meaning we have significant evidence that they're related.

Given the typical assertions of cultural theory, it's easy to fall into the trap that everything is connected to everything else (which, even if it's an accurate statement, isn't a very helpful one). In the case of terrorism and the media, however, I would suggest that their unconscious, even automatic, convergence bespeaks their cultural relation.

The extent of our knowledge regarding terrorism's relation to the media probably didn't form until after 9/11, when the towers falling became one of the most powerful images in Western culture. I think that a lot of scholars are correct when they say that the terrorists weren't only interested in physical violence (although this was part of it) - they were interested in creating an image that would haunt media culture for years (as it has).

I think we're talking about different things here. I fully understand that terrorism relies on symbolism and images and with the rise of the visual media it's become easier to use images to terrorise people, but the claim was specifically that reporting the news increases terrorist activity, not that it increases terrorist proficiency and I just think this is a flawed claim. I think extensive reporting on terrorism could deglamorise the idea of joining the terror organisations, as much as it might draw recruits in.

I think there is a good case to be made for journalism reform, because if our news outlets are reporting on terrorism in a symbolic manner, maybe it might make it easier for the terrorists to use it for propaganda or at least call it out for being false.

Since you've admitted it can't be proven one way or the other, I'll just cede the point.

Also I guess I much more protest to the idea implied in @tagradh's comment that we shouldn't be reporting on terror attacks. Strange mentality to have.

 

[Einherjar86]

I found this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_non-state_terrorist_incidents

Thanks. So clearly there are examples even before the twentieth century.

I would only note the drastic increase in episodes immediately prior to, and following, WWII. I don't think it's a coincidence that non-state terrorism explodes (pun not intended) at the same time that international telecommunications and broadcast media emerge as interconnected global networks.

But seeing as this is correlation, and not necessarily causation, I don't think their association justifies any ethical proposal to avoid reporting on terrorism. I do think the media gorges itself on the threat of terror attacks, and realized attacks are like a hit of cocaine for CNN and FOX; but their addiction to terrorist anxiety doesn't translate into an argument for not covering terrorist attacks.

So, not really much of a disagreement, I don't think.

 

[CiG]

I apologise for being a shittier than usual debate partner by the way. I've had an intense resurgence in my interest in Warhammer 40,000 lately and it's like I can barely muster up enough interest and energy to read political links etc.

 

[rms]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-organic&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social

The table of contents says it all:

• Attending college does not close the racial wealth gap.
• Raising children in a two-parent household does not close the racial wealth gap.
• Working full time does not close the racial wealth gap.
• Spending less does not close the racial wealth gap.

 

[Dak]

Would have been nice if the original research were available. Link is broken for the Duke link. Based on the demos.org link, it's not super compelling (at least they used the median instead of the mean). They didn't appear to control for anything (may not have been able to based on the data set), "some college" is very different from "completed college", and "full time" employment doesn't mean much.