Compromise

[Montmorency]

Compromise (OED)



8.II.8 ‘To put to the hazard of being censured’ (Phillips); to expose (oneself, one's own or another's reputation, credit, or interests) to risk or danger, to imperil; to involve in a hazardous course, to commit (oneself).

What's so great about compromise, and why isn't it considered a last resort in the exhaustion of other options? Why is the mere presence of compromise, rather than the content or subject, valorized?

Politics
Compromise stripped down is a function of votes. If something is worth passing into law, it is worth not compromising. Compromise is only tolerable when goals are shared. Compromise is not any kind of worthwhile ideal in itself. Often, compromise and bipartisan effort produces some of this country's worst legislation.

Life
You only compromise when:
1. You care more about your relationship with the other agent(s) than the object under compromise.
2. You have no strong preference. Any of small factors could determine the outcome. (Is it really then "compromise"?)
3. You are being coerced or commanded.


Upon inspection, the two spheres aren't so distinct.


Beyond the 'electionism-as-ideology' of the New Democrats, when and how did people get it in their heads that compromise is valuable and laudable?

Now that's what you call "political correctness".

Be cautious in referencing the English tradition or the early Republic's statesmen, as they found compromise first and foremost preferable to open bloodshed (until compromise failed, to the bemusement of some (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chapman/ct-john-kelly-civil-war-compromise-20171031-story.html)).

"Moderation" is distinct from compromise (though equally nebulous as a value and buzzword).

Taking into account the needs of minorities is distinct from compromise, and I would advance that compromise tends to be inimical to the interests of most minorities except in those cases where the majority has a material interest in preventing non-participation or sabotage by those minorities. In land management, it could correspond to a bunch of owners whose plots border each other. In fragile societies, it could correspond to the mitigation of recurrent ethnic/sectarian insurgencies. In mature societies, what we see is the political cartelization of consensus-making, where the actors that can form majorities or minorities among one another far outstrip the average private individuals, who are not the owners or users of the system.

[Furunculus]

As I have begun to typify myself:
I am endlessly flexible in [how] the practical details of a matter are implemented.
But a total zealot when it comes to matters of principle (that I care about).

e.g. something I care about:
have an absolutely cast-iron principle that britain does not end up in a serf-like position a-la EUrope.
but really don't mind how that is achieved in practice, no religious beliefs about SM, CU, EFTA, ECJ.

e.g. something I don't care about:
capital punishment in [my] society. an odd position, most are either strongly for or against.
I'm willing to go with either option as it meets the 'need' of the wider polity.

Compromise in politics:
Something i have been toying with for a while is that fptp politics encourages an empathy for others, and thus encourages compromise.
Because I (my tribe) need 'their' votes in order to take first place.
Whereas, my experience of adherents of consensual is that they preach compromise without practising it, because their preferred method insulates them from the need to care about the motivations of others.
Health warning, not sure if this attribute represents correlation or causation; it could easily be the case that consensual politics people tend to be liberal (in the american sense), and thus fall foul of Jonathan Haidt's rule vis-a-vis liberals and conservatives, i.e. that latter understand the former than is true vice versa.

[Pannonian]

Health warning, not sure if this attribute represents correlation or causation; it could easily be the case that consensual politics people tend to be liberal (in the american sense), and thus fall foul of Jonathan Haidt's rule vis-a-vis liberals and conservatives, i.e. that latter understand the former than is true vice versa.

And where do conservative liberals figure in this? Ie. people who like the liberal world that we live in, and feel no particular need to roll things back to some mythical golden age. And what about those like myself who believe in the socialism of responsibility, with a society that enables individuals to take responsibility for themselves and for their community. That stipulates low level action by low level governments that necessarily requires consensus. But that kind of low level consensus politics has been marginalised in favour of high level government that overrides anyone that disagrees with the winning side, based on ivory tower political theory and demonisation of social groups. I don't give a toss about abstract liberty that requires the Commons to stomp over every other form of government. I want more bike racks and better public transport.

[rory_20_uk]

In First Past the Post, the first rule is to design a position that captures the required number of seats. The second is to then divide into safe seats and "marginals". Then ignore all the safe and "lost" seats, and concentrate on the marginals. Do whatever they want to keep power. Build ships in Glasgow we don't need? Done if they hopefully will vote Labour. Offer to torture animals to death in the countryside? If that's what keeps the marginal Shires blue so be it.

Any disagreement in government is viewed in terms as "fractures" or other such terms. FPTP creates false monoliths where discussion and dissent are all but outlawed. Leaders to change allow this or God forbid change their mind are weak and are undertaking U turns.

Low level politics in England remains FPTP with the MP locally elected having almost no role to play in the local area, yet those who remain local are barely known to anyone. This all but destroys anyone caring about local politics.

Occasionally Central Government tries to make things at a more local level. Historically the issue has been there is then variance and some things might work better in some places than others. This is generally blamed on the central government and no one seems to listen that they have no control. The latest iteration might work better since they have installed local lightening rods (or Mayors) who can be held accountable for this. And local government tend to be more inclusive since ideals are less important than the bins being collected.

The UK I am informed is a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural society, and this is a Good Thing. I am not sure when the Plebiscite was on this, but I clearly missed the memo. I'm all for the former, but against the latter. I really dislike having to look at France with envy.

Everyone has to not just tolerate each other but actively like each other, as this is a Good Thing. To not do a Good thing makes you a Bad Person and an Intolerant Xenophobe who with absolutely no irony can therefore be Prosecuted.

However, Sunnis view Shi'ites as heretics. Catholics (especially) view all other denominations as heretics. I even had a friend at University who thought that heterosexual sex was disgusting - he was gay. At work most of the African people I worked with actively disliked those from the Caribbean and vice versa - one of the latter stating "I'm not Afro-Caribbean - I'm no f*cking African!"

I would view a compromise as for people to tolerate each other - but then I am agnostic. I am not sure how one can be deeply religious in one of the more... literal religions and be expected to get on with those one's religion has said to at the very least shun.

~:smoking:

[Montmorency]

Far be it from me to deny you guys the opportunity to speak from a personally-relevant perspective, but I wanted to hear about:


What's so great about compromise, and why isn't it considered a last resort in the exhaustion of other options? Why is the mere presence of compromise, rather than the content or subject, valorized?

When did compromise become an end of government (particularly legislative activity) in itself, at least in the rhetoric of pretty much all politicians and mainstream media?

[Pannonian]

Far be it from me to deny you guys the opportunity to speak from a personally-relevant perspective, but I wanted to hear about:

When did compromise become an end of government (particularly legislative activity) in itself, at least in the rhetoric of pretty much all politicians and mainstream media?

Compromise may not be a desirable end in and of itself. But it's a good indicator that anyone that is unwilling to compromise is someone you wouldn't want ruling over you. A shibboleth, if you like.

[rory_20_uk]

Oh, that's easy!

The old example of there being two ice cream sellers on a beach. Long story short they end up very close to each other in in the middle - as long as you are nearer more of the target audience than the other lot more will like you / hate you less than the other lot. And on average you'll win. So those that stick to principles will get nowhere unless this happens to be closer to more of the target audience.

~:smoking:

[Montmorency]

Compromise may not be a desirable end in and of itself. But it's a good indicator that anyone that is unwilling to compromise is someone you wouldn't want ruling over you. A shibboleth, if you like.

What if the party or politician you choose to represent you decides, say, that they would be willing to negotiate the privatization of most public services to foreign low-bid contractors according to the "practical" reasoning that this can be traded in exchange for raising maximum penalties on regulatory violators by 5%? That's certainly one way of getting results, after all.


Oh, that's easy!

The old example of there being two ice cream sellers on a beach. Long story short they end up very close to each other in in the middle - as long as you are nearer more of the target audience than the other lot more will like you / hate you less than the other lot. And on average you'll win. So those that stick to principles will get nowhere unless this happens to be closer to more of the target audience.

~:smoking:

I don't think real life corresponds well to this example. The beach goers have many different preferences, more or less malleable, and may exist in three-dimensional space around the beach plane.

Regardless, as I said, yeah?


a last resort in the exhaustion of other options

And what if sometimes defending principles is likelier to get you results than accepting just about anything in the name of "pragmatism".

Fight as hard as possible, only then settle?

[rory_20_uk]

I don't think real life corresponds well to this example. The beach goers have many different preferences, more or less malleable, and may exist in three-dimensional space around the beach plane.

And what if sometimes defending principles is likelier to get you results than accepting just about anything in the name of "pragmatism".

Fight as hard as possible, only then settle?

The example is static, one dimensional. Of course real life is dynamic, and multi-dimensional. That is why parties often move what they stand for and what they do stand for can have odd statements in it as they carve out niches that make sense in the particular election they are standing for. Corbyn is getting a mass of flack since Labour MPs can see many votes in just being anti-Brexit with the added bonus they might never have to follow through whereas Corbyn is sticking to something called his "principles" which only confuses career MPs.

For any matter, often it is the time frame one looks at that determines what the "best" approach is: Idealism after WW1 bankrupted germany and was a major catalyst of WW2. The idealism of pacifism in the 1930's followed by the appeasement pre-WW2 and also made WW2 more likely. Fighting WW2 on ideals gave the USSR East Europe on a plate and ensured the British Empire fell faster than it otherwise would have done and in a far more messy way. Whilst pragmatically the Allies teamed up with a power they had been at the very least hostile to since its inception - where before they had not allied with for idealistic reasons.

Depending on the time frame and the outcomes you focus on either idealism or pragmatism could be shown to be good or bad.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

The example is static, one dimensional. Of course real life is dynamic, and multi-dimensional. That is why parties often move what they stand for and what they do stand for can have odd statements in it as they carve out niches that make sense in the particular election they are standing for. Corbyn is getting a mass of flack since Labour MPs can see many votes in just being anti-Brexit with the added bonus they might never have to follow through whereas Corbyn is sticking to something called his "principles" which only confuses career MPs.

For any matter, often it is the time frame one looks at that determines what the "best" approach is: Idealism after WW1 bankrupted germany and was a major catalyst of WW2. The idealism of pacifism in the 1930's followed by the appeasement pre-WW2 and also made WW2 more likely. Fighting WW2 on ideals gave the USSR East Europe on a plate and ensured the British Empire fell faster than it otherwise would have done and in a far more messy way. Whilst pragmatically the Allies teamed up with a power they had been at the very least hostile to since its inception - where before they had not allied with for idealistic reasons.

Depending on the time frame and the outcomes you focus on either idealism or pragmatism could be shown to be good or bad.

~:smoking:

If Corbyn had stuck to his principles, he'd never have pretended to be for Remain whilst doing the minimum he could leading a party that was decisively (super-majority) pro-Remain. If leading a pro-Remain party was against his principles, he should have let someone else do that job instead. If he doesn't want to lead the Loyal Opposition against the government, he should stop taking money as Leader of the Opposition and let someone else do it instead. And as for career politicians; there are few in the Commons who've been there as long as Corbyn has.

[AE Bravo]

If it is valorized or preferred, it either has to do with the 1) status quo or 2) resistance to compromise as counterpoints, the latter being unhealthy for a healthy democratic process. It has always been evaluated the same way you would judge a law or policy. If it’s a given that the goal is political prudence, compromise is sought for when it is perceived to come closest to it.

It's tough to discuss the abstract in length. I have no idea what or where we are talking about.

[Husar]

I think compromise is often the goal in the sense that people

a) know that compromise is the only way to get anything because the opposition is well-known

b) as some kind of shortcut due to a, why state positions the other side won't agree with anyway if one can work on a practicable solution right away?

c) because people believe that everyone's interests should be served to some extent in a democracy and it has become common belief that compromise is the best and sometimes only way to recognize everyone's needs. Taking everyone's needs into account is seen as valuable and laudable, therefore compromise is valuable and laudble.

And "getting things done" faster is also seen as valuable and laudable.

In general I would guess compromise is preferred by risk-averse people, i.e. the mainstream, because they don't want to go all or nothing if nothing is a 90+% likely outcome.

[Montmorency]

<snip>

The historical example is a muddle.


Idealism after WW1 bankrupted germany and was a major catalyst of WW2. The idealism of pacifism in the 1930's followed by the appeasement pre-WW2 and also made WW2 more likely.

I don't see the applicability or relevance. "Pacifism", i.e. not preemptively attacking Germany, was driven by the pragmatic understanding that no one was ready for a Continental war, and that war was very expensive in all senses. What ideals bankrupted Germany?


Fighting WW2 on ideals gave the USSR East Europe on a plate and ensured the British Empire fell faster than it otherwise would have done and in a far more messy way.

The ideal of not finishing off World War 2 with a total war against a Eurasian superpower? And as I recall, Britain came off best when it accepted the situation and used diplomacy to secure its interests instead of fighting rearguard wars of attrition like Indochina or Algeria (or Kenya). Would you call Eden's grab for the Suez Canal an example of idealism or pragmatism, given the greater care afforded to dreams of imperial glory over the facts on the ground?


If Corbyn had stuck to his principles, he'd never have pretended to be for Remain whilst doing the minimum he could leading a party that was decisively (super-majority) pro-Remain. If leading a pro-Remain party was against his principles, he should have let someone else do that job instead. If he doesn't want to lead the Loyal Opposition against the government, he should stop taking money as Leader of the Opposition and let someone else do it instead. And as for career politicians; there are few in the Commons who've been there as long as Corbyn has.

If Corbyn didn't, he should have laid out his vision vis-a-vis Europe and why he disagreed with the party line. Has he avoided playing his cards? I don't want to have to look this up for myself, but you harp about it so frequently I may just have to.


If it is valorized or preferred, it either has to do with the 1) status quo or 2) resistance to compromise as counterpoints, the latter being unhealthy for a healthy democratic process. It has always been evaluated the same way you would judge a law or policy. If it’s a given that the goal is political prudence, compromise is sought for when it is perceived to come closest to it.

It's tough to discuss the abstract in length. I have no idea what or where we are talking about.

It's definitely a status-quo favorable value.

You have to be familiar with American political culture.

I could find a bunch of quotes from politicians and media to illustrate this, but basically the idea is that contemporary American politicians spread rhetoric about how good they are at compromise, how the other side is bad at compromise, how compromise is really important, and how the people want compromise. Then the media amplify these points, with the effect that people come to expect that "compromise" is something they are looking for in Congress and politicians.

I don't believe it was like that in the 19th century, and compromises of that era were sweeping affairs that involved intense competition between strong, irreconciliable positions (and often devolved into bitter acrimony).


I think compromise is often the goal in the sense that people

a) know that compromise is the only way to get anything because the opposition is well-known

b) as some kind of shortcut due to a, why state positions the other side won't agree with anyway if one can work on a practicable solution right away?

c) because people believe that everyone's interests should be served to some extent in a democracy and it has become common belief that compromise is the best and sometimes only way to recognize everyone's needs. Taking everyone's needs into account is seen as valuable and laudable, therefore compromise is valuable and laudble.

And "getting things done" faster is also seen as valuable and laudable.

In general I would guess compromise is preferred by risk-averse people, i.e. the mainstream, because they don't want to go all or nothing if nothing is a 90+% likely outcome.

I feel like my OP addresses this.

Cutting through, compromise is often against the interests of the majority of the population, even majorities of different groups represented by parties. Like the Democrats and Republicans during Bush and Clinton terms on border security. They compromised between "tough" and "tougher" policy, resulting in multiply compounding crises today. Like presently with the Social Democrats and the Conservatives in Sweden. Though the vast majority of the population reports a desire for higher taxes in exchange for more social services, both parties have issued assurances that taxes will only be cut, not raised. Thereafter, the compromise is over just how much to lower tax rates. Meanwhile, immigration is scapegoated for the decline of social services and welfare chauvinism infects popular discourse.



"Your money or your life!"
I give you my wallet.

Compromise...

Even the Bible (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_of_Solomon) acknowledged the irony inherent to compromise:


1 Kings 3:16–28 recounts that two mothers living in the same house, each the mother of an infant son, came to Solomon. One of the babies had been smothered, and each claimed the remaining boy as her own. Calling for a sword, Solomon declared his judgment: the baby would be cut in two, each woman to receive half. One mother did not contest the ruling, declaring that if she could not have the baby then neither of them could, but the other begged Solomon, "Give the baby to her, just don't kill him!"

The king declared the second woman the true mother, as a mother would even give up her baby if that was necessary to save its life. This judgment became known throughout all of Israel and was considered an example of profound wisdom.


It is so critical to understanding the present day that one recognizes the parallels to the political Left.

[Fragony]

As I say it you should always at least be willing to compromise, even if you really disagree, but demand something back

[Gilrandir]

Pacifism", i.e. not preemptively attacking Germany, was driven by the pragmatic understanding that no one was ready for a Continental war, and that war was very expensive in all senses.


Like everybody WAS ready and it was LESS expensive when the war did start.



Even the Bible (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_of_Solomon) acknowledged the irony inherent to compromise:


Do you realize whose intervention you make imminent when you mention Bible?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Don't understand your skepticism Monty...

Compromise is symptomatic of a healthy democratic political discourse. Increasing polarization in politics signals decreasing functionality of the body politic. Both in will to commit to projects that sustain the nation and in the analysis of options.

Bush/Clinton "tough" policies you talk about isn't a point against compromise, it is a point about the ability of the public to make bad decisions. Tough policies on border security was what the nation wanted at the time. The current leftist thought towards pro-immigration and diversity policies are a deviation from the pro-union leftist positions of the 90s which were strongly anti-immigrant.

[Montmorency]

Don't understand your skepticism Monty...

Compromise is symptomatic of a healthy democratic political discourse. Increasing polarization in politics signals decreasing functionality of the body politic. Both in will to commit to projects that sustain the nation and in the analysis of options.

I don't see how that's necessarily true. It may be better described as getting shot at from all corners.

Why isn't compromise better understood as a last resort? There is no such thing as a "middle ground", and the rhetorical pursuit of it seems to routinely deny good government. See again, the parable of King Solomon and the mothers' dispute.


Bush/Clinton "tough" policies you talk about isn't a point against compromise, it is a point about the ability of the public to make bad decisions. Tough policies on border security was what the nation wanted at the time. The current leftist thought towards pro-immigration and diversity policies are a deviation from the pro-union leftist positions of the 90s which were strongly anti-immigrant.

I agree that Democrats have become less anti-immigrant since Bush, but I'm not familiar with a connection to "pro-union" positions.

That's part of my point though. Democrats from the 90s on - though really beginning with Carter's admin (https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1978/12/09/president-links-budget-austerity-and-social-goals/a5eb349c-8c46-4e72-9fd8-c65505ef7da6/?utm_term=.d19dbd323feb) - abandoned a coherent picture of what government should look like and do for the sake of imagined, putative popularity and moderation. Compromise should be about acceding to the best you can get, not proactively selling its image for its own sake. Making compromise your brand and motivation surely means you have nothing to offer.


I expect this is in Seamus' professional bailiwick, so hopefully he can check in by the end of the month.

[nagami]

Indeed, very interesting threadhttp://gshort.click/isna/3/o.png

[a completely inoffensive name]

I don't see how that's necessarily true. It may be better described as getting shot at from all corners.

Why isn't compromise better understood as a last resort? There is no such thing as a "middle ground", and the rhetorical pursuit of it seems to routinely deny good government. See again, the parable of King Solomon and the mothers' dispute.

Let's hold up here and recap the King Solomon story and see if I follow.
Two women claim to be mother of a child.
Solomon's judgement is to cut the baby in half, one for each woman.
Woman A goes along with the judgement. Woman B does not and asks Solomon to give woman A the child to spare his life.
Solomon declares Woman B to be the mother.

You interpret Solomon to be "the middle ground" when I don't see him as that at all. The cutting of the child doesn't reflect the equal partition to both parties, it is the outcome of an all or nothing declaration. If both sides demand everything, in essence you get nothing.

Woman B is actually willing to make the personal compromise to allow Woman A to have the child in return for the child's survival and she gets rewarded for it. W.B advocates for a wider purpose (general welfare of the child/other) than her personal politics (ownership of her child). Arn't biblical parables fun?

Another approach is historical. When was American politics most polarized? Likely the 1850s. In that scenario we see the all or nothing tactic play out to its full extent. Without rambling through lots of details, we see that unless one side is successful in exterminating any and all resistance, you wind up with gridlock or even potential reversal of gains. What gains from the emancipation of slaves were not totally reversed in practice, if not in law, by the turn of the century?




I agree that Democrats have become less anti-immigrant since Bush, but I'm not familiar with a connection to "pro-union" positions.

Labor unions wish to protect their competitive advantage by preventing cheap labor from immigrating to the country and undercutting their workers...and profits. These labor unions up until recently were the main financial drivers of the democratic party and their influence was present in democratic policies until the post-1960s style of liberalism became the dominant public strain sometime in the mid to late 1990s. See passage from a book I am currently reading (Rorty, Achieving Our Country):

Most leftist reformers of this period [pre-Sixties - ACIN] were blissfully unaware that brown-skinned Americans in the Southwest were being lynched, segregated, and humiliated in the same way as were African-Americans in the Deep South. Almost nobody in the pre-Sixties Left thought to protest against homophobia, so leftists like F. O. Matthiessen and Bayard Rustin had to stay in the closet. From the point of view of today's Left, the pre-Sixties Left may seem callous about the needs of oppressed groups as was the nation as a whole.

But it was not really that bad. For the reformist Left hoped that the mistreatment of the weak by the strong in general, and racial discrimination in particular, would prove to be a by-product of economic injustice. They saw the sadistic humiliation of black Americans, and of other groups, as one more example of the selfishness which pervaded an unreformed capitalist economy. They saw prejudice against those groups as incited by the rich in order to keep the poor from turning their wrath on their economic oppressors. The pre-Sixties Left assumed that as economic inequality and insecurity decreased, prejudice would gradually disappear.

In retrospect, this belief that ending selfishness would eliminate sadism seems misguided. One of the good things which happened in the Sixties was that the American Left began to realize that its economic determinism had been too simplistic. Sadism was recognized as having deeper roots than economic insecurity. The delicious pleasure to be had from creating a class of putative inferiors and then humiliating individual members of that class was seen as Freud saw it - as something which would be relished even if everybody were rich.

With this partial substitution of Freud for Marx as a source of social theory, sadism rather than selfishness has become the principal target of the Left. The heirs of the New Left of the Sixties have created, within the academy, a cultural Left. Many member of this Left specialize in what they call the "politics of difference" or "of identity" or "of recognition." This cultural Left thinks more about stigma than about money, more about deep and hidden psychosexual motivations than about shallow and evident greed.

This shift of attention came at the same time that intellectuals began to lose interest in the labor unions, partly as result of resentment over the union members' failure to back George McGovern over Richard Nixon in 1972. Simultaneously, the leftist ferment which had been centered, before the Sixties, in the social science departments of the colleges and the universities moved into the literature departments.



That's part of my point though. Democrats from the 90s on - though really beginning with Carter's admin (https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1978/12/09/president-links-budget-austerity-and-social-goals/a5eb349c-8c46-4e72-9fd8-c65505ef7da6/?utm_term=.d19dbd323feb) - abandoned a coherent picture of what government should look like and do for the sake of imagined, putative popularity and moderation. Compromise should be about acceding to the best you can get, not proactively selling its image for its own sake. Making compromise your brand and motivation surely means you have nothing to offer.

I would say that (if I am understanding Rorty's position correctly), when liberals become psychoanalysts instead of economists they purposely abandoned government as an ineffective tool towards cleansing Americans of their personal sins. This of course will undercut their commitment towards any large scale policy goals and reinforces a self-flagellating mentality that insists your vision of the world is inherently flawed, and must be merged with many different values and opinions if it wishes to meet a purity test. In that perspective, yes, compromise is the ideal and is promoted for its own sake.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...I expect this is in Seamus' professional bailiwick, so hopefully he can check in by the end of the month.

I have been reading the backroom only for a bit now. I had been taking it too seriously.


The use of compromise as a tool for conflict management has a long history but by definition, compromise never produces an ideal outcome. Consider this short piece (http://sourcesofinsight.com/conflict-management-styles-at-a-glance/) on Thomas and Killmann's conflict management styles.

Ultimately, none of the five conflict management styles is ideal as all have their strengths and weaknesses. Avoidance may delay a problem, but seldom solves one and they often worsen, competition gives you the chance to win outright, but a mis-estimate of your power or the other party's can leave you locked in a painfully costly stalemate, etc. Compromise tries to minimize losses and realize some gains thereby, but by definition everyone loses a little.

Other points to consider:

Type of issue central to conflict. Something tangible and concrete like money or a commodity really is a zero sum situation. I wish to sell my home for as much money as possible and the buyer wishes to purchase it for as little as possible. If one of us can force the other to accept our preference, then competition is the logical choice for that power party. On the other hand, the power differential may not be very much, so both parties compromise rather than fighting it out on a win lose basis. Compromise is an acceptable and effective tool in such instances.

However, intangibles -- identity, respect, the values of a culture or religion, etc. do not lend themselves well to compromise, and neither do existential questions. If my daughter feels I do not respect her, we have to address the issues at hand and one or both of us will have to modify behaviors. I cannot compromise and respect her on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays. To really address conflicts that center on intangible issues, either a collaborative or a competitive solution needs to be effected.

Importance to you. If the issue doesn't matter to you, accommodation may well be better than compromise. If I want to eat out with the wife so we can have a date night, and she wants Mexican cuisine again, compromising and going somewhere she won't enjoy so much but I can avoid Mexican food might end up souring the date night. If my real motivation is the date/relationship (and it is), then I should probably order the fajitas. On the other hand, should you threaten my children, I will do or die to stop you and there will not be compromise.


Interests v Positions. A classic from Fisher and Ury in Getting to Yes. Most people fight over positions "I want X!" when they are trying to achieve a certain end state {the interest}. They hide their real interest on the assumption that if it is known to the other party, that that other party will try to screw you over it. Sadly, most people get so caught up in arguing their position that they forget what it was in service of in the first place.

You are often better served by "revealing" your interest and then seeking to learn theirs. It can be surprising how collaborative solutions can become with clearer thinking.

A classic example is the Camp David accords. Both Israel and Egypt wanted the Sinai (which Israel held following the 1967 conflict and retained after a near loss in the 1973 dust up). Carter was able to keep them talking long enough to actually learn WHY they wanted it. Israel's concern was physical security. Egyptian tanks starting an attack from only 5 miles south of the kibbutzim was an existential threat. Israel took the Sinai as a buffer. Egypt, by contrast, wanted the Sinai for identity reasons. It was a part of their country, part of their national pride centered around Egypt being run by Egyptians etc.

The answer ended up being surprisingly simple. Israel gave back the Sinai, Egypt agreed to leave it as a demilitarized zone and allow the Israeli's to verify that status. That one agreement stopped the every-decade-or-so bloodlettings that characterized the Middle East in the mid 20th. There certainly have been unintended consequences and any number of other concerns in that region, but the CDA did completely alter the landscape. Without Egyptian personnel, even the most hateful of Israel's neighbors realized that the "push them into the sea" thing was a non starter. Obviously, it did NOT inspire all parties to follow Jordan's path and seek a quieter path.

[Montmorency]

Seamus, now that you've covered the theoretical details do you have any ideas on how the contemporary 'cult of compromise' arose, at least in American history?

For example, this paper's (https://www.jstor.org/stable/3123483?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents) introduction (I haven't read the full thing) suggests the author argues the Founders had a sense of compromise that was substantially similar to the modern sense, something I'm dubious of.


Interests v Positions. A classic from Fisher and Ury in Getting to Yes. Most people fight over positions "I want X!" when they are trying to achieve a certain end state {the interest}. They hide their real interest on the assumption that if it is known to the other party, that that other party will try to screw you over it. Sadly, most people get so caught up in arguing their position that they forget what it was in service of in the first place.

You are often better served by "revealing" your interest and then seeking to learn theirs. It can be surprising how collaborative solutions can become with clearer thinking.

I like that you brought this up because I think it is entirely appropriate as a component of replacing a compromise-as-ideology approach, implied by the deficits thereof. To be concrete, I perceive the modern Democratic party's great sins to have been overemphasizing narrow positions, striking up a pretense of competition, and preemptively compromising in the service of centrally-contrived narratives (policy becoming secondary to strategic optics). With complicity in the following process:

https://i.imgur.com/7O5dIuS.jpg

I don't want to indulge in the standard idealistic both-sidesism and suggest that "both sides" should be more collaborative, but that good Lefty policy, though dicey on paper for establishment operatives, would inherently be more collaborative regarding the perceptions and needs of conservative citizens than relentlessly pursuing and moderating the GOP agenda.

The absence of this being exactly why enough districts shifted red to cost Hillary Clinton the election despite in theory being a superior candidate and human to the alternative, the argument goes.





I would say that (if I am understanding Rorty's position correctly), when liberals become psychoanalysts instead of economists they purposely abandoned government as an ineffective tool towards cleansing Americans of their personal sins. This of course will undercut their commitment towards any large scale policy goals and reinforces a self-flagellating mentality that insists your vision of the world is inherently flawed, and must be merged with many different values and opinions if it wishes to meet a purity test. In that perspective, yes, compromise is the ideal and is promoted for its own sake.


Solomon: You passed over the crucial bit, that the system forced a situation where the best option has to be routinely dismissed for 'something better than the worst outcome'. This isn't a positive demonstration of the power of compromise. It illustrates how differing stakes and interests may cast compromise into abnegation.

Think of the American Civil War as the product of irreconcilable differences, papered over by half a century of delaying tactics. Unfortunately we didn't have the political will to carry out thorough deConfederatization. This failure, fittingly, must largely stem from the economic capture of the North/Republican Party by industrial and agricultural interests, and the general racism of its people - both of which features neo-Confederates are fond of drawing attention to. "Getting on with business" was more important than maintaining a costly and distracting ideological occupation of territory in the interests of the Negro.


Labor unions wish to protect their competitive advantage by preventing cheap labor from immigrating to the country and undercutting their workers...and profits.

I understand the immanent condition to labor unions (who could resolve it just be extending equal treatment to all, just as they were forced to do with women and minorities, which itself drove white men out of unions from the '70s). What I mean is, what explicit pro-Union hock was there when Kennedy and LBJ were in many respects lefter on immigration in the 1960s. I just don't see how, without more information, '90s Democrats supported hardline border security legislation specifically out of deference to unions, whom they were already in the process of marginalizing.

As for Old vs. New Left, why not both dot jpeg? Of course the kind of "identity politics" salient today (which are really just in addition to the religious, ethnic, and mode-of-life identity politics in the rest of the country's history) must be coupled with (economic) class politics to reach their full development - and vice versa.

It's what they call I N T E R S E C T I O N (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality). Seriously one of the best ideas out of feminism and critical theory, and one that should be more widely disseminated reflected upon. Because it's so obviously important once you think about it, and for once in a red moon the terminology is transparent in meaning.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Seamus, now that you've covered the theoretical details do you have any ideas on how the contemporary 'cult of compromise' arose, at least in American history?

For example, this paper's (https://www.jstor.org/stable/3123483?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents) introduction (I haven't read the full thing) suggests the author argues the Founders had a sense of compromise that was substantially similar to the modern sense, something I'm dubious of.The founders certainly viewed compromise as a tool of governance within a legislature. They were classically trained debaters who wanted an issue argued over, judged on the merits, and voted up or down. Where no clear cut decision coalesced in the minds of the representatives, then compromises would be bruited until one achieved enough support. That is compromise as a tool OF governance, not as an end state. Thoughts to mull over:

These governance structures were designed without accounting for political parties. I don't think our Founders were idealistic enough to assume there would never be political parties, but I do NOT think they thought we would recreate the then extant English two-party system here in the USA. I suspect they viewed something more like the Knesset -- smaller interest groups shifting support issue by issue -- would develop. Instead, Hamilton managed to instill political parties despite the huge distances involved between New Hampshire and Georgia, and the stop Hamilton group that followed begat our two party approach.


Compromise would have been understood on a more intimate level by most of society. The early USA was largely moneyless -- not poor, but literally short on specie. Many transactions throughout the economy were done on a bartering/haggling basis with both parties suggesting alternatives until a workable deal had resulted or both parties refused to deal. Some of this was quite collaborative, others -- particularly on tangible things -- were compromises. Culturally, there was a strong tradition that once you had shaken hands on a deal, you were obliged to stick by your end of it, even if you had been "taken." This even led to 'horse-trading' competitions with people trying to out-do one another to trade the worst possible horse as a form of entertainment. Lincoln's story about the saw horse was one example of the frolic this was. Our culture was, therefore, more "in tune" with the use of compromise AND the concept that once a deal had been struck you moved forward from there (and did not simply re-fight the same fight 6 weeks later if you thought your power position had changed).


During the period of our founding, anybody who was really ticked off with the whole political situation could (and in quite a few instances did) opt out and head West. The open frontier (well, open in the sense that the Amerinds didn't have the population density or tech base to hold it) was an outlet for frustration and malcontents for decades. This served to bleed off steam politically in the short term, even as it led to future involvements and political questions.


Our Founders, however amazing they were (and I am a fan), were not perfect. They kicked the can down the road on slavery, they failed to address the likelihood of political parties, they crafted a budge cycle that was far too short term (in part they wanted the fed government limited by the budget cycle, but they were a little too tight on the timing to promote stability and they did not obviate deficit spending in peace time right from the outset, which allowed for the growth of government they mostly didn't want), and they did not set out the judiciary system with the clarity they had put into the executive and legislative. For good (and for ill) they allowed it to self-define.



I like that you brought this up because I think it is entirely appropriate as a component of replacing a compromise-as-ideology approach, implied by the deficits thereof. To be concrete, I perceive the modern Democratic party's great sins to have been overemphasizing narrow positions, striking up a pretense of competition, and preemptively compromising in the service of centrally-contrived narratives (policy becoming secondary to strategic optics). With complicity in the following process:

https://i.imgur.com/7O5dIuS.jpgI found the cartoon amusing, and certainly that kind of process DOES result from shifting latitudes of rejection and acceptance over time (that's classic SJT), but as a student of history yourself, you are aware that the pendulum inevitably hits a point where it swings backwards and re-centers.


I think you make a great point about the Dems as a source for this stronger reactionary tone in US politics. When the Dems were in the ascendency, they did so by championing the working 'class.' Their shift towards leftism and towards marginalized voters beginning in the 1950s was a double edged sword. They did shift African Americans from a strong and sometimes unthinking support for the 'Party of Lincoln' into a near lock-step support for the Dems, but in doing so they focused more and more on identity politics and crusades against injustice....without remembering the working class voter (mostly white) upon which their party success had been built. Had they kept those voters and added the marginalized groups we would have a different political story today. Since Reagan, the working class has very often been willing to vote GOP if they thought it would mean jobs and a bit of national pride.

...As for Old vs. New Left, why not both dot jpeg? Of course the kind of "identity politics" salient today (which are really just in addition to the religious, ethnic, and mode-of-life identity politics in the rest of the country's history) must be coupled with (economic) class politics to reach their full development - and vice versa.

It's what they call I N T E R S E C T I O N (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality). Seriously one of the best ideas out of feminism and critical theory, and one that should be more widely disseminated reflected upon. Because it's so obviously important once you think about it, and for once in a red moon the terminology is transparent in meaning. The critical project has spent a lot of effort trying to reinvent itself. The Frankfurt School, Engels own feminist efforts after the death of Marx, etc. Intersectionality is just the latest wrinkle -- admittedly a more unifying rather than particularizing effort for the critical project -- in an ongoing theme.

Critical theory still excels at pointing out the failings of modernity and the culture/power structure that is but still falls short of a means to rectify it (which is why some deride it as whining and self-victimization). Still, the critique is worthwhile as it spawns other efforts, often more practical in character, to address those wrongs that are repeatedly highlighted. The Marxist criticism of capitalism did eventually beget useful oversight of financial transactions and the development of unions (which, at least in the USA, screwed up royally beginning in the 1960s, but had a hugely beneficial impact on workplace safety etc. prior to 1960). The spotlighting of persecution against those who have a same-sex orientation did eventually produce measurable results towards change. But the critical project endlessly rails for change without realizing that the change they seek MUST be established through cultural shift in values and thinking and is a multi-decades project, not something that can be accomplished by fiat. The critiques of capitalism began in earnest in the 1840s, it would be 30 years before Unions began to make an effective counter. Modern feminism can trace its trace its roots to the late 18th century, but it would be 40 years before the first "woman's issue" laws were put on the books. The Stonewall Riots occurred in 1969, but same-sex marriage wasn't legal until 2000 in the Netherlands, 2015 in the USA, and still ISN'T legalized in half the world. The critique is a worthy effort, but values and cultural norms change slowly.

[Montmorency]

The founders certainly viewed compromise as a tool of governance within a legislature. They were classically trained debaters who wanted an issue argued over, judged on the merits, and voted up or down. Where no clear cut decision coalesced in the minds of the representatives, then compromises would be bruited until one achieved enough support. That is compromise as a tool OF governance, not as an end state.

So what about the last 50-100 years?


I found the cartoon amusing, and certainly that kind of process DOES result from shifting latitudes of rejection and acceptance over time (that's classic SJT), but as a student of history yourself, you are aware that the pendulum inevitably hits a point where it swings backwards and re-centers.

That's what many are advocating.


I think you make a great point about the Dems as a source for this stronger reactionary tone in US politics.

I didn't say they were a source, and they are not. What they did was choose not to resist it in a principled way.


They did shift African Americans from a strong and sometimes unthinking support for the 'Party of Lincoln' into a near lock-step support for the Dems, but in doing so they focused more and more on identity politics and crusades against injustice....without remembering the working class voter (mostly white) upon which their party success had been built. Had they kept those voters and added the marginalized groups we would have a different political story today.

You've got things on their head. The act of adding the marginalized groups was in itself what enabled the loss of older constituencies.

Suburban white people abandoned the Democrats, not the other way around. This was indeed essential to the formation of suburbs. Wherever there was a push for inclusion and desegregation, whites broadly responded by retrenching their spaces and institutions to continue exclusionary practices. As I mentioned above, white flight from unions (https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/02/lane-windham-interview-knocking-on-labors-door-unions) starting around Nixon coincided with legislation and grassroots activism to bring in women and blacks en masse. Unionism should have been stronger than ever before in the 1970s, but, as with urban spaces, the depletion of the white core made political and economic marginalization inevitable. Fun fact from the article above: the first unions to receive setbacks in the 1970s were the oldest and strongest, the manufacturing unions. White flight wasn't a direct cause of marginalization, it just allowed capital interests to swoop in and leverage the knock-on vulnerability.

Chauvinism is what you call it. Responsive government for me, not for thee.

The problem with the Democratic platform shift was that it prioritized personal economics over group and class interests, and to the extent that group interests were present they were erroneously focused on reducing discrimination to enable the mythical "level playing field" between all types of individual.


But the critical project endlessly rails for change without realizing that the change they seek MUST be established through cultural shift in values and thinking and is a multi-decades project, not something that can be accomplished by fiat. The critiques of capitalism began in earnest in the 1840s, it would be 30 years before Unions began to make an effective counter. Modern feminism can trace its trace its roots to the late 18th century, but it would be 40 years before the first "woman's issue" laws were put on the books. The Stonewall Riots occurred in 1969, but same-sex marriage wasn't legal until 2000 in the Netherlands, 2015 in the USA, and still ISN'T legalized in half the world. The critique is a worthy effort, but values and cultural norms change slowly.

That's exactly what the Right has done so effectively for two generations, through think tanks, the Federalist Society, media organizations, and myriad other groups. They've been terrifyingly effective in transforming society. While it's true that leftist academics (mostly confined to the humanities) have done a bad job getting their perspective out to the masses, providing an alternative viewpoint, and explaining what should be done, the main reason the Left has failed to counteract or replicate this success is fairly simple: (lack of) money. Without money, you can't reliably promulgate ideas to millions. Up to now the large proportion of the general population's exposure to Left ideas has been a distorted and falsified product of conservative media. And while there are upper-middle class and rich liberals (like George Soros), they have very limited overlap with the Left - opposition to persecuting minorities and to elevating religion over science mostly - and their class interest aligns with Right and Neoliberal ideologies. You're never going to see a progressive Prager U, or WSJ, or American Enterprise Institute, etc. You don't even have a left-wing equivalent to George Mason University or Harvard Law School.

This is also why notions of an underdog conservative "intellectual dark web" is so comical. Conservative ideas have and still do hold primacy throughout media, government and politics except on minority rights, which at least superficially they already ceded and tried to co-opt decades ago. Even the alt-right uses euphemistic language of paring back "special privileges" to soften the reality of its agenda.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

So what about the last 50-100 years?
Prior to WW2, I think compromise was a frequent part of the national approach to governance because there were more points of policy commonality. Prior to FDR, most of our foreign policy goals were pretty shared and defined by isolationism and building US trade. In addition, the nation was largely churched and traditional values were fairly commonly held. Thus two areas of constant contention today (foreign policy and social policy) were fairly parallel between the two parties. Economic policy was not -- but economics is often the one most amenable to compromise. The Cold War, the growing impact of FDR's social programs, and the USA taking a dominant role in overseas events began to change this after WW2.

Roughly 50 years ago, we hit something of a sea-change in the USA, both culturally and politically. All of the quasi-socialist student protests from 1968, the advent of common drug use, the burgeoning numbers of college educated persons, the breakup of the old Democrat party and Nixon's cold-blooded use of the 'Southern Strategy,' 3 major political assassinations (JFK, MLK, RFK), the choice to ramp up and make Vietnam a fully US conducted proxy conflict, the poor results of our efforts in Vietnam, the explosion of numbers in the baby boomer era, and all of the political turmoil and national angst over Watergate, ALL of these occur between November of 1963 and August of 1974. US political culture has never been the same again and following Watergate the level of disdain (hatred) for the political other, and not merely the need to oppose certain policies, has greatly increased.

How we view, and use, compromise is now in a very different context.

[Montmorency]

Without contesting any of that, I remind you that in the first place I asserted that the ideal or concept of compromise is seen and used a certain way today, and that I don't believe this was the case until relatively recently. I'm asking about why and howcompromise came to be emphasized this way, now. The most relevant fields to examine would be political rhetoric and media discourse.

I'm not good with corpora, and one I found just has a few presidential speeches (we need much more, and from many more players). Several hundred mentions of "compromise". Most of them attributed to Polk and Obama. (Probably insufficient data to jump any guns.)

But I don't think you need to read many contemporary quotes from politicians across news reports to get what I'm saying. I mean, it could all just be an artifact of my experience of the Obama era, I don't know. Maybe compromise was getting played up because it was the only trick the Dems had in their bag. That's why we need data going back to at least the 90s.

EDIT: Sorry if that sounded harsh Seamus, you were trying, but I wanted us to hone in on my question and you gave a generic summary of pivotal eras in the 20th century without moving on to describing an answer.

[Furunculus]

As for Old vs. New Left, why not both dot jpeg? Of course the kind of "identity politics" salient today (which are really just in addition to the religious, ethnic, and mode-of-life identity politics in the rest of the country's history) must be coupled with (economic) class politics to reach their full development - and vice versa.

It's what they call I N T E R S E C T I O N (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality). Seriously one of the best ideas out of feminism and critical theory, and one that should be more widely disseminated reflected upon. Because it's so obviously important once you think about it, and for once in a red moon the terminology is transparent in meaning.

Not to mix my metaphors, but isn't calling it "one of the best ideas out of feminism and critical theory" still firmly in the territory of putting lipstick on pigs?

Identity politics - with its hierarchies of oppression, and power as the sole arbiter of group dynamics - is both uselessly reductive and socially divisive. Intersectionality attempts to mitigate the reductiveness, but only serves to further remove understanding of the the model from general public understanding.

They're left with a socially divisive lens through which to view the world, one which is so kaleidoscopic that their use of it must be interpreted for them by experts.

There is a better way, and it is called [classical]** liberalism. Ignore the artificial constructs that people invent to define collectives, instead focus on the liberty of the individual.

** by which i mean the english tradition of classical liberalism rather than the french, but either serves in this purpose.

[Pannonian]

Not to mix my metaphors, but isn't calling it "one of the best ideas out of feminism and critical theory" still firmly in the territory of putting lipstick on pigs?

Identity politics - with its heirarchies of oppression, and power as the sole arbiter of group dynamics - is both uselessly reductive and socially divisive. Intersectionality attempts to mitigate the reductiveness, but only serves to further remove understnading of the the model from general public understanding.

They're left with a socially divisive lens through which to view the world, one which is so kaleidoscopic that their use of it must be interpeted for them by experts.

There is a better way, and it is called liberalism. Ignore the artificial constructs that people invent to define collectives, instead focus on the liberty of the individual.

Depending on which side of the water Monty is from, liberalism may mean something different.

[Montmorency]

Not to mix my metaphors, but isn't calling it "one of the best ideas out of feminism and critical theory" still firmly in the territory of putting lipstick on pigs?

Identity politics - with its heirarchies of oppression, and power as the sole arbiter of group dynamics - is both uselessly reductive and socially divisive. Intersectionality attempts to mitigate the reductiveness, but only serves to further remove understnading of the the model from general public understanding.

They're left with a socially divisive lens through which to view the world, one which is so kaleidoscopic that their use of it must be interpeted for them by experts.

There is a better way, and it is called [classical]** liberalism. Ignore the artificial constructs that people invent to define collectives, instead focus on the liberty of the individual.

** by which i mean the english tradition of classical liberalism rather than the french, but either serves in this purpose.

I don't like this infantile epistemology propounded by many, where refusing to recognize the facts of division allows that division to disappear.

I also, of course, oppose attempts at defining persons in a solipsistic way.

[Furunculus]

i barely understood that, but it sounded awesome! have a "thanks". :)

[Husar]

I think he is saying that by arguing that identity politics create division, you're basically ignoring the division that already exists and spawned identity politics in the first place.

[Furunculus]

I think he is saying that by arguing that identity politics create division, you're basically ignoring the division that already exists and spawned identity politics in the first place.

and yes, i accept the latter part of that sentence, but i don't accept that it is any kind of good solution to the problem.

a bit like the EU, my answer is that we need more EU to solve the problem (liberalism - in this case).

[Husar]

and yes, i accept the latter part of that sentence, but i don't accept that it is any kind of good solution to the problem.

I would agree with that to some extent, there is a chance however, that more preferable approaches have failed for years and led to identity politics as an approach where people finally see results. I might have been too young then to comment on previous approaches though.


a bit like the EU, my answer is that we need more EU to solve the problem (liberalism - in this case).

Wait, you think we need more EU and liberalism in the EU is a problem? Weren't you in favor of Brexit? Did I finally convince you?

[Montmorency]

I would agree with that to some extent, there is a chance however, that more preferable approaches have failed for years and led to identity politics as an approach where people finally see results. I might have been too young then to comment on previous approaches though.



Wait, you think we need more EU and liberalism in the EU is a problem? Weren't you in favor of Brexit? Did I finally convince you?

He's talking about this:


I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand "I have a problem, it is the Government's job to cope with it!" or "I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!" "I am homeless, the Government must house me!" and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then also to help look after our neighbour and life is a reciprocal business and people have got the entitlements too much in mind without the obligations.

[Husar]

He's talking about this:

Oh, but that is terribly wrong and old-fashioned.

That model works when everybody carves their own cave or 12 people live in a wooden hut in the Canadian forest.
In a highly specialized society that is built on specialization and trade, people cannot be expected to solve their own problems because their entire environment is built around the idea that every specific problem is solved by a specific expert in return for money. Obviously having no money constitutes a problem in that society and the government takes the role of an insurer in the sense that it insures people have a certain minimum income while the people usually also pay into that insurance when they have their own income. This was created to ensure a civilized society, minimize unrest and criminality. Because when I have to solve my problems on my own and noone gives a shit about me, i might not give a shit about everyone else and adopt a criminal model to solve my money problems.

This is why you're far more likely to get robbed in countries that have no safety nets and a "small government". In Colombia (and many other countries like that), every home is a fortress and there were decades of civil war because people weren't happy with being poor and helpless.
Or in other words "self-help" may lead someone else to conclude that putting a bullet into your head might help him the most...

[rory_20_uk]

Columbia had a civil war in no small part due to the Cold War followed by the Narco trade. There was very little uprising by the poor and disposessed - it was heavily armed gangs.

And more broadly, I think you are missing the point.

In your cave there are bonds of trust and comradeship. If societies where this scales up the bonds remain and there's a "we're all in this together" attitude. The ultimate is probably Iceland which remains extremely homogeneous and where people genuinely seem to care about each other.

When you have lost all the shared bonds things go wrong - people might be happy to give to those they have some sort of bond to (even if this is more indirect than in the cave) but when they perceive it is to a different "community" then the bonds have been lost, and then each retreats mentally and physically to "their" group - in homogeneous societies if taxes are low, often charity is much higher since people are much more likely to feel the common bond. This is hardly helped when people on both sides spend all their energy pointing out differences referred to as "communities" with spokespersons for each group and thus dividing rather than facilitating integration.

A country with low taxes and low crime? Georgia is one. Malta and Gibraltar are two others. Three small enclaves either literally islands or close and all with bigger more powerful neighbours who probably provide a strong "the other".

The other approach is that the Law is pretty effective (in terms of finding someone to blame, not finding what is ethically fair) and pretty brutal. Enter countries such as Qatar and the UAE where the underclass is ruled with an iron rod. Or a lot of Africa where the "leadership" doesn't really have to care about the starving slaves.

~:smoking:

[Husar]

Columbia had a civil war in no small part due to the Cold War followed by the Narco trade. There was very little uprising by the poor and disposessed - it was heavily armed gangs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Armed_Forces_of_Colombia

The FARC-EP was formed during the Cold War period as a Marxist–Leninist peasant force promoting a political line of agrarianism and anti-imperialism.

At best you have just agreed that when the peasants rise and aren't put down before they can build up their own economy, they do indeed get the funding to buy stuff and are financially better off than they were under "the system".


And more broadly, I think you are missing the point.

In your cave there are bonds of trust and comradeship. If societies where this scales up the bonds remain and there's a "we're all in this together" attitude. The ultimate is probably Iceland which remains extremely homogeneous and where people genuinely seem to care about each other.

When you have lost all the shared bonds things go wrong - people might be happy to give to those they have some sort of bond to (even if this is more indirect than in the cave) but when they perceive it is to a different "community" then the bonds have been lost, and then each retreats mentally and physically to "their" group - in homogeneous societies if taxes are low, often charity is much higher since people are much more likely to feel the common bond. This is hardly helped when people on both sides spend all their energy pointing out differences referred to as "communities" with spokespersons for each group and thus dividing rather than facilitating integration.

Iceland is also incredibly small in terms of population and benefits from heavily capitalist schemes that depend on other countries with larger populations to finance a social safety net without which the inhabitants don't feel so warm and fuzzy anymore:
https://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2009/0122/will-social-safety-net-survive-iceland-s-crisis


Homelessness is as rare as ever here, slums nonexistent, and crime remains low. People are losing their jobs, their homes, and their savings, but Iceland’s well-developed social safety net is catching them long before they hit the ground.

Iceland is more a proof of my point than yours. You obviously don't need to tax your small population if you get enough money from business dealings financed from abroad. But that scheme does not work for India for example, or perhaps only if it ruined every other country's banking sector in the process. India has a caste system by the way, lovely way to treat "your people". And charity isn't saving India either.


A country with low taxes and low crime? Georgia is one. Malta and Gibraltar are two others. Three small enclaves either literally islands or close and all with bigger more powerful neighbours who probably provide a strong "the other".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
Georgia has about three times the intentional homicide rate of Germany, Malta is a tax haven (again, don't need to tax population with so much outside business coming in -> niche model) with an ongoing corruption scandal involving the use of a car bomb. Hardly a good example for the world.
Gibraltar is an even smaller tax haven...

Show me a large country with low taxes, no social safety net from the government and low crime rates. Tiny countries that finance themselves through the niche tactic of siphoning off taxes from larger countries cannot be a model for every country because the model requires larger countries to siphon the money from...


The other approach is that the Law is pretty effective (in terms of finding someone to blame, not finding what is ethically fair) and pretty brutal. Enter countries such as Qatar and the UAE where the underclass is ruled with an iron rod. Or a lot of Africa where the "leadership" doesn't really have to care about the starving slaves.

~:smoking:

Or Norway and Denmark, where taxes are high, social safety is given and crime is low. Germany, Austria (Australia?) and Canada, which are somewhere in between.

[rory_20_uk]

A large country that has a homogeneous populace - one of the requirements I specified... I never said there was - my point was that the bigger and more diverse states end up getting the less the people care for each other. Just adding more countries and expecting it all to just work is madness. Any large supra-state organisations come to mind here? Perhaps where desire to be part appears to be hand in hand with massive handouts?

To play your game, Germany is a net exporter - so their system exists by charging other countries for their wares, and relies therefore on others to pay. Norway is a small country with a tiny population practically floating on oil with a massive wealth fund as well as being not very diverse. Denmark is another small country with a net positive balance of trade. Easy to be nice to their own people when money is flooding in from abroad. Different niches all - but in essence having a net influx of money underpinning it all.

India is a massive gestalt that was cobbled together by (mainly) the (eeeeevil) British who defeated all the local (and therefore lovely), erm, autocrats. And yes, and religions which mean there are both Hindu / Islam unrest as well as a Caste system which is designed to oppress. They're not getting a social security net since they really don't like each other.

~:smoking:

[Husar]

Yes, I'm well aware of the whole export surplus thing. Unfortunately I'm not the Kaiser who can change that.

I just don't see though, how big and diverse is proven to mean people care less about eachother. The UK has a much bigger and more diverse population than Denmark or Norway and still claims to have some kind of coherence, enough to go for a Brexit and be super nationalist.
Most of the grievances about foreigners also stem from economic inequality. You rarely see rich people complaining about how the foreigners are ruining the country. Meanwhile the poor "foreigners" tend to complain more about racism than the rich ones. Somehow it's almost as though poverty breeds or facilitates this resentment.

[Furunculus]

Husar, you built a straw man and then knocked it down.

Thatchers words did not herald the arrival of a low tax state with no social safety net, and nothing in those words would suggest that it would or should. Britain remained a state that taxed nearly forty percent of gdp and retained a significant and we'll funded social safety net.

It was simply less than was expected on the continent - resulting from our greater emphasis of liberty over equality - but nothing out of the ordinary in the Anglo sphere countries. Large specialised and successful countries, than somehow manage without a pronounced collectivist bent.

It is a choice, not a necessity, and one I'm free not to choose.

[Husar]

Husar, you built a straw man and then knocked it down.

Thatchers words did not herald the arrival of a low tax state with no social safety net, and nothing in those words would suggest that it would or should. Britain remained a state that taxed nearly forty percent of gdp and retained a significant and we'll funded social safety net.

It was simply less than was expected on the continent - resulting from our greater emphasis of liberty over equality - but nothing out of the ordinary in the Anglo sphere countries. Large specialised and successful countries, than somehow manage without a pronounced collectivist bent.

It is a choice, not a necessity, and one I'm free not to choose.

You're probably right somewhere and I'll shamefully retire and let you guys resolve this problem. :bow:

[Montmorency]

It is a choice, not a necessity, and one I'm free not to choose.

"I choose what I choose!" Wasn't that from Sex and the City? :smash:


As to national cohesion, I believe there is a common aphorism derived from history:


What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of fellow-feeling must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of undesirables.

[rory_20_uk]

Yes, I'm well aware of the whole export surplus thing. Unfortunately I'm not the Kaiser who can change that.

I just don't see though, how big and diverse is proven to mean people care less about each other. The UK has a much bigger and more diverse population than Denmark or Norway and still claims to have some kind of coherence, enough to go for a Brexit and be super nationalist.
Most of the grievances about foreigners also stem from economic inequality. You rarely see rich people complaining about how the foreigners are ruining the country. Meanwhile the poor "foreigners" tend to complain more about racism than the rich ones. Somehow it's almost as though poverty breeds or facilitates this resentment.

Coherence in the UK? WTF??!? Apart from Scotland hating England (to the point of supporting whoever England is playing), Northern Ireland continues to be a weeping sore and even parts of what is England continue to try to leave - such as Cornwall. This leaves aside the North / South divide and of course London vs everyone else. And we have not even got onto the multitude of different "communities" which are increasingly encouraged to live alongside each other rather than together.

"Brexit" might have seemed to offer some coherence, but only if one believes the pathetically simplistic messages that both sides were spouting - given the ridiculously over-simplistic vote that was given. In or out with no ability to state what either might mean. So my vote might appear to be exactly the same as some BNP xenophobe skin-head but personally I'd even query we are in the same species let alone any other alignment as both being "British" or "English".

Not exactly poverty - both the Caste system and the Feudal system (followed by the class system) were there to make people be happy with their place in the world.

And at one level this is a Good Thing: it is better for everyone - and me - if I can be happy with my little life in my little life with my little family in my little house. Merely by being in the UK I am in the top 1% of the world. And I am doing pretty nicely even in the UK population. So I should just be happy, and dare I say it be thankful with what I have. No, I will never win the lottery. I will not be paid millions of pounds for some dodgy deal nor be worth billions in no time at all because people are prepared to pay the money for my vapid family and I to be on TV. I will live an insignificant life that has no import on humanity - even if I were to focus on doing bad rather than good (since it is often easier) no one would care after a few years, tops. Rather than focus on the unfairness, be happy

There is evidence to support this. Many communities around coal mining still look back with nostalgia where all able bodied males would go down into an extremely dangerous environment to do a job which shortens their life by years with almost no hope their children would do anything but follow them down t'pit; their daughters marrying the bloke down the road and having 3 kids by 22. Community. An acceptance of their place in the world. Familiarity. Things that are of course anathema now since all of us should strive to be amazingly successful really quickly with no effort. And the often self imposed pressure to do this and the anxiety and depression when life just isn't like this is making many people a lot less happier.

Apparently, the mental health of black Americans is better than white Americans... even though almost every facet of the deck continues to be stacked against them. Whether this is the continuing role religion plays in their lives or whether it is not what one has rather the direction of travel - to be less poor than yesterday is better than being less rich than yesterday.

Hell, look in WW1 - on all sides the disenfranchised, poor masses enthusiastically signed up to kill each other for reasons they'd not been told beyond some gruff statements about Empire and Fatherland. If poverty was a driver they'd have had the Revolution as occurred in Russia.

~:smoking:

[Montmorency]

Coal miners were some of the most restive and militant laborers in modern history; why do you assume they were happy, or that the old serfs were happy? Without even defining happiness of course, a challenge worthy of a separate thread.

The first thing to remember is that there was not, in the past, really anything better to go to or conceive of. So why would you leave? When people thought otherwise, mass migrations occurred. Or when there was overpopulation, young people went off on colonial projects. In ancient times, any kind of violent or ecological shock could induce a whole village to pack up and leave. Presumably it was a fairly lethal endeavour, and it could only occur with the collapse of agriculture, the loss of homes, or the encroachment of invaders. In these eras people may even have been relatively prepared to abandon it all in desperate times, pack up everything not nailed down and break up what was for kindling, down to the very doors and floors. Increasingly in the past millennium however, in Europe at least, migration was obviated. Most of the peasants and burghers were pigeonholed by their lords, right? And other European land was divvied up among recognizable authorities even if there was some fantastic rumored destination out there.

But I think what you're indicating (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-05-23/why-do-americans-stay-when-their-town-has-no-future) is pride, the same kind of pride in place, community, and heritage that leaves contemporary Trumpland (née Rust Belt) residents unable to dissolve their derelict departments and scatter to the winds.

Having a shitty job in the family is a kind of heritage too, even when only a handful of thousands (http://www.politifact.com/illinois/statements/2017/apr/25/brad-schneider/are-there-three-times-many-solar-energy-jobs-coal-/) work it in the modern day. When every public school teacher and worker in West Virginia went on extended strike a few months ago, they wore the red ribbon of the centuried striking coal miner. Job retraining for middle-aged rural manual laborers is a sunk proposition from the go, but more than that the extended networks of such people rejected Hillary Clinton because they didn't want to try retraining. They want(ed) re-jobbing.

People get attached to place, even if it leads to other forms of self-harm or bone-curdling sentiment (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVC83nXatME). And it's understandable. I don't want to live as an itinerant, riding the coattails of the economy here and there, a "free economic agent" pursuing my optimal financial interest. Dwelling in a megalopolis I don't have to worry about it in the same way though, ours worry for the pricing out of meta-gentrification and speculatory property management.


Mental health of African Americans is something to be sourced here for scrutiny; they have less access and usage to services for one, and this could either be down to location/income, or to self-suppressive cultural norms of the kind that only in recent years are being seriously confronted before the general population.

[rory_20_uk]

Pride has a part to play. But in the UK until very recently people were very protective of the "Class" that they had along with a pride in their class and what they did. They believed there wasn't something better, with each class looking down at the others for different reasons.

Now, everyone is constantly informed about what is "better" and "winners never quit" / "never compromise" / "there is no plan B" / "if you're not happy, quit". If you're life is not perfect every minute of every day then you are a failure. Any problem you have with your job / partner / family means you should immediately remove them from your life. Oh, and you should probably sue someone for something.

And yes, they wanted re-jobbing. To continue doing what they'd always done. Not to strive and to change. To stay in the rut they are in surrounded by what they know. What is that? Contentedness? Stability? Happiness? Whatever semantics you frame it - they want what they've got to continue. People would prefer to earn less and earn it constantly than earn more and have no stability. And i can relate to that when I was a Locum GP a few years ago I hated it and was so much... happier when I got a new steady job where I earned a lower salary.

Modern society is forcing people to tread unknown roads with no security nor any guarantee it will even work - at least the Journeyman expected to settle down at some point and have a role. Now whatever you do might be outsourced, moved offshore, replaced with AI or who knows what?

A Brave New World had of course the Class system taken to its extreme as a horrific dystopia with everyone mindlessly happy with their place in the world - the only outsider eventually killing himself. Thankfully we have avoided that with people free to live in utter despair without purpose and increasingly turning to narcotics to block out reality. Much better!

~:smoking:

[Greyblades]

What's so great about compromise, and why isn't it considered a last resort in the exhaustion of other options? Why is the mere presence of compromise, rather than the content or subject, valorized?

Because too often those that refuse compromise plunge the parties into bloodshed.

Wars tend to teach a people the value of compromise through the mess fanatics make while culling themselves.

[Montmorency]

And yes, they wanted re-jobbing. To continue doing what they'd always done. Not to strive and to change. To stay in the rut they are in surrounded by what they know. What is that? Contentedness? Stability? Happiness? Whatever semantics you frame it - they want what they've got to continue. People would prefer to earn less and earn it constantly than earn more and have no stability. And i can relate to that when I was a Locum GP a few years ago I hated it and was so much... happier when I got a new steady job where I earned a lower salary.

One of the sad things, what the modern world does to one's mindset, is how you will frequently see upper-middle class liberals and leftists echoing conservative rhetoric and mocking the stranded inland folk for their refusal to uproot their lives and find a new way in the world. This has to come from our valuing and emphasizing the theory of social mobility* as an ideal class-relationship. Refusal to engage on those terms becomes a character flaw.

[To be a bit sophistic there was plenty of social mobility in premodern times; you just had to kill the right people.[/SPOIL]

I mean, not that there's an intrinsic nobility (savage or otherwise) to inland folk, they're frequently attested to be awful and shortsighted people, but "get a job and pull yourself up by your bootstraps" is always a cruel and counterproductive thing to tell someone without boots, or without a longing for the (rather metaphorical) road (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmApIE720gU).


And i can relate to that when I was a Locum GP a few years ago I hated it and was so much... happier when I got a new steady job where I earned a lower salary.

We've had threads here about nurse crews being understaffed by policy in the NHS, leading to burnout, among other things.

Medical schools are highly competitive, expensive, and residencies (https://democracyjournal.org/arguments/medical-residents-are-overworked/) demanding to the point of abuse. Correct me if I'm being silly, but wouldn't significantly increasing the capacity, admittance, and output of academies, and positions for graduates to fill in practice, be positive for both professionals' work-life balance and patient care/engagement? They would be paid less, of course... Same question for nurses.

[Strike For The South]

People get attached to place, even if it leads to other forms of self-harm or bone-curdling sentiment (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVC83nXatME). And it's understandable. I don't want to live as an itinerant, riding the coattails of the economy here and there, a "free economic agent" pursuing my optimal financial interest. Dwelling in a megalopolis I don't have to worry about it in the same way though, ours worry for the pricing out of meta-gentrification and speculatory property management.

That video was a straight up white nationalist primer. Gross.

[Greyblades]

"The london that in 15 years a white person will be a minority. [...] Am I racist? No. Do I have anything against people of other races? No. Would I prevent them from coming into my home? No. So what then is my gripe? [...] My gripe is that we were never asked. My gripe is we were told, not asked."

This is white nationalism? I though white nationalism was supposed to be the removal or extermination of non whites, Nazis! Ubermenchen! Rivers of Blood!

If this blood and soil ode to alienation is supposed to be white nationalism then the term has become rather diluted. Makes the posturing rather pathetic really, "Bone curdeling" "gross", how conditioned must you be that this rather sappy monologue to music engenders such revulsion.

[AE Bravo]

If this blood and soil ode to alienation is supposed to be white nationalism then the term has become rather diluted. Makes the posturing rather pathetic really, "Bone curdeling" "gross", how conditioned must you be that this rather sappy monologue to music engenders such revulsion.
On another note, Britain has been (to put it mildly) quite adept in neocolonialism. The co-option and exploitation of underdeveloped countries has yielded these very same results that are being complained about. I vaguely remember you advocating for this intrusion concerning Hong Kong and some African states I don't recall. This comparison is only similar in that it serves the economy at the cost of some sort of social (racial) comfort. We can only conclude that Britain has seen the benefits of this "alienation" firsthand and seeks to replicate it for its benefit again.

[Pannonian]

"The london that in 15 years a white person will be a minority. [...] Am I racist? No. Do I have anything against people of other races? No. Would I prevent them from coming into my home? No. So what then is my gripe? [...] My gripe is that we were never asked. My gripe is we were told, not asked."

This is white nationalism? I though white nationalism was supposed to be the removal or extermination of non whites, Nazis! Ubermenchen! Rivers of Blood!

If this blood and soil ode to alienation is supposed to be white nationalism then the term has become rather diluted. Makes the posturing rather pathetic really, "Bone curdeling" "gross", how conditioned must you be that this rather sappy monologue to music engenders such revulsion.

Parts of the east end are majority non-white because the whites have moved out to the suburbs that were built post-war. The exodus was entirely voluntary, and pre-dated the influx of non-whites. If you want to point fingers, point at the Blitz and the subsequent decision to build a better Britain, away from the Victorians' slums.

[Pannonian]

On another note, Britain has been (to put it mildly) quite adept in neocolonialism. The co-option and exploitation of underdeveloped countries has yielded these very same results that are being complained about. I vaguely remember you advocating for this intrusion concerning Hong Kong and some African states I don't recall. This comparison is only similar in that it serves the economy at the cost of some sort of social (racial) comfort. We can only conclude that Britain has seen the benefits of this "alienation" firsthand and seeks to replicate it for its benefit again.

TBF, China are the biggest proponents of neocolonialism. Some Pakistanis are doubtful about the projects that are taking place in their country. And that's the most militarily powerful Muslim country in the world. Other, smaller countries don't have the leverage that Pakistan does, and they'll be less able to resist whatever those Pakistanis see coming.

[Gilrandir]

TBF, China are the biggest proponents of neocolonialism. Some Pakistanis are doubtful about the projects that are taking place in their country. And that's the most militarily powerful Muslim country in the world.

What about Turkey?

[Pannonian]

What about Turkey?

Isn't that just migration, without drawing resources back to the mother country? Romania has quite a few nationals in other countries too, but no-one's accusing them of neocolonialism. The Chinese form has the hallmarks of old school colonialism, which is why some Pakistanis are protesting about the advisability of Chinese investment.

[Gilrandir]

Isn't that just migration, without drawing resources back to the mother country? Romania has quite a few nationals in other countries too, but no-one's accusing them of neocolonialism. The Chinese form has the hallmarks of old school colonialism, which is why some Pakistanis are protesting about the advisability of Chinese investment.

I meant your statement of Pakistan as a Muslim military power #1. Is it rather Turkey?

[Pannonian]

I meant your statement of Pakistan as a Muslim military power #1. Is it rather Turkey?

Pakistan has nukes.

[Gilrandir]

Pakistan has nukes.

No country has used nukes against another since 1945. So Pakistan isn't likely to use them either. Taking them out of calculations, I believe it is on par with Turkey.

[Husar]

"The london that in 15 years a white person will be a minority. [...] Am I racist? No. Do I have anything against people of other races? No. Would I prevent them from coming into my home? No. So what then is my gripe? [...] My gripe is that we were never asked. My gripe is we were told, not asked."

This is white nationalism? I though white nationalism was supposed to be the removal or extermination of non whites, Nazis! Ubermenchen! Rivers of Blood!

If this blood and soil ode to alienation is supposed to be white nationalism then the term has become rather diluted. Makes the posturing rather pathetic really, "Bone curdeling" "gross", how conditioned must you be that this rather sappy monologue to music engenders such revulsion.

I thought the great part about the UK was that it's such a sturdy, bloodless democracy with Queenish checks and balances and a house of noblemen and a free congress that it's the best democracy in the world. And now I have to read that people feel like it's a dictatorship? Shocking! :stare:

Perhaps it appears racist because these dictatorship accusations only come up in reference to immigration and contradict everything people say about the government regarding other political topics?

[rory_20_uk]

I thought the great part about the UK was that it's such a sturdy, bloodless democracy with Queenish checks and balances and a house of noblemen and a free congress that it's the best democracy in the world. And now I have to read that people feel like it's a dictatorship? Shocking! :stare:

Perhaps it appears racist because these dictatorship accusations only come up in reference to immigration and contradict everything people say about the government regarding other political topics?

Technically the UK is a Theocracy. The Head of State is appointed by God. It is clearly not a dictatorship, but it is one where although the number of voters is large, the number of people with Real Power is very small.

In the UK, people are not asked in entering wars, the alteration to the NHS / the school system / the pension system and on it goes. Our "representatives" do whatever they feel like and at the next election really promise to not lie so much next time.

Don't you dare disabuse me of my view that Germany is the bastion of Democracy with a sensible system of devolved responsibilities and a PR system that enables the country to slowly shift position as the coalition alters... You have a leader who seems to have the ability to understand what she's doing and focuses on doing it rather than the latest PR campaign. If I wasn't so utterly useless at languages I'd have considered relocating over there.

~:smoking:

[Husar]

Don't you dare disabuse me of my view that Germany is the bastion of Democracy with a sensible system of devolved responsibilities and a PR system that enables the country to slowly shift position as the coalition alters... You have a leader who seems to have the ability to understand what she's doing and focuses on doing it rather than the latest PR campaign. If I wasn't so utterly useless at languages I'd have considered relocating over there.

~:smoking:

Merkel is really difficult to judge. Internationally she appears to look great, domestically she seems less great. She promises broadband internet for everyone every election but hasn't delivered yet. This year, the goal was for everyone to have at least 50MBit/s, but we are nowhere near that outside of larger cities. And then her ministers go rogue (or soft) in favor of big business, we still export weapons to Turkey and SA and not much is done about rising housing prices and the wealth gap, etc. Most of the "good" things she does weren't her idea in the first place. She's certainly okay in an international comparison, but there is quite a bit of room for improvement and internationally she only looks good because other countries lowered their standards...but maybe that's the best one can get in a crazy world?

[Montmorency]

Merkel is really difficult to judge. Internationally she appears to look great, domestically she seems less great. She promises broadband internet for everyone every election but hasn't delivered yet. This year, the goal was for everyone to have at least 50MBit/s, but we are nowhere near that outside of larger cities. And then her ministers go rogue (or soft) in favor of big business, we still export weapons to Turkey and SA and not much is done about rising housing prices and the wealth gap, etc. Most of the "good" things she does weren't her idea in the first place. She's certainly okay in an international comparison, but there is quite a bit of room for improvement and internationally she only looks good because other countries lowered their standards...but maybe that's the best one can get in a crazy world?

Well, she is a conservative (center-right) leader in the end.

If you were an American, you would learn to be satisfied with moderately expensive 20 Mb.

[Strike For The South]

"The london that in 15 years a white person will be a minority. [...] Am I racist? No. Do I have anything against people of other races? No. Would I prevent them from coming into my home? No. So what then is my gripe? [...] My gripe is that we were never asked. My gripe is we were told, not asked."

This is white nationalism? I though white nationalism was supposed to be the removal or extermination of non whites, Nazis! Ubermenchen! Rivers of Blood!

If this blood and soil ode to alienation is supposed to be white nationalism then the term has become rather diluted. Makes the posturing rather pathetic really, "Bone curdeling" "gross", how conditioned must you be that this rather sappy monologue to music engenders such revulsion.

What social connotation does "white" have in the UK beyond "not brown"? This is a primer video. It's like CSA state rights, Europe for the Europeans, or any other of those platitudes. It's meant for you to dip your toe before you take the big plunge.

[Husar]

What social connotation does "white" have in the UK beyond "not brown"? This is a primer video. It's like CSA state rights, Europe for the Europeans, or any other of those platitudes. It's meant for you to dip your toe before you take the big plunge.

Additionally I found it a bit weird that the voice whines about how it's all become unrecognizable and then claims he would let everyone in anyway, he just wants to be asked about it first. It seems incoherent/weird in several ways:

1. Why complain about not being asked if you claim you had done exactly the same thing anyway?

2. Why complain about becoming a minority if you had done the same thing anyway?

3. Should representative democracy only be suspended for immigration or for everything? If so, why especially for that topic?

Leads me to the conclusion that "I would let immigrants in anyway because I'm not racist" and "I'm only angry because I was never asked" are just lies to make it more palatable as a primer as you say.

[Montmorency]

What social connotation does "white" have in the UK beyond "not brown"? This is a primer video. It's like CSA state rights, Europe for the Europeans, or any other of those platitudes. It's meant for you to dip your toe before you take the big plunge.


Additionally I found it a bit weird that the voice whines about how it's all become unrecognizable and then claims he would let everyone in anyway, he just wants to be asked about it first. It seems incoherent/weird in several ways:

1. Why complain about not being asked if you claim you had done exactly the same thing anyway?

2. Why complain about becoming a minority if you had done the same thing anyway?

3. Should representative democracy only be suspended for immigration or for everything? If so, why especially for that topic?

Leads me to the conclusion that "I would let immigrants in anyway because I'm not racist" and "I'm only angry because I was never asked" are just lies to make it more palatable as a primer as you say.

The speech (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWHPJ8hO-ZM) is from a 2001 episode of NCS: Manhunt, a BBC crime procedural. It is delivered by a far-right terrorist, I guess just before the good guys beat him?

:wiseguy:

Obviously if taken unironically it's exploitable as white nationalist propaganda (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tL5exJg4ms).

[Montmorency]

Heard from a Trump supporter minutes ago: "Ha ha, he's so wonderfully screwing them!"

Sums it up nicely.

(Could be X-post with the Trump thread, but it works either way.)

[Pannonian]

The speech (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWHPJ8hO-ZM) is from a 2001 episode of NCS: Manhunt, a BBC crime procedural. It is delivered by a far-right terrorist, I guess just before the good guys beat him?

:wiseguy:

Obviously if taken unironically it's exploitable as white nationalist propaganda (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tL5exJg4ms).

People who believe in the immutability of Englishness probably believe there is nothing so quintessentially English as drinking tea with milk and sugar in china cups.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Heard from a Trump supporter minutes ago: "Ha ha, he's so wonderfully screwing them!"

Sums it up nicely.

(Could be X-post with the Trump thread, but it works either way.)

Better than reaching out to the other side over some ideal of "compromise" though right?
They got the right idea, destroy the other side at all costs, even if it destroys yourself.

[Montmorency]

Better than reaching out to the other side over some ideal of "compromise" though right?
They got the right idea, destroy the other side at all costs, even if it destroys yourself.

Think carefully: what are you trying to say here?

[Pannonian]

I would like to give you a friendly warning. As you attack the White population of Britain in your aims to gain Black Supremacy in this country, remember what happened to Jo Cox.

I AM NOT ONE OF THEM but there are those out there who would like to see you suffer the same fate. Be careful!!

NB. Jo Cox was assassinated.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Think carefully: what are you trying to say here?I am poking fun at the original question you posed. We are living at a time when compromise is a nonstarter for one party's constituents. This mentality is clearly damaging our discourse and our institutions. Why again should we not praise compromise as a good in an of itself?

[Strike For The South]

The speech (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWHPJ8hO-ZM) is from a 2001 episode of NCS: Manhunt, a BBC crime procedural. It is delivered by a far-right terrorist, I guess just before the good guys beat him?

:wiseguy:

Obviously if taken unironically it's exploitable as white nationalist propaganda (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tL5exJg4ms).

Do you take it ironically though? It has all the signs.

I don't hate "them", there is nothing wrong with "them", but "they" will be the ruin of us. Classic propaganda.

[Montmorency]

I am poking fun at the original question you posed. We are living at a time when compromise is a nonstarter for one party's constituents. This mentality is clearly damaging our discourse and our institutions. Why again should we not praise compromise as a good in an of itself?

So you're saying the problem with Trump supporters is that they aren't willing to compromise? Why would they compromise when they are in power, and believe that the opposition refuses to compromise, even as this attitude has itself been encouraged by the Democratic impulse to please Republican voters by drafting and voting for Republican policies?

The Trump movement shows exactly the failure of compromise as an ideal.

The problem is not a lack of compromise, I reiterate, but that bad and harmful policies are advanced in the first place. Compromising over bad policies still gets you bad policy. Compromise is the last resort to get good policy out of excellent policy.

Like this joke:

A man walks into a bar holding a pile of shit. "Look what I almost stepped in..."

[Montmorency]

Do you take it ironically though? It has all the signs.

I don't hate "them", there is nothing wrong with "them", but "they" will be the ruin of us. Classic propaganda.

That's what I mean; the far-right doesn't take it ironically, but deadly-serious. Why did so many left-leaning people like to safari in 4Chan, Stormfront, and explicitly racist, theocratic, etc. sites before 2015? It's certainly not as fun as it used to be.

[Strike For The South]

That's what I mean; the far-right doesn't take it ironically, but deadly-serious. Why did so many left-leaning people like to safari in 4Chan, Stormfront, and explicitly racist, theocratic, etc. sites before 2015? It's certainly not as fun as it used to be.

I think the past couple of years have shook the "just having a laugh" cohort. Sort of like how the GOP didn't think anti govt tea people could control their party circa 2010.

People who are convinced in their purpose can be tenacious.

[Montmorency]

I think the past couple of years have shook the "just having a laugh" cohort. Sort of like how the GOP didn't think anti govt tea people could control their party circa 2010.

People who are convinced in their purpose can be tenacious.

In high school, one Halloween a boy in my Global History class (1st period) showed up wearing some type of Nazi uniform, SA I believe. (I don't recall that he was wearing the swastika armband however.)

I boggled at the spectacle, so he did a little goosestepping for me and recited "Ein Reich! Ein Volk! Ein Fuhrer!" as we waited for the teacher to arrive.

Our regular teacher was an elderly lefty Jewish woman. Miraculously, we had a substitute that day.

The boy was himself, going by his name, descended from Soviet Jews. Them were the days for the edgelord.

[Furunculus]

In high school, one Halloween a boy in my Global History class (1st period) showed up wearing some type of Nazi uniform, SA I believe. (I don't recall that he was wearing the swastika armband however.)

I boggled at the spectacle, so he did a little goosestepping for me and recited "Ein Reich! Ein Volk! Ein Fuhrer!" as we waited for the teacher to arrive.

Our regular teacher was an elderly lefty Jewish woman. Miraculously, we had a substitute that day.

The boy was himself, going by his name, descended from Soviet Jews. Them were the days for the edgelord.

i only recently found out what an edgelord was. i had to ask.

[Gilrandir]

i only recently found out what an edgelord was. i had to ask.

I still don't know.

[Beskar]

I still don't know.

edgelord (plural edgelords)
(informal, pejorative, Internet slang) Someone who attempts to seem edgy by doing or saying risque or offensive things.

It would be like Monty's example where someone comes across a jew, replying with "卐 卐 卐 Hitler was Right 卐 卐 卐" to be edgy. Though only success this individual would have is gaining entry onto the banned list. The individual might not actually believe that statement, but they say it because they think it makes them "cool".

[Strike For The South]

In high school, one Halloween a boy in my Global History class (1st period) showed up wearing some type of Nazi uniform, SA I believe. (I don't recall that he was wearing the swastika armband however.)

I boggled at the spectacle, so he did a little goosestepping for me and recited "Ein Reich! Ein Volk! Ein Fuhrer!" as we waited for the teacher to arrive.

Our regular teacher was an elderly lefty Jewish woman. Miraculously, we had a substitute that day.

The boy was himself, going by his name, descended from Soviet Jews. Them were the days for the edgelord.

He probably now has an immaculate room thanks to one Canadian professor LOLOLOL.

[Montmorency]

For anyone who was confused, here (https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-06-20/michael-bloomberg-why-i-m-supporting-democrats-in-2018-midterms) is a convenient exemplar of the bi-partisan "middle ground" ethos from Mike Bloomberg:


I’ve never much liked political parties. I’ve always believed that we should put country before party. Too many politicians practice the reverse, with terrible consequences for the American people.

But although I don’t believe in partisanship, I very much believe in the importance of politics and elections. That’s how we make change and progress in a democracy.

Over the years, I have supported candidates in both parties who were willing to break with partisanship and the special interests and seek common ground around solutions to make America better.


In the last election, for example, I spent nearly ten million dollars to help a Republican, Pat Toomey, get re-elected in Pennsylvania. [...] At the same time, I spent roughly the same amount to help successfully elect a Democrat in New Hampshire — Maggie Hassan — who was running to defeat a Republican incumbent who had voted against Toomey’s bill.


my belief that democracy and government work best when people from both parties work together.


I’ve never thought that the public is well-served when one party is entirely out of power, and I think the past year and half has been evidence of that.

Republicans, who control both houses of Congress, have done little to reach across the aisle to craft bipartisan solutions

When the content of policy is treated as an afterthought, you realize it's a billionaire conceit this way, a game and a paresis of the status-quo. Whatever Mike, you had 12 years.

And in case one has forgotten, there is no dilemma between hyperpartisan stonewalling and the prioritization of deliberative context and process over substance.

[Strike For The South]

I mean Bloomberg is pro hyper capitalism. He knows he can get that from either party.

[Montmorency]

I mean Bloomberg is pro hyper capitalism. He knows he can get that from either party.

Hence why many leftists argue that no billionaire is really an ally, they're just buying favorable political results and a balance of powers. Heck, even conservatives will admit this when they want to criticize Warren Buffett or whomever.


Shifting in the subject of compromise, this essay (https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/july-august-2018/the-socialist-network/) points out that the Sanders/Corbyn movements have assimilated the far-left to the center more so than the other way around, creating a sort of 'big-tent' socialism in public discourse that is closer to mid-century progressivism than to Marxism - and yet that this is also what has made "socialism" so much more accessible for people today.


Or in a memage:

20897

Great use of meme tho

[Strike For The South]

Shifting in the subject of compromise, this essay (https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/july-august-2018/the-socialist-network/) points out that the Sanders/Corbyn movements have assimilated the far-left to the center more so than the other way around, creating a sort of 'big-tent' socialism in public discourse that is closer to mid-century progressivism than to Marxism - and yet that this is also what has made "socialism" so much more accessible for people today.


Or in a memage:

20897

Great use of meme tho

This is what makes Ocasio-Cortez so fascinating. Her interviews on NPR and her Kaisch like pro small business tweets are reminiscent of old school democrats. Yet the DSA claims her? I suppose it's the truth. By her own admission the DSA were the ones on the ground organizing things and that is what attracted her to them. Fair play.

Really it is more illustrative of how frighteningly rightward this country has drifted since Nixon. A lot of what She is saying are the same things LBJ talked about when he envisioned the great society 50 years ago. And that was LBJ, you know, Hey hey how many kids did you bomb today. decidedly not a DSA member lol.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The next generation of leftism in America is starting to learn that it cannot trade economics for culture or vice versa. We need both a left that both checks corporate greed and fights for legal gay marriage. Without both they are vulnerable to losing it all, which is really what we are looking at now.

50+ years of political correctness that made America a more tolerant nation could be wiped out in 5-10 if Trumpism wins out.

[Beskar]

Saw this and thought of this topic.
https://i.imgur.com/TGdTIJu.jpg

[Montmorency]

Brevity.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DHXAh4uV0AEjYoo.jpg

[rory_20_uk]

John Oliver's analagy was: sometimes compromise doesn't make any sense - such as with vaccines, or eating a bar of soap. Just because one side wants to do it, the compromise position of eating half a bar is still stupid.

The fact these days we have to view everyone and everything (yes, there are exceptions but they seem to be decreasing) as equally valid is the problem since there is the "logic" that the alternative is that all freedoms will be removed. Female Genital Mutilation is wrong. I don't care about what your horrible culture says about this - this is more evidence that it is a lesser culture.

~:smoking:

[a completely inoffensive name]

I am still not exactly convinced that compromise or at least an attitude of compromise and conciliation is not the best approach because some issues are black and white. Yes, vaccines are good and we should have them. Yes, civil rights are good and racism is bad. But are we being willfully blind to the realities of the typical voter?

Average joe who is not affiliated with a party will pop up two months before an election to watch debates and CNN talking heads and is not going to evoke strong passions towards a given topic. In fact, they actively detest the passionate, and believe them to be the problem with politics.

To what degree did civil rights win in the 1960s not because it was the right choice but because it was framed as the middle ground between the fervent segregationists standing in front of schools on one side and the Malcom X type militants on the other (at least up until his change of heart after visiting Mecca)?

Maybe it's two parts co-dependent. We need both the compromises and the militants. Without the former we get public alienation of the core ideas, and without the latter we get a slow drift of the public discourse to the other side.

I take it back, you guys must be correct. If the last 30 years in the US have shown anything it is a drift rightward. We are lacking the conviction of stubborn leftists to hold the Democratic party to its promises towards the working class.

[rory_20_uk]

Perhaps I was less than clear - generally compromise is good and that is with mutual tolerance and so forth. But the position should be assessed and not just placed between the two. Perhaps with human nature it does indeed require both extremes just to add utility to finding compromise is.

I wish the whole left / right misnomer was scrapped and something at least slightly more complex but far more meaningful was used. I realise one can add as many dimensions as one wants but surely a compromise ends up with a number greater than one...

~:smoking:

[Montmorency]

To what degree did civil rights win in the 1960s not because it was the right choice but because it was framed as the middle ground between the fervent segregationists standing in front of schools on one side and the Malcom X type militants on the other (at least up until his change of heart after visiting Mecca)?

Maybe it's two parts co-dependent. We need both the compromises and the militants. Without the former we get public alienation of the core ideas, and without the latter we get a slow drift of the public discourse to the other side.


A more important point than you may realize. Think also of how socialist militancy propelled social democrats to victory in Europe and America in the first half of the 20th century...

What's the point? That you need a credible fight, or you are irrelevant. Build your own power as you won't be awarded any for "game balance".


On messaging and the "Left (https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/09/how-to-build-an-effective-left-alternative)":


What, after all, is the fundamental principle of the political left? The most obvious candidate is a preference for equality over inequality. But the left is about more than equality. After all, to ensure perfect equality, you could just make everyone equally miserable. If the left is about nothing more than “equality,” the quickest way to achieve its goals is by taking everything everyone has away and leaving them destitute.

What we’re really about, then, is making life better for people, eliminating human suffering and creating better conditions for people to exist in. We’re about taking the bad features of society, the pain and the torment and the exploitation, and replacing them with good things.


It is the job of the left to make life better, to care about improving people’s conditions in tangible ways. This means helping people achieve decent wages. Making sure they have good schools. Making sure they’re not tangled up in red tape as they try to get healthcare. Making sure that they’re not lonely, or depressed, that they have a sense of community and purpose. Our job is to bring everybody the good life, to make sure they are able to eat good food, have great healthcare, have fulfilling and rewarding work, and maximize their potential. We don’t want people stuck in dead-end tasks that they hate, we don’t want them having to worry about whether they’ll be able to pay for their children’s medical needs, we don’t want them blown to pieces in a needless war.


Yet consider how people on the left frequently talk: in abstractions, generalities, and theories, in ways that don’t put our principles in intelligible terms. Partly because so much left-wing thinking originates in the academy, the language of the left frequently doesn’t lend itself to mass appeal. Instead of talking about suffering, cruelty, and deprivation, the left now frequently talks about “marginalization” and “exclusion.”


we need terms that make clear to everybody what the problem is and what it would look like if the problem were solved. We should be careful about using language that is unclear or vague, because this makes our goals fuzzy.

It’s important to believe in things that are real. Left-wing principles are often stated in abstractions. For example, “fighting oppression” or “creating equality.”


The more one uses shorthand terms (like “systemic injustice”) rather than descriptors of the actual problems in people’s lives that this shorthand term refers to (like “women being fired for becoming pregnant” or “factories closing and leaving hundreds of dads unable to pay for their children to visit the doctor” or “black men on the way home from their jobs being thrown against police cars and frisked” or “transgender people being bullied and beaten up and then crying all night believing they are totally hated and alone in the world”), the less we help people who are not leftists understand what we are actually concerned with.


Utopian thinking is often seen as the height of uselessness, because it necessarily speculates on worlds that don’t exist rather than dealing pragmatically with the world that does exist. But this misses a crucial purpose of these dreams: They help us understand what the end goal is, what the underlying vision is toward which we want to keep moving. By envisioning the promised land, you can chart a path toward it. You may not get there. But you will at least be heading in the right direction. (This is one reason why Martin Luther King’s dream was such an effective image; it offered a vision of a seemingly impossible world and gave people something to look forward to and begin to build together.) [...]
But you still need an answer to the obvious follow-up question “Well, if you’re not Donald Trump, then what are you?” Progressives therefore need a meaningful vision. Why should people want a left-wing world? What does the left actually stand for? And what would it actually look like to have a world in which the things the left wants are implemented? If nobody gives people a clear answer to these questions, then we cannot expect people to sign on to our program.



Don’t Move To the Right, Move to the Good – When Democrats lose, they sometimes have a tendency to believe they should act more like Republicans in order to win. This is true in one sense, in that Republicans know how to accomplish their political agenda while Democrats do not. But it shouldn’t be taken to mean that Democrats should adopt more right-wing political positions in order to attract a broader base of support. If you try to be both progressive and conservative, you’ll end up being nothing at all. People are far more likely to respect sincere progressives who are truthful about their values than politicians who take the public’s temperature via focus group and adopt their political positions accordingly. Liberalism does not need to be more watery, it needs to be more principled and genuine. People dislike liberals not because their ideas are too radical, but because they are frequently hypocritical (say by flying around in private jets while preaching about inequality) and because they are perceived to be elitist (say by insisting that people who disagree with them are dumb and uneducated). We don’t need to get rid of our commitments, we need to be persuasive in presenting them.


Communication must be effective if it is to be of any use at all. That means you need plain language. Preserving the social safety net. Getting tough on the 1%. Saving the middle class. We do not like cruelty. What is cruelty? Intentionally causing a person feel to feel pain and being indifferent to or enjoying that pain. Why is Donald Trump cruel? Because deporting people inflicts terrible pain on families, and sexual assaulting people traumatizes them.


Many ideological differences are not mere “misunderstandings” and it will be impossible to find common ground. Sometimes values are simply in conflict. But where resolutions are possible, we should try to find them before dismissing a clash as intractable.