Non-Mod post:

Look, at this point, we represent the dwindling raft of debris still floating in the post-DIF stormwaters, and — for sanity — we've gotta cling onto each other as much as possible. I intend for this thread to be perfectly accommodating to people of any political persuasion — look: we're all concerned about the future of democracy — just as long as those political persuasions are expressed according to the aforementioned etiquette.

I want to be very clear: regardless of any disagreement you-and-I might come to, you can always expect me to drop "my" "role" in that disagreement, when it comes to mod concerns. In my capacity as a mod, I mean to be fully responsive to people who espouse opinions which, in my capacity as a poster, I'm literally yelling my disagreement about. (If it comes to that.) If you come to me for a mod-thing and are unsatisfied with my response, I also intend to leave any [rule-abiding] "public appeals" you make (in response to that dissatisfaction) public and unedited. I'll make my case as well — and, obviously, 'mod-rule' stands, until successfully appealled — but, while you won't get the last word on the ruling, your voice in this thread will never be silenced unless it's in direct violation of the rule above, even if your voice is being used to criticize the mods.

For any other person with mod-powers on this board, I expect the very same to apply. Strict separation of decisionmaking in "mod-capacity" versus "poster-capacity" is the minimum sufficient criteria for mod-powers on this board. If you have a problem with any other mod, you can always appeal it to me — and they may lose.

In the meantime?

Go nuts. Disagree with people's opinions. Just don't belittle people.

As an American, I am so over our government. The current rhetoric of no compromise and fuck over the other team as much as possible is so deeply frustrating that I wish we could scrap the whole thing and start over.

Tbh I'm a fatalist at this point. Sure, the leftist wing of the Democratic party is finally showing some life, but the main establishment hasn't learned ANYTHING from the 2016 debacle. And if we lose the 2020 ballgame, that's it. (I mean, America is on the decline regardless, but the Republicans are gonna absolutely run it into the ground if they're allowed to remain in power.) The way so many liberals hung the entirety of their hopes on the Mueller investigation is emblematic of the whole thing—this fucking two-year pipe dream that assumed, even if Mueller found anything, a.) Republicans in Congress would allow anything to happen b.) the vast majority of the public even gives a damn.

So anyway, yeah. To quote Elizabeth Sandifer, "Let us assume we are fucked." Because even if we somehow do miraculously pull off a 2020 win, climate change is still looming on the horizon and even if a Green New Deal goes through it's a band-aid on a gaping throat wound.

(All this said, is my fatalism gonna prevent me from hoping like hell that the GOP somehow gets the boot and doing everything I can to ensure a liberal candidate wins? Of course not. I'm just not expecting anything to ultimately matter that much, wheeeeeeee.)

A few points:

1. Good strong imposition of the rules at the start, Teague. I started a Trump thread last year and it didn't take long until personal comments were made. Your rules are firm and fair.
2. If anyone wants some optimism, I'd like to refer them to Steven Pinker's ENLIGHTENMENT NOW book. He's one of the most intelligent public intellectuals about. There are plenty of his talks on youtube summarising his arguments. But in a sentence, the world has never been as good as it is now for a range of indicators: crime rates, war deaths, wealth, education, longevity, progressive laws, etc. As soon as you compare how things were like 50, 100, 500, 1000 years ago, today looks great!
3. I've been around long enough to see a few dozen elections in USA / UK / Australia so I've learned not to blame the politicians as it's the PEOPLE that keep voting for them. Any anger should be directed at the mechanisms by which people are "informed" by the media, school, entertainment, church, internet, university, etc. See Chomsky  for more on this point.
4. My own position is one of secularism, science education, environmentalism, aggressive fiscal redistribution (e.g. UBI), social libertarianism, and it feels like "my side" has been losing since the Reagan/Thatcher neoliberal revolution of the 1980s. Fox/Newscorp has poisoned the well of public debate and does an extremely effective job at it... e.g. to mobilize sick people to protest against improving their own healthcare, or to get poor people to advocate for tax cuts for billionaires is astonishing. I have a perverse "admiration" for how dirty the right can fight but it saddens me too. Had a Democrat done 1% of what Trump's said/done, there'd be hoards of pitchforks (and worse) on The Mall.
5. One of the issues I wrestle with is 'tolerance of intolerance'... anyone who's listened to Sam Harris will know how to unpack this. It's one of the paradoxes that the left must grapple with. I often agree and disagree simultaneously and still working through that issue.
6. But cheer up DiFers, as the big long picture over 50-100 years is indeed in the right direction. The good guys win in the end... I hope. If they don't, we'll all be outta here soon enough.

This shit is just such a slog, y'know?

"Okay campers, rise and shine! And don't forget your fortitude because it's devastating out there today! (It's devastating out there every day — what is this, some Chekov shit? Not hardly!) So, really: Do you think any of our leaders are going to see themselves in the mirror today? Ha! That's right, doldrum-lovers — it's Tues-day!"

Whoever the fuck this guy is — what he said.

Unfortunately, every single word of this is absolutely true.

It's very abstract Teague. Didn't know you were a Ethics Philosopher teaching a second year course on Utilitarianism. Could you give some real world examples? What I mean about tolerating intolerance, of course, (didn't want to go here) is the entire embracing cosmopolitanism, pluralism, immigration, welcoming refugees, etc... all noble ideals and where I lean, but then you have the issue of how to deal with some medieval mindsets: FGM, women as second class, segregation, etc. Surely we all embrace liberal values of gender equality, but then it feels like we throw women/LGBTQ under the bus if we also don't speak out about less savoury aspects of values from other cultures. Either way, one group gets shafted. There's a tension there. A Universal Bill of Rights is monolithic, almost imperialistic...something out of fashion now. And yet...

Take the specific example of 1M+ Syrian refugees taken into Europe. It's the highest ideal... fleeing a war-torn hellscape and seeking sanctuary and a new life in a modern safe prosperous free liberal western democracy. But invariably, there can be tensions, and if you take a side, you throw the other side under the bus.

Do unto others as you would like have done to yourself?
Do unto others as they would like?

There's a paradox with cosmopolitanism The full spectrum includes: (1) "you can't come in unless you sign up to our values", all the way to, "welcome, do what you want, knock yourself out"

When we visit Dubai, do we expect to hold hands on the beach? Or as guests, we must conform to local laws/customs, which means there are no universal human values we all share?

I'm still wrestling with this. But if you say you have an easy answer to it, I'd love to hear it.

Am I correct in assuming that your usage of "cosmopolitanism" is essentially a euphemism for "liberal elitism?"

I think that "spectrum" is a lot simpler than you're making it: "Welcome, do what you want, knock yourself out, but don't hurt anyone."

Looking forward to it.

Before 2015, Trump led the whole birther movement, with all its dog-whistles. Jon Stewart covered his crazy twitter outbursts throughout the Obama years. Never watched Apprentice. At least with Trump, what you see is what you get (rather than some puppet President controlled by others e.g. Dubya and Cheney, or even Reagan. There's no evil secret conspiracy agenda... just an incompetent narcissistic buffoon stroking his own ego. (I'm trying to be generous here and look on the bright side).
The real issue is why 42-46% of the country will support anything he does. Hence my earlier question - is the average Joe Sixpack better off due to any of Trump's policies? Genuine question.
A lot of people are puzzled over the GOP's unconditional support, but that's easily explained...'it's the tax cuts and deregulation, stoopid'.