Mitt Romney has cemented his position as a Koch/Murdoch puppet. He wants power at any cost, up to and including picking Paul Ryan, a man known for Objectivist and severe budget plans, to suck up to Fox News and the Teabaggers. Aside from his complete lack of moral compass, obvious by one of the most dishonest campaigns in the history of television ads, Romney is sucking up to the people who were going to vote for him anyways. Hopefully this alienates him even further from the "moderates" in swing states.
The Republican Party has sold the same old trickle down bullshit for decades now, and the choice of Ryan only confirms their commitment to a known bad economic policy. Unfortunately they have been really good at convincing middle and working class people to vote against their own interests by either appealing to racist and sexist ideologies for the Christian Right or by lying about entitlement programs. America, as I have mentioned before, has bought into a nearly Objectivist philosophy of self reliance and selfishness, as can be seen by the blind backlash against Obama simply saying we build things within a community. A short three years since trickle down policies combined with war mongering collapsed our economy, and that of the world, the Republicans are trying to blame Obama for "socialist" programs and entitlement programs. They go on about the impending collapse of Social Security, which is actually where much of the debt has been borrowed from rather than for, and Ryan wanted to end medicare as it currently exists, something politifact actually got wrong for once. Ryan is even an admitted Objectivist, praising Ayn Rand almost religiously.
This new, openly elitist party, run by Fox rather than running Fox, is hilariously inept at economics. They are simply thinking short term, running the country into the ground to keep a bit more of their tax money and to pay off their friends in the military industrial complex, but at the cost of long term economic health. They fail to realize that consistent degradation of the middle class, the increased concentration of wealth is a good way to devalue their own holdings, and possibly even collapse the money they think they have. While many will survive, just as many will lose it all in the crisis, eventually. Ryan is one of the worst short term thinkers, working against the tide of social progress in his moral views while trying to implement the largest takedown of the New Deal in decades. He and his ilk demonize the working class, not just the imaginary welfare queens of Reagan's era, but the working and middle classes. They keep citing mangled statistics about less than half pay taxes, which is great when you only talk about federal income tax and ignore the unemployment problem caused by his type of policies. Ignoring social security, payroll, state and property taxes while blaming those hurt the worst by the recession for the recession and debt is not just immoral but stupid. These unemployed have plenty of time to vote, and while most American voters are easily led, enough will, this time at least, see through the charade when it is so thinly veiled.
I am glad Romney chose Paul Ryan. They are out in the open now, rich white men who only care about other rich white men. Millionaires bloated on shitty policy and corruption so openly pushing for more corruption that the most fearful of unaffiliated voters will realize the danger of voting for them. Ryan appeals only to the authoritarian Republican base that was going to vote for anybody opposing Obama no matter what. They hate Obama because he is on the other team. They believe any bullshit about the recession, even when the Republican commercials blatantly lie about the order of events and the causes. This season's blatant lies are beyond the normal mudslinging and truth massaging of the past , this election has gone into full blown insanity. Demonizing the voters you hope to win, appealing only to the ones who would always vote for you, lying so obviously even the mainstream media notices. This is going to be a painful and annoying season, but barring full scale economic collapse in the next few months, Obama will win and the Republicans will continue to blame him for everything that ever went wrong.
I really wish the voting public would learn how to separate cause and effect, as well as truth and fiction. Until they do, until our education and culture push for rational thought and empirical analysis, we will continue to be lied to by politicians. Obama is nothing the Republicans say, but he is still in bed with corporations. He still caters to "intellectual property" owners over creators and consumers. He still expands the federal power to unreasonable levels with spying on US citizens and drug wars and assassinations, but he did not magically cause an economic collapse from before he was in office or start two massive wars that created our debt. If we could hold all politicians accountable for their actual ills, we wouldn't need to invent any. If we could watch and remember past policies, we could stop repeating failed ones. If people could actually pay attention to Romney's lies, even conservatives couldn't vote for him.
Logic Priest
Saturday, August 11, 2012
Friday, August 10, 2012
A New Identity for Rational Empiricism
In my mind there seems only one basic, moral conclusion from skepticism and rational empiricism or even atheism. As a human, I should care about humanity's well being. The best way to do this, from the evidence and from the logic that there is no good reason not to, is to allow the best spread of privilege and equality possible at a given time.
This is not to say communism or some such, this is about rights and opportunities. One of the biggest holes in various "rational" movements, or even civil rights movements, is an inherent selfishness and blindness from privilege. The defensive nature of people like DJ Grothe when confronted with a sexual harassment issue, or when certain feminists are confronted by trans people, among others (many, many others), is a betrayal of rationalism. This isn't a No True Scotsman thing, either, but about the principles these people claim to hold and then immediately fail to live out.
A current, horrifying example is over at Freethought blogs where a short lived member invited from youtube, thunderfoot, is running amok. He was expelled after showing himself to be sexist, petty and abusive of his fellow bloggers, and has not gotten over it sense. Apparently he is now threatening to reveal personal emails and identities of bloggers over there, many of whom write under pseudonyms like me, but for their protection. People like Natalie Reed and Zinnia Jones and Taslima, who could be genuinely hurt if their identities or addresses were revealed. Thunderfoot is being a petty asshole, and he is part of an increasing number of awful people associated with the skeptical and atheist "communities." I am increasingly uneasy associating with those terms now, although I am an atheist and skeptic, I really don't want to be mixed up with a bunch of petty, selfish and defensive people in the same type of denial that theists always are.
These people only embrace skepticism as a way to feel smarter than theists, but they really have far more in common with the religious than they do with genuinely rationalist people. At its heart, rationalism is based around the idea that you can be wrong. Passionate defense of your ideas is great, and certain things are foregone conclusions (no god, etc) but if your only defense is accusations that your opponent is radical or playing victim, fuck you. No punches to be held back, if a woman says she felt unsafe and someone's response is to accuse them of being dramatic, fuck them. If a trans says they identify with being X gender and some self identified feminist claims they don't mean it because blah blah gender isn't real, fuck them. I don't care what movement someone claims to be in, if they are wrong, if they are supporting irrational beliefs and refuse to even think they could be wrong, they can fuck off and go hang out with the god botherers.
We need a new group, a new movement that is there to make humanity better. Atheism is a label merely saying you don't believe in god. Good for us, we don't believe an obvious fairy tale. Skepticism is vague, not really describing any sort of goal. Great for them, but why bother if you don't care about results? Feminism is a bit better, at least subscribing to some goal, but I know of too many who are transphobic and the same goes for many LGB rights people, ignoring the trans, gender fluid, and even the bisexuals sometimes. We need something new, something with these elements but a clearer goal. We need a movement whose goal is to accept being wrong, a movement that strives for the best results for humanity as a whole. It needs to expel cultural artifacts that cannot be defended with logic and evidence, it needs to finally unroot itself from a history of religious thinking and patriarchy. We need something for the new generation, with its sights set higher than merely getting slightly better for a specific group.
We need a movement where atheism is just a fact, not a purpose, and where rational thought is applied to all things, not just pet issues. The only real focus is on humanity, and making it better. Science makes it better, equality makes it better, knowing about the world makes it better, and admitting you are wrong makes it better. Anyone can be wrong, though as a side note this doesn't mean repeated arguments sans proof should be considered. Any good argument (by the definition of good in logic, not personal preference) must be considered.
We need this movement because it is too easy to identify and claim membership to broad labels with no meaning beyond a coincidental conclusion that obvious things are wrong, like god or magic tricks or alternative meds. One that Objectivists and libertarians would shy from, one that would make MRAs angry to think about, one that makes those whose rights are threatened feel welcome and one that is willing to be wrong and correct itself. One that argues passionately within itself and can then move on with the correct, or at least better conclusions. One where pettiness is a disqualified. One where a violation of trust is grounds for expulsion and one where we can rely on each other to have the same broad goals, not the same random conclusion about life.
We, not the atheists and skeptics but we, humanity need this group to help push us forward. Humanity won't last without these elements of thought being combined.
Logic Priest
This is not to say communism or some such, this is about rights and opportunities. One of the biggest holes in various "rational" movements, or even civil rights movements, is an inherent selfishness and blindness from privilege. The defensive nature of people like DJ Grothe when confronted with a sexual harassment issue, or when certain feminists are confronted by trans people, among others (many, many others), is a betrayal of rationalism. This isn't a No True Scotsman thing, either, but about the principles these people claim to hold and then immediately fail to live out.
A current, horrifying example is over at Freethought blogs where a short lived member invited from youtube, thunderfoot, is running amok. He was expelled after showing himself to be sexist, petty and abusive of his fellow bloggers, and has not gotten over it sense. Apparently he is now threatening to reveal personal emails and identities of bloggers over there, many of whom write under pseudonyms like me, but for their protection. People like Natalie Reed and Zinnia Jones and Taslima, who could be genuinely hurt if their identities or addresses were revealed. Thunderfoot is being a petty asshole, and he is part of an increasing number of awful people associated with the skeptical and atheist "communities." I am increasingly uneasy associating with those terms now, although I am an atheist and skeptic, I really don't want to be mixed up with a bunch of petty, selfish and defensive people in the same type of denial that theists always are.
These people only embrace skepticism as a way to feel smarter than theists, but they really have far more in common with the religious than they do with genuinely rationalist people. At its heart, rationalism is based around the idea that you can be wrong. Passionate defense of your ideas is great, and certain things are foregone conclusions (no god, etc) but if your only defense is accusations that your opponent is radical or playing victim, fuck you. No punches to be held back, if a woman says she felt unsafe and someone's response is to accuse them of being dramatic, fuck them. If a trans says they identify with being X gender and some self identified feminist claims they don't mean it because blah blah gender isn't real, fuck them. I don't care what movement someone claims to be in, if they are wrong, if they are supporting irrational beliefs and refuse to even think they could be wrong, they can fuck off and go hang out with the god botherers.
We need a new group, a new movement that is there to make humanity better. Atheism is a label merely saying you don't believe in god. Good for us, we don't believe an obvious fairy tale. Skepticism is vague, not really describing any sort of goal. Great for them, but why bother if you don't care about results? Feminism is a bit better, at least subscribing to some goal, but I know of too many who are transphobic and the same goes for many LGB rights people, ignoring the trans, gender fluid, and even the bisexuals sometimes. We need something new, something with these elements but a clearer goal. We need a movement whose goal is to accept being wrong, a movement that strives for the best results for humanity as a whole. It needs to expel cultural artifacts that cannot be defended with logic and evidence, it needs to finally unroot itself from a history of religious thinking and patriarchy. We need something for the new generation, with its sights set higher than merely getting slightly better for a specific group.
We need a movement where atheism is just a fact, not a purpose, and where rational thought is applied to all things, not just pet issues. The only real focus is on humanity, and making it better. Science makes it better, equality makes it better, knowing about the world makes it better, and admitting you are wrong makes it better. Anyone can be wrong, though as a side note this doesn't mean repeated arguments sans proof should be considered. Any good argument (by the definition of good in logic, not personal preference) must be considered.
We need this movement because it is too easy to identify and claim membership to broad labels with no meaning beyond a coincidental conclusion that obvious things are wrong, like god or magic tricks or alternative meds. One that Objectivists and libertarians would shy from, one that would make MRAs angry to think about, one that makes those whose rights are threatened feel welcome and one that is willing to be wrong and correct itself. One that argues passionately within itself and can then move on with the correct, or at least better conclusions. One where pettiness is a disqualified. One where a violation of trust is grounds for expulsion and one where we can rely on each other to have the same broad goals, not the same random conclusion about life.
We, not the atheists and skeptics but we, humanity need this group to help push us forward. Humanity won't last without these elements of thought being combined.
Logic Priest
Wednesday, August 8, 2012
Violent Country
America is a violent country. So much that we only notice when someone kills a half dozen or more. In all the tens of thousands of "normal" murders each year we see nothing out of the ordinary. We as a country constantly resort to violent rhetoric in politics, we believe in a "right" to own weapons and we look the other way when people kill each other. The only time Americans seem to notice is when a brown person kills good, white, Christian Americans. Then they are terrorists, and we invade a country they may or may not have some relation to.
A Sikh temple was shot up, but still the news is cautious to call it terrorism. White supremacist shoots a group often confused with Muslims, our mortal enemies, and they wait on the FBI to call him a terrorist. It isn't just racism that is an issue here, it is the fact that Americans don't see it as an attack. Unless we can otherize the violence, it is just par for the course here.
Americans don't just kill each other, either. Our response to the deaths of three thousand was to invade an entire country, and then a second one on top of that. Hundreds of thousands dead in those countries, and no one bats an eyelash. People complain about the money it costs, which is an issue, or the soldiers on our side who die, which again IS a big deal, but they fail to mention or notice the thousands of civilians we murder in the name of patriotism. Americans don't see war as bad, they just hope for "just" war and cheap wars. Everyone looks to World War 2 as a "just" war because it is easy to otherize the Nazis, it is easy to play the good guys. They ignore the atrocities we as a nation committed and romanticize the war itself. In Europe, the world wars left a bitter taste that lasts to this day, making the vast majority of European nations hesitant to commit to any violent action, whether we call it a war or peacekeeping mission. They let go of their colonies for fear of military action, they dismantled their militaries, while the US immediately looked for more wars to fight. We are involved in major actions at least twice a generation now.
We kill each other with guns, we execute those people in retaliation. We kill nations of people who are different, and we glorify weaponry itself. We allowed, even encouraged a massive military industrial complex to be built up because we sat in anticipation of another world war, secretly hoping for it. American culture is very violent. We demonize war protestors as unamerican and unpatriotic, and dismiss them as radicals, hippies, and idealists. Talking about gun laws is tantamount to treason in our culture.
American culture may be consumed by our dark side, our lust for violence, or at least our acceptance of it. We are desensitized to death, showing temporary outrage at murder only to demand more murder to "fix" it. This may be in part from cultural manipulation by those with their profits on the line, namely the military industrial complex built by the second world war and the Cold War, but we are part of it too. We have bigger issues than "control" of guns. We need to find out how to fix our culture itself.
Logic Priest
A Sikh temple was shot up, but still the news is cautious to call it terrorism. White supremacist shoots a group often confused with Muslims, our mortal enemies, and they wait on the FBI to call him a terrorist. It isn't just racism that is an issue here, it is the fact that Americans don't see it as an attack. Unless we can otherize the violence, it is just par for the course here.
Americans don't just kill each other, either. Our response to the deaths of three thousand was to invade an entire country, and then a second one on top of that. Hundreds of thousands dead in those countries, and no one bats an eyelash. People complain about the money it costs, which is an issue, or the soldiers on our side who die, which again IS a big deal, but they fail to mention or notice the thousands of civilians we murder in the name of patriotism. Americans don't see war as bad, they just hope for "just" war and cheap wars. Everyone looks to World War 2 as a "just" war because it is easy to otherize the Nazis, it is easy to play the good guys. They ignore the atrocities we as a nation committed and romanticize the war itself. In Europe, the world wars left a bitter taste that lasts to this day, making the vast majority of European nations hesitant to commit to any violent action, whether we call it a war or peacekeeping mission. They let go of their colonies for fear of military action, they dismantled their militaries, while the US immediately looked for more wars to fight. We are involved in major actions at least twice a generation now.
We kill each other with guns, we execute those people in retaliation. We kill nations of people who are different, and we glorify weaponry itself. We allowed, even encouraged a massive military industrial complex to be built up because we sat in anticipation of another world war, secretly hoping for it. American culture is very violent. We demonize war protestors as unamerican and unpatriotic, and dismiss them as radicals, hippies, and idealists. Talking about gun laws is tantamount to treason in our culture.
American culture may be consumed by our dark side, our lust for violence, or at least our acceptance of it. We are desensitized to death, showing temporary outrage at murder only to demand more murder to "fix" it. This may be in part from cultural manipulation by those with their profits on the line, namely the military industrial complex built by the second world war and the Cold War, but we are part of it too. We have bigger issues than "control" of guns. We need to find out how to fix our culture itself.
Logic Priest
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
Being X Doesn't Make You Immune
Women can be misogynists. PoC can be racist and "reverse" racist. Atheists can be irrational, homosexuals can be transphobic, so on and so forth. Checking off one or more boxes in the minority checklist doesn't mean you are automatically understanding of all other minorities. Black preachers are some of the most outspoken homophobes, white cisgender homosexual men have been involved in transphobia and strangely biphobia (as in bisexuals). People claiming rationalism as their right by virtue of realizing there is no god make irrational judgements and racist and sexist and __ist remarks.
No one is immune to some level of stereotyping, it is part and parcel of our mental processes. But when it becomes an issue of actions, of social pressures, that is when you need to reevaluate. Never assume any group is immune. It may be one of my least favorite excuses of all time, when someone of a non privileged says something disparaging of another, or even their own grouping and then claims it is impossible for what they said to be ___ist. I hear women say "I'm a woman" as if to excuse their misogyny. I hear PoC claim to be immune to racism when they disparage another, separate race. It isn't even always about privilege, though it often is (white cisgender male homosexuals still have the first 3 going for them, so on). Institutional discrimination stays in place because the groups it hurts participate in it as much as the majority does. Rational evaluation is not just required of the privileged but by those hurt by privilege. Everyone should think clearly. Everyone should analyze and use logic and evidence to support their conclusions.
I usually just walk away from arguments that this comes up in. Relation to a topic is by no means a guarantee that you know anything about it.
Logic Priest
No one is immune to some level of stereotyping, it is part and parcel of our mental processes. But when it becomes an issue of actions, of social pressures, that is when you need to reevaluate. Never assume any group is immune. It may be one of my least favorite excuses of all time, when someone of a non privileged says something disparaging of another, or even their own grouping and then claims it is impossible for what they said to be ___ist. I hear women say "I'm a woman" as if to excuse their misogyny. I hear PoC claim to be immune to racism when they disparage another, separate race. It isn't even always about privilege, though it often is (white cisgender male homosexuals still have the first 3 going for them, so on). Institutional discrimination stays in place because the groups it hurts participate in it as much as the majority does. Rational evaluation is not just required of the privileged but by those hurt by privilege. Everyone should think clearly. Everyone should analyze and use logic and evidence to support their conclusions.
I usually just walk away from arguments that this comes up in. Relation to a topic is by no means a guarantee that you know anything about it.
Logic Priest
Rule of Attraction
There are a lot of accusations that feminism ruins dating and sex and whatever other thing insecure men (and women) have trouble doing anyways. There was a big deal over at Freethoughtblogs when youtube vlogger Thunderfoot was invited, decided to declare feminism as anti sex, insulted the network itself, and was promptly kicked off for being an ass. There was a big deal when bloggers declared harassment was an issue at atheist and skeptic conferences, with people claiming no it wasn't or that these bloggers hated men/sex/etc. There was a big deal when Rebecca Watson declared that it was awkward to be hit on in an elevator in the middle of the night and once more accusations that she hated men and sex.
Now I am pretty sure none of the people involved hate sex, most are self declared sex positive feminists, not some "radical" type that mostly live in the minds of the apparently socially awkward men and women. They, and most feminists I am sure, have no issues with flirting and sex, in the right situation. They only demand that people not reduce their entire being to sex, with their value determined solely by you desire to fuck them. Really it comes down to timing and social awareness. If the person is sitting in a booth answering questions about philosophy, science or similar, they probably don't want to be propositioned for sex. If they are in a bar flirting with you, they probably wouldn't mind as much, as long as the flirting is both ways. If someone is standing in a crowd, they probably wouldn't care to be grabbed or touched by someone they don't know.
If these seem obvious, congratulations you aren't a sexist pig. If, however, they seem hard to grasp or they make you angry and confused, you should probably not go into public until you have reassessed your ability to socialize. I personally have a few simple guidelines for when it is appropriate to tell someone they are attractive. Firstly, when you and the person in questions seem to be working towards a sexual relationship. That is, mutual flirting at the minimum and all the way up to relationships. Second, when it is directly relevant to an ongoing conversation, with you, from someone you know at least by name. Even then, there are smaller social cues that should tell you if it is appropriate, and which words and phrases to use. That is it. Any other situation is probably not ok because it implies the person you are "complimenting" only has value through attractiveness. This is really all feminists mean when they talk about objectifications. They don't mean you can never compliment looks, but that it shouldn't really be the only thing you see in a woman, or man, or any person. It should not be the only thing a person is measured by, end of story.
Media itself is still very sexist, portraying women not as attractive or intelligent but as pieces of sexual organs. Faces are often excluded and portrayals of women as obedient sex slaves are common. If this seems ok to you, you are sexist. If you treat women like this in real life, you are probably sexually harassing them. There is no one saying you can't have sex or flirt or anything of the sort. The people who think so can fuck off and get over themselves.
Logic Priest
Now I am pretty sure none of the people involved hate sex, most are self declared sex positive feminists, not some "radical" type that mostly live in the minds of the apparently socially awkward men and women. They, and most feminists I am sure, have no issues with flirting and sex, in the right situation. They only demand that people not reduce their entire being to sex, with their value determined solely by you desire to fuck them. Really it comes down to timing and social awareness. If the person is sitting in a booth answering questions about philosophy, science or similar, they probably don't want to be propositioned for sex. If they are in a bar flirting with you, they probably wouldn't mind as much, as long as the flirting is both ways. If someone is standing in a crowd, they probably wouldn't care to be grabbed or touched by someone they don't know.
If these seem obvious, congratulations you aren't a sexist pig. If, however, they seem hard to grasp or they make you angry and confused, you should probably not go into public until you have reassessed your ability to socialize. I personally have a few simple guidelines for when it is appropriate to tell someone they are attractive. Firstly, when you and the person in questions seem to be working towards a sexual relationship. That is, mutual flirting at the minimum and all the way up to relationships. Second, when it is directly relevant to an ongoing conversation, with you, from someone you know at least by name. Even then, there are smaller social cues that should tell you if it is appropriate, and which words and phrases to use. That is it. Any other situation is probably not ok because it implies the person you are "complimenting" only has value through attractiveness. This is really all feminists mean when they talk about objectifications. They don't mean you can never compliment looks, but that it shouldn't really be the only thing you see in a woman, or man, or any person. It should not be the only thing a person is measured by, end of story.
Media itself is still very sexist, portraying women not as attractive or intelligent but as pieces of sexual organs. Faces are often excluded and portrayals of women as obedient sex slaves are common. If this seems ok to you, you are sexist. If you treat women like this in real life, you are probably sexually harassing them. There is no one saying you can't have sex or flirt or anything of the sort. The people who think so can fuck off and get over themselves.
Logic Priest
Monday, August 6, 2012
Conspiracies!
Well, we have a new one. http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2012/08/06/tn-legislator-sends-out-crazy-conspiracy-theory/ Crazy theory that Obama is going to become a dictator somehow. Now I hate that he has continued and expanded the Bush era erosion of civil rights, but that has been trending among presidents since before Reagan. As a nation grows, centralized powers grows more attached to stability. As such they do anything and everything to maintain the status quo.
This particular "theory" is another false flag accusation, where the evil government will fake an external attack to further centralize power. While the nation actually has done this, or attempted to do this in the past, it has been easier, historically to just use real crises like 9/11 or Pearl Harbor or whatever else. Politics is all about manipulation of the masses to gain more power. Aside from the fact that most of Homeland Security was Bush appointed and has deep ties to Republicans, most of the government would not be willing to play such an obvious hand. If it failed, the entire legitimacy would be shattered, making more subtle power grabs harder to hide.
The Republicans have been using the less entrenched members, often tea baggers, to spout these crazy stores for decades, but the frequency has increased drastically since 2010 and the formation of the astroturf tea parties. Crazy racial theories, accusations of socialism, fascism or whatever other ism they can think of, all used to radicalize the base and scare people into voting against Obama. The GOP has no good candidates, so they hope to demonize Obama enough that people, especially moderates, vote for a GOP president out of spite for Obama.
The worst part is that moderates eat these stories like hot cakes. Or something you eat fast. Self declared moderates are actually conservative, enjoying the status quo almost as much as the powerful people it supports. Moderates decide based on fear, more than any other emotion, and the side that scares them the best wins, even if that party was the one who caused the problem. Current Romney ads focus on some imaginary Obama threat to businesses and white people, because the GOP needs to foster as much fear as possible to make moderates forget that they and the policies they propose caused the recession to begin with. By lying about time lines, misquoting, and unofficially spreading conspiracy theories the GOP is demonizing Obama in any way they can. As long as Romney avoids talking about actual policy, this could work. The more personality he shows, the worse it is for him since the policies and detached attitudes are what people associate, correctly, with the recession. Fear controls the masses.
Logic Priest
This particular "theory" is another false flag accusation, where the evil government will fake an external attack to further centralize power. While the nation actually has done this, or attempted to do this in the past, it has been easier, historically to just use real crises like 9/11 or Pearl Harbor or whatever else. Politics is all about manipulation of the masses to gain more power. Aside from the fact that most of Homeland Security was Bush appointed and has deep ties to Republicans, most of the government would not be willing to play such an obvious hand. If it failed, the entire legitimacy would be shattered, making more subtle power grabs harder to hide.
The Republicans have been using the less entrenched members, often tea baggers, to spout these crazy stores for decades, but the frequency has increased drastically since 2010 and the formation of the astroturf tea parties. Crazy racial theories, accusations of socialism, fascism or whatever other ism they can think of, all used to radicalize the base and scare people into voting against Obama. The GOP has no good candidates, so they hope to demonize Obama enough that people, especially moderates, vote for a GOP president out of spite for Obama.
The worst part is that moderates eat these stories like hot cakes. Or something you eat fast. Self declared moderates are actually conservative, enjoying the status quo almost as much as the powerful people it supports. Moderates decide based on fear, more than any other emotion, and the side that scares them the best wins, even if that party was the one who caused the problem. Current Romney ads focus on some imaginary Obama threat to businesses and white people, because the GOP needs to foster as much fear as possible to make moderates forget that they and the policies they propose caused the recession to begin with. By lying about time lines, misquoting, and unofficially spreading conspiracy theories the GOP is demonizing Obama in any way they can. As long as Romney avoids talking about actual policy, this could work. The more personality he shows, the worse it is for him since the policies and detached attitudes are what people associate, correctly, with the recession. Fear controls the masses.
Logic Priest
Sunday, August 5, 2012
You Didn't Build That!
Holy fucking fuck. It is starting to make my stomach hurt to see these ads and hear these people with their subjective realities. Take vague, political talk about community, said by Romney AND Obama, but turn the one said by a Democrat and non white man into some sort of creeping socialism. Bam, campaign done. Even when you point out the blatant out of context snipping required to get the phrase about businesses not building themselves up, the conservatives declare that it is worse in context. Somehow pointing out that we live in a community and that communal, government run projects like roads and the internet allow entrepreneurs to make their money is akin to socialism. At least when a Democrat does it. Romney really gave a nearly identical speech at one point. It is meaningless political talk about community, although it does support Obama's claim that trickle down economics is a bad idea.
I have no deep analysis of this bullshit. It is, on its face, completely awful. Politics involves a lot of attack ads focusing on out of context statements and lies, but this one seems to be the pillar of Romney's campaign right now. He has based his entire campaign on sentence fragments from an unimportant Obama speech, and it works because conservatives (and most moderates) are really, really gullible. Authoritarian attitudes mean they believe what they are told, not just in spite of evidence but often because of it. Recent scientific studies have suggested that the conservative mindset, defined as well as possible, is only strengthened when proven wrong. Rationalization at its finest.
We live in a country where evidence only increases the passion of one side, and is forgotten by another. There are few progressives left, and tons of conservatives. Then there are the regressive, who not only believe what their leaders tell them but actively deny reality as "satanic." Ancient books and conn men are the source of information about the world for half of the US. Fact checking is seen as liberal bias, and when reality disagrees with opinion, reality is declared wrong. From laws in North Carolina declaring the sea level rise to be less than it actually is to poorly cut quotes to more than a hundred million people in the US who genuinely think a bearded man made the entire universe just for humans (white humans) six thousand years ago we live in a nation that values lies over truth.
Logic Priest
I have no deep analysis of this bullshit. It is, on its face, completely awful. Politics involves a lot of attack ads focusing on out of context statements and lies, but this one seems to be the pillar of Romney's campaign right now. He has based his entire campaign on sentence fragments from an unimportant Obama speech, and it works because conservatives (and most moderates) are really, really gullible. Authoritarian attitudes mean they believe what they are told, not just in spite of evidence but often because of it. Recent scientific studies have suggested that the conservative mindset, defined as well as possible, is only strengthened when proven wrong. Rationalization at its finest.
We live in a country where evidence only increases the passion of one side, and is forgotten by another. There are few progressives left, and tons of conservatives. Then there are the regressive, who not only believe what their leaders tell them but actively deny reality as "satanic." Ancient books and conn men are the source of information about the world for half of the US. Fact checking is seen as liberal bias, and when reality disagrees with opinion, reality is declared wrong. From laws in North Carolina declaring the sea level rise to be less than it actually is to poorly cut quotes to more than a hundred million people in the US who genuinely think a bearded man made the entire universe just for humans (white humans) six thousand years ago we live in a nation that values lies over truth.
Logic Priest
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)