American Politics Discussion Thread

[Mjmd]

Traitors become patriots when they win (e.g George Washington) and patriots become traitors when they lose (e.g. Benedict Arnold).

Darrell

So this is flippant and somewhat true, but there is a serious question here, but I've answered it before. When is it ok to overthrow the current government If you were trying come up with a guideline that doesn't just follow whomever wins or loses / a certain ideology what would your criteria be?

Obviously people always have a justification for grabbing power. And sometimes its even not just about the power but actually is about doing what they think is right.

That bar / guideline is high in a Democracy. One of the first questions in trying to determine a criteria would be "could the issue have been resolved by NOT overthrowing the current government?". And obviously in Democracy we have a mechanism for that. You can try to work and persuade people to vote a certain direction.

I gave a few examples of "is your justification higher than examples" from US history. One example was the civil rights movement. Another was the election of 1824 (in my opinion the actual most stolen presidential election in our history). If your justification can't beat the moral bar of Andrew Jackson, you just might be a traitor.

Again, Democracies are madness; they go against human nature. We let people we think are stupid and have completely opposite ideas from us have power. And we let is happen ALL the time!

[Boro]

If it was possible to fix the issues by voting, you would all have done so a long time ago.

Either it is not possible to fix it by voting (as the selection of candidates by elites who control the media and through it the people's perceptions) and the anti-third-party pact by the big two shows...

...or it is possible, but the americans are simply not interested in solving these problems, making them accomplices in every unpunished war crime the washington regime has inflicted upon the world. After all, their companies all but stealing raw resources and human labor from all over the global south enable the voter base to be effectively bribed by cheap products.

Pick your poison.

[Mjmd]

Again, people seem to think that I'm arguing Democracies are perfect. That is always the counter "YOUR NOT PERFECT SO DEMOCRACY BAD!!!". That has never been my argument. Change and action are possible. We just celebrated Martin Luther King day in the states and some of his lesser known quotes deal with how do you make people care about change? How do you get the apathetic to care. Most people in the United States just take our Democracy for granted. They don't realize all we owe to it. How do you make them care? Its not that most are fascists, its just that they don't realize or care.

Its not that Democracy is perfect, but that change CAN be made. Its not guaranteed. Part of the appeal of authoritarinism is its easier. Everything is one persons responsibility, good or bad. In a Democracy you have to get movement of a lot of people to get a change.

[Amicalola]

Again, people seem to think that I'm arguing Democracies are perfect.

That's not really what I'm arguing. I'm not really arguing at all. Just despairing at the general state of the US at the moment, and how it affects everyone else. I think a lot of the issues we are experiencing (worldwide, albeit heightened in the US) are the inevitable result of widespread social media usage and the internet, and that's certainly not the average American's fault, even if their actions confuse and frustrate me. Decades of neoliberal policy dominance don't help, but afaik Americans haven't been given a valid choice against that in decades.

So I would argue that some democracies are better than others, and currently America's sits towards the bottom of the pile. It's hard to see how it improves from here, with money so thoroughly corrupting the entire process.

[Mjmd]

I was responding to Boro not you Amica.

As far as your point, I've said it before. America isn't the best Democracy on earth, it is the most important.

I have argued many times against the view that the internet / social media or whatever communication you want to blame are to blame. I think people forget the lack of information the world used to have. Next time I'm up north, my inlaws have a lovely 1929 ish school book of current history that is SUPER scary; I'll try to take some screenshots of particularly bad pages. A lot of the problems we have now aren't new. I know current time frame always seem worse, but I think a casual look back reveals that disinformation was MUCH worse and harder to disprove in the past. If people wanted to know more, they can now. There will always be people who believe what they want to believe, but more information being available and more view points being available helps.

[Amicalola]

I have argued many times against the view that the internet / social media or whatever communication you want to blame are to blame. I think people forget the lack of information the world used to have.

I'd believe that disinformation was worse in 1929 than it is now. I'd struggle greatly to believe it was as bad in 2000 as it is now.

Social media, and more broadly the internet, are documentably contributing towards a host of current issues, including heightened political polarisation, a widespread reduction in attention spans, and a burgeoning mental health crisis among adults and especially teenagers. It does not seem like a stretch to throw misinformation to the mix (look at Elon's X right now, or Truth Social, or any number of other online cesspits). Even without this, each of these issues is relevant to America's shitty democracy.

[Mjmd]

I have argued many times against the view that the internet / social media or whatever communication you want to blame are to blame. I think people forget the lack of information the world used to have.

I'd believe that disinformation was worse in 1929 than it is now. I'd struggle greatly to believe it was as bad in 2000 as it is now.

Social media, and more broadly the internet, are documentably contributing towards a host of current issues, including heightened political polarisation, a widespread reduction in attention spans, and a burgeoning mental health crisis among adults and especially teenagers. It does not seem like a stretch to throw misinformation to the mix, and even without this, each of these issues is relevant to America's shitty democracy.

I think you are correct about the attention span and mental health. I don't think disinformation is any worse or better than 2000. Political polarization is always pretty bad in America as we are a flawed democracy with gerrymandering and poor primary turn out. The history of party ideology switches makes it wax and wane (at least in US). I think part of it is it might FEEL that way due to the nature of all the information we have available. We get to see and hear as much as we want to consume.

[Amicalola]

I have argued many times against the view that the internet / social media or whatever communication you want to blame are to blame. I think people forget the lack of information the world used to have.

I'd believe that disinformation was worse in 1929 than it is now. I'd struggle greatly to believe it was as bad in 2000 as it is now.

Social media, and more broadly the internet, are documentably contributing towards a host of current issues, including heightened political polarisation, a widespread reduction in attention spans, and a burgeoning mental health crisis among adults and especially teenagers. It does not seem like a stretch to throw misinformation to the mix, and even without this, each of these issues is relevant to America's shitty democracy.

I think you are correct about the attention span and mental health. I don't think disinformation is any worse or better than 2000. Political polarization is always pretty bad in America as we are a flawed democracy with gerrymandering and poor primary turn out. The history of party ideology switches makes it wax and wane (at least in US). I think part of it is it might FEEL that way due to the nature of all the information we have available. We get to see and hear as much as we want to consume.

I'm not an expert and have not done research. However, among researchers who have, there seems to be a pretty strong consensus that social media has contributed to an increase in disinformation over the last decade or so. COVID-19 is the easy example, but there are lots more in this article alone. My anecdotal evidence teaching teenagers supports this, but is less reliable.

[Mjmd]

Its amazing how much of history might be based of of media hype and disinformation causing a war.... I of course am talking about the Spanish American war....... (I actually instantly found a paper on this vs current social media I will read through and post if its interesting enough)

Covid is a great example. If a leader / their party in x country wanted to do disinformation in the past they could do so much easier. There wasn't as much pressure and certainly not as much instant pressure if they said stupid or incorrect things. It doesn't mean they didn't, but it also probably changed their reaction significantly. Also, obviously people who actually want to know can. Again, people will believe if they want to, but gives option for people who actually want to double check a resource to do that.

[GeneralKilCavalry]

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

They gave the current US happening a really freaking cool name. Gunfight at the OK Corral tier. This is getting funny.