What's in the News 3.0

[Chulanowa]

It's not necessarily that simple... Still, if a party endorses a politician who is an obvious neo-fascist, then it's definitely telling, yes. Especially if, over the years, the same party has shown indirect support toward far right movements.

It really is that simple. I know there's an urge to "save fascism for a special occasion," to always go "oh it's not that bad, yet..." but all that does is give cover. Keep up with the "Oh we can't call it fascism, not just yet" and you'll have an Enabling Act on your docket before you know it.

Not that a solid policy, to be honest. Yes, social benefits help poor families, but the way PiS implented this program is too blunt. The way they do it, every family with children gets benefits - even very rich families. There should be some limits on that, as it would both save some money (the program is insanely costly) and allow to give bigger benefits to families that actually need them. But, as I said, PiS is unable to handle any complex programs...

Means-testing on social programs is full of flaws. It is essentially a moralizing position where the poor have to prove they are "poor enough" to receive benefits, usually by the standards of people who have never had to pay a bill in their entire life. There's also the issue that if the wealthy - you know, the influential people who tend to fill government in these grand "democracies" - don't get the benefit, all they see is cost, and so there's pressure to keep cutting and hobbling and adding new hoops for people to jump through. All under the disguise of "making sure it goes to the people who need it." Look at the US and compare food assistance programs, which are full of paperwork and rigamarole and deadlines and cutoffs and arcane limits, and are CONSTANTLY being cut and manipulated.. .to Social security, which is a universal program and talk of cutting it tends to upset all levels of society (not that it stops politicians, because Democracy)

Simply put, it's better than a rich family and a poor family both get a few hundred bucks every month, than the rich family not and hte poor family have to jump through hoops go get $100 that htey can only spend on store brand pinto beans.

As for the expense... Well that money goes to people, who spend that money, stimulating the economy. I dunno how taxation works in Poland but I imagine you probably have some sort of sales tax and such, so at each purchase some of that money is returning to the state anyway... Genuinely just giving people money las little real cost, aside from the hurt fee-fees of people who think this or that person "doesn't deserve it."

Not to mention, that program was initially meant to increase Poland's abysmal birth rates. But it didn't achieve that goal at all. In fact, under PiS, the birth rates are going down more and more...

I think I mentioned this in the old thread, but "declining birth rates" are mostly just a sign of an industrialized economy. You don't NEED to have thirteen kids if you're not using them as free labor to dig your potatoes or whatever. The pearl-clutching of so many politicians in so many countries over this is just silly. Especially when you realize the issue is oh no labor costs might go up!

[GloomCookie]

An ABC/WashingtonPost poll shows Trump edging out Biden 51-42 in head-to-head matchup:
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/troubles-biden-age-reelection-campaign-poll/story?id=103436611

I don't know how much stock I put into those kinds of polls because they tend to either be biased or tend to not be an accurate snapshot since the actual voter turnout could be drastically different. Polls don't really look at who actually intends to go out and vote in person.

That said, I do rather hope that the polls are wrong. I don't want to see Trump back in the white house, though admittedly I'm not the biggest Biden fan either. If it comes down to those two I might just stay home myself. I know which way Arkansas will vote.

[TheGlyphstone]

I don't know how much stock I put into those kinds of polls because they tend to either be biased or tend to not be an accurate snapshot since the actual voter turnout could be drastically different. Polls don't really look at who actually intends to go out and vote in person.

That said, I do rather hope that the polls are wrong. I don't want to see Trump back in the white house, though admittedly I'm not the biggest Biden fan either. If it comes down to those two I might just stay home myself. I know which way Arkansas will vote.

I dont want to see Trump in the hot seat either, but I sure as hell don't want DeSantis anywhere near more power. My state doesn't allow non-partisan votes in primaries, and I'm considering temporarily aligning GOP just to try and stop that.

[Oniya]

It's worth noting that there are two methods of 'polling voters'.  One of these is web-based polls, and the other is phone-based polls.  Phone polls tend to end up biased towards older voters, who a) have land-lines and b) generally have the instinct of 'answer the phone when it rings, as opposed to younger voters who have exclusively mobiles (which were excluded from many robocall lists due to 'call limits' in earlier years) and check the number before answering.

Web-based polls are also biased, as they rely on people clicking into the page (paywalls discourage many people) or are opt-in by email (which often end up in spam filters.  Neither of these methods require the clicker to verify their status as an American voter.

[Chulanowa]

I don't know how much stock I put into those kinds of polls because they tend to either be biased or tend to not be an accurate snapshot since the actual voter turnout could be drastically different. Polls don't really look at who actually intends to go out and vote in person.

That said, I do rather hope that the polls are wrong. I don't want to see Trump back in the white house, though admittedly I'm not the biggest Biden fan either. If it comes down to those two I might just stay home myself. I know which way Arkansas will vote.

I don't think electoralism works, personally - I mean really, out of everyone, these two are "the best" that either party can come up with? Simply amazing. Even so, it's free and without risk to the voter, so there's no reason to not participate - and even a sort of moral imperative, given how many people have stuck their necks out and even died to protect and secure the right to vote.

But apparently in Arkansas the only parties allowed on the ballot are the Democrats (Yuck), the Republicans (Yikes) and the Libertarians (Holy Shit).

That's rough buddy. I guess vote Democrat or write in Daffy Duck (kinda the same thing, and equally as meaningful in Arkansas, lol)

[Vekseid]

Vekseid, are you talking about authoritarian movements within the US or external ones? Just trying to understand.

I mean the two times stability in the US has been threatened, authoritarians have been the cause. The Civil War (holding the enslavement of blacks as an unquestionable truth) and Trump's attempted coup.

Well I'm not too worried bout "critique" in the form of glib non-sequiturs and offhanded scoffing. 

Pretty apt description for everything Engels wrote, there. Dude conflates authoritarianism with 'having rules' (when he probably knows that is not what it means) and hoes downhill from there.

I see no reason to take it seriously.

It's worth noting that there are two methods of 'polling voters'.  One of these is web-based polls, and the other is phone-based polls.  Phone polls tend to end up biased towards older voters, who a) have land-lines and b) generally have the instinct of 'answer the phone when it rings, as opposed to younger voters who have exclusively mobiles (which were excluded from many robocall lists due to 'call limits' in earlier years) and check the number before answering.

Web-based polls are also biased, as they rely on people clicking into the page (paywalls discourage many people) or are opt-in by email (which often end up in spam filters.  Neither of these methods require the clicker to verify their status as an American voter.

Web-based polls are often overlays on some popular site or another. E.g. Youtube or Facebook, are quick and relatively unobtrusive. They absolutely know whether you are in the US or not, and are as sure of your ability to vote as any phone-based pollster is.

Historically, this far out the best predictor is special elections. Though it's also rather odd for pollsters to be 12 points off.

[GloomCookie]

I mean the two times stability in the US has been threatened, authoritarians have been the cause. The Civil War (holding the enslavement of blacks as an unquestionable truth) and Trump's attempted coup.

That's what I thought you meant, thank you for clarifying.

[Keelan]

So did anyone else see the story about how Canadian Parliament - at the behest of the Speaker of the House of Commons - gave a standing ovation to a 'Ukrainian and Canadian hero' who turned out to be a WWII veteran who fought for the Waffen-SS Galicia Division?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/anthony-rota-ukrainian-veteran-apology-1.6977117

[Keelan]

Sooo... update on the story above: The Speaker has apparently resigned following the standing ovation he initiated during Zelenskyy's visit.

Also, reporting is that Poland is apparently checking to see if the man in question is wanted for war crimes and may end up requesting extradition from Canada.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/26/world/anthony-rota-resign-canada-ukraine-nazi.html

For those who want to ignore the adblocker like me: https://web.archive.org/web/20230926200313/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/26/world/anthony-rota-resign-canada-ukraine-nazi.html/

https://www.politico.eu/article/yaroslav-hunka-poland-extradite-ukrainian-ss-veteran-canada/

[Mechelle]

I did see that, and it was quite an embarrassing moment for Canada. Did I see that the Speaker resigned afterwards?

In another embarrassing occasion, our British Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, gave a speech to something called the American Enterprise Institute. I am not sure, and genuinely wonder, how widely reported this was in the USA. In effect, she attacked the UN Refugees Convention, saying that it should be abolished. Women or gay people who may face discrimination and prejudice, without necessarily being persecuted should not be eligible to claim asylum, in her view. She also attacked the multicultural society.

It's ironic as she is the daughter of immigrants, with her mother's family coming from India and her father's from Goa, which was part of the Portuguese Empire. Under her proposals, I can't see how her parents would have been allowed to come to Britain.

This is all part of her bid, I am sure, for the leadership of the Conservative Party who are expected to lose power in next year's General Election, when she will attack Rishi Sunak from the far right. It's a low point for a senior British politician, though.


https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/suella-braverman-speech-live-tory-31032245

[Vekseid]

Vivek Ramaswamy is facing similar criticism here, for among other things wanting to gut H1B visas, which he benefited from a couple dozen times.

Not that I think he cares. He's definitely gunning to be Trump's #2, though I doubt Trump will go for him.

[GloomCookie]

The Federal Trade Commission and 17 states have filed an anti-trust lawsuit against Amazon.
https://www.npr.org/2023/09/26/1191099421/amazon-ftc-lawsuit-antitrust-monopoly

I was listening to this on the way home, and apparently Amazon is using its weight to force sellers into a disadvantageous position by charging high fees that cost the seller a lot of money, and for products that trend a lot, Amazon is able to use its search algorithms to steer people towards an Amazon cheaper alternative since Amazon doesn't have to worry about the same markups since they own the platform. Amazon has of course fired back saying that the FTC is being anti-consumer by trying to make it harder on consumers.

[Chulanowa]

Pretty apt description for everything Engels wrote, there. Dude conflates authoritarianism with 'having rules' (when he probably knows that is not what it means) and hoes downhill from there.

I see no reason to take it seriously.

Because authoritarianism is the exercise of authority. That's what it means. It's really not that complicated or convoluted. One can ask whether a use of authority is more or less authoritarian, but it always is.

So did anyone else see the story about how Canadian Parliament - at the behest of the Speaker of the House of Commons - gave a standing ovation to a 'Ukrainian and Canadian hero' who turned out to be a WWII veteran who fought for the Waffen-SS Galicia Division?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/anthony-rota-ukrainian-veteran-apology-1.6977117

HoW dOeS tHiS kEeP HaPPeNinG?!

[Al Terego]

Because authoritarianism is the exercise of authority. That's what it means. It's really not that complicated or convoluted. One can ask whether a use of authority is more or less authoritarian, but it always is.

Wikipedia disagrees (emphasis mine):
Authoritarianism is a political system characterized by the rejection of political plurality, the use of strong central power to preserve the political status quo, and reductions in the rule of law, separation of powers, and democratic voting.

... as does every online dictionary I checked (example)

[Vekseid]

Because authoritarianism is the exercise of authority. That's what it means. It's really not that complicated or convoluted. One can ask whether a use of authority is more or less authoritarian, but it always is.

It is not. It never referenced such a thing, except in Engels' writing here. This is the sort of semantic dodging we smack fascists for.

I have a hard time believing he did not know this. Yet this false presentation forms the core of his thesis.

People decrying authoritarianism are not decrying 'rules'. They decry the suppression of dissent, the monopolization of power, 'rule by law' rather than rule of law, restrictions on speech, and the like.

You're the fourth tankie I've seen push this specific article in the past year.

I am morbidly curious why you lot think it is so persuasive.

[Rinzler]

A centuries old sycamore at the heart of a well-known beauty spot - made famous in the film Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves - has been cut down in an apparent act of vandalism. A 16 year old boy as been arrested.

This has peeved me right off. The sheer twattishness of doing such a thing. FFS.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-66952980

[RedRose]

I don't understand why someone would do that.

[GloomCookie]

I don't understand why someone would do that.

There seems to be a belief that's permeated society over the past few decades that people have become famous for being evil. People know the names of history's worst, like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ted Bundy, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, Lee Harvey Oswald, Sirhan Sirhan, etc. There seems to be this belief, at least from what I've seen, of people who believe they can become famous for being evil for doing something heinous enough that everyone will remember their deeds for years to come. That, and it's easier to destroy something rather than take the time to build something good and positive. No one cares about all the good someone does, when it can be undone by some little asshole with a chainsaw in a few minutes.

I have little doubt that the 16 year old thought that by doing something destructive, it would be an easy thing to do while netting a lot of talk about him. HE is now the one everyone's talking about. HE is now the person people will think about when they visit the site and the tree is gone. Doesn't matter that he caused pain and suffering, it's about him. It's an act of selfishness fueled by an egotistical belief that by doing this, he's now the center of attention. He gets people talking about him and he's not thinking through the consequences, because it was just a stupid tree. Who cares that people liked it or that it was old, old stuff is boring. Look at me, I'm the future, and I cut it down, so now pay attention to me!

[Kurogane]

There seems to be a belief that's permeated society over the past few decades that people have become famous for being evil. People know the names of history's worst, like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ted Bundy, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, Lee Harvey Oswald, Sirhan Sirhan, etc. There seems to be this belief, at least from what I've seen, of people who believe they can become famous for being evil for doing something heinous enough that everyone will remember their deeds for years to come. That, and it's easier to destroy something rather than take the time to build something good and positive. No one cares about all the good someone does, when it can be undone by some little asshole with a chainsaw in a few minutes.

I have little doubt that the 16 year old thought that by doing something destructive, it would be an easy thing to do while netting a lot of talk about him. HE is now the one everyone's talking about. HE is now the person people will think about when they visit the site and the tree is gone. Doesn't matter that he caused pain and suffering, it's about him. It's an act of selfishness fueled by an egotistical belief that by doing this, he's now the center of attention. He gets people talking about him and he's not thinking through the consequences, because it was just a stupid tree. Who cares that people liked it or that it was old, old stuff is boring. Look at me, I'm the future, and I cut it down, so now pay attention to me!

What sort of punishment should fit this crime?
He is not legally an adult, right, so what can society do to punish such an act?

[GloomCookie]

What sort of punishment should fit this crime?
He is not legally an adult, right, so what can society do to punish such an act?

He's 16, which in certain circumstances can lead to being punished as an adult. There's a case going on right now to decide if a boy, at age 15, should be sentenced to life without parole because he shot several students and then surrendered before police arrived so he could witness the results of his actions.
https://www.npr.org/2023/09/28/1202264832/judge-to-decide-if-michigan-school-shooter-will-face-life-without-parole

Meanwhile the US government may shut down at midnight Saturday night because Republican hardliners blocked a Republican bipartisan stopgap bill to extend Federal spending.
https://www.npr.org/2023/09/29/1202667062/government-shutdown

And US Senator Dianne Feinstein is dead at 90.
https://www.npr.org/2023/09/29/1202646467/dianne-feinstein-tributes-washington-california

[Chulanowa]

It is not. It never referenced such a thing, except in Engels' writing here. This is the sort of semantic dodging we smack fascists for.

I have a hard time believing he did not know this. Yet this false presentation forms the core of his thesis.

People decrying authoritarianism are not decrying 'rules'.

Well first off, people decrying all forms of authority - "rules" - are indeed exactly who Engels is responding to. In this case Engels is directly responding to adherents of Pierre Joseph Proudhon. Basically old-school anarchists who saw any and all exercise of authority as "violence," thus immoral and untenable. "Authoritarianism" in this case is literally "any authority I dislike," which is still the usage of the word, which is my whole point. At least the Proudhonists had (had) the intellectual consistency to dislike all authority on principle, I suppose.

And the thesis of "On Authority" is pretty clear - Exercises of authority are necessary for a functional society. That it is unavoidable. Even a socialist society must have structures of authority, because a milling mass of hyperindividualists is a terrible way to get anything useful accomplished (even literal milling, to use Engels' example). As I said earlier, it's a short read, and 19th century verbiage aside is not terribly complex or convoluted. It seems that you find this premise deeply outrageous, which I find deeply hilarious.

They decry the suppression of dissent, the monopolization of power, 'rule by law' rather than rule of law, restrictions on speech, and the like.

They decry various levels of these things, mostly when applied by people they do not agree with.

Let's consider monopolization of power. Vekseid, you're a Democratic party voter, right? Do you want to have equitable power sharing with the Republican party? Like right now, the GOP as it stands, do you want to have some sort of arm-in-arm, even-steven political situation with the Gohmerts and the Gaetzes and the Trumps and the Boeberts of the nation? Of course not right? Certainly you don't want to include the Libertarian and Constitution party in this equitable power arrangement (I mean your party constantly sues to suppress Green voters so, right away we know you're down with keeping  them out of power at all) Given the choice, you would rather have the Democratic party running the show completely, right? You would want monopolization of power in the hands of your party, because you think that would have the best outcome.

But of course here's the rub  - because you almost certainly want that, you also almost certainly can't recognize it as "Authoritarianism," despite using it as an example of what defines authoritarianism.

Which comes to my point. "Authoritarianism" is a squishy, meaningless word. It's used purely pejoratively, and it's loaded with double standards. As commonly used, only someone else can be authoritarian - never us or people we like. its common usage hinges on the idea of "too much authority" but how much is too much? What's the measure? What exactly is "excessive" or "harsh,"At what point do restrictions on speech for example, which you absolutely DO support, become "too restrictive"? China has a ban on depictions of blood in most visual media, and I've seen this called "authoritarian" but Denmark and Australia have similar restrictions (this is why people in "The Rain" cough up strawberry yogurt, and the zombies in "Cargo" are covered in orange jello) that I've never seen called such. It always ends up being a meaningless scare word that boils down to "I'll know it when I see it."

if you want to decry various forms and methods of suppression of dissent, do so. if you want to call out monopolization of power, go for it. These things are measurable, concrete, can be given critical analysis. I'm saying, don't roll it all into this doughy ball of vague vibey invective that means whatever you want it to mean, moment to moment, case-by-case

After all, remember that these dorks think birth certificates and food regulations are "authoritarianism"

You're the fourth tankie I've seen push this specific article in the past year.

I am morbidly curious why you lot think it is so persuasive.

I'm curious why you think repeatedly insulting me is a great idea. I mean "tankie" is a dumb insult, and you're using it ignorantly and incorrectly anyway so it's not that big of a deal. But why? Do you feel it's "Conducive to creating a space for civil discourse"?  ;D

Anyway it's persuasive because it's manifestly correct. Insulting me doesn't change the fact that yes, any functional society requires application of authority. Even modern anarchists recognize this in function, if not rhetoric. Past that it's a bunch of questions; how much authority? To whom? Is it just or unjust? etc.

[Chulanowa]

I don't understand why someone would do that.

I think trying to find a coherent reason for why a 16 year old vandalizes a landmark is kind of a waste of time. 99% chance he genuinely doesn't know why he did that, or at least had no particular reason. Some part of the partially-congealed mush in his headbone told him it'd be funny. Kids, yes including teenagers, are mostly irrational dumbfucks who do irrational dumbfuck things, and then only try to apply some  rationality to it after the fact, whether good or ill.

Granted most of the time they don't include notable landmarks in their irrational dumbfuckery, but that might be because most of 'em don't live near landmarks / the landmarks are durable / less irrational people can stop them before real harm is done.

Also I think comparing this kid to Ted Bundy might be just a bit of a fucking stretch, but maybe I just value human life over photogenic landscapes, YMMV...

[GloomCookie]

I would request that because we want to focus on the news and not a discussion on Communism, can you please move this to another thread? Thank you!

[Rinzler]

Regarding the Sycamore Gap - it should be noted that a man in his 60s has subsequently been arrested in connection with the crime (the 16 year old has been released on bail). For me, the motives of whoever did this remain unfathomable. We're just gonna have to wait and see, I guess.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-66966187

[Beorning]

So, this happened in Warsaw yesterday:

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/10/01/europe/poland-warsaw-rally-intl/index.html

Some estimates give the number of participants as 1 million... Meanwhile, the government, the state and other pro-PiS propagandists claim that the number was... around 60 - 100 thousand people  ::) Liars...

Is this march a sign of awakening? Will we kick PiS out of office on 15.10.2023. I pray so!