Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on February 21, 2017, 04:13:02 PM
-
I understand the sentiment but I am, as ever, suspicious of the idea of a lost golden age.
https://capx.co/certainty-has-become-the-curse-of-modern-politics/
-
Hasn't this been true since always? Even in Roman times they had to be positive during their oratory to the people, promising them the Earth and Heavens.
In fact the bog people of the pagan era were, as I gather, kings or priests who had to ensure the harvests etc. If they failed then....
-
Hasn't this been true since always? Even in Roman times they had to be positive during their oratory to the people, promising them the Earth and Heavens.
In fact the bog people of the pagan era were, as I gather, kings or priests who had to ensure the harvests etc. If they failed then....
Yep, I think you are right. I think that the professionalism of politics might be oddly new but certainty isn't.
-
It's a selling technique, we are copying the Americans.
Politicians have always promised things but not delivered, because outside getting elected its impractical.
What's scary nowadays is they are starting to employ methods to make themselves " different" by trying to deliver at all costs.
Trump and his travel ban, the wall, his other promises.
The uk with a hard brexit.
It's become the fashion now for politicians to suddenly try and deliver, they never used to bother much so curtailed their rhetoric a bit.
It makes more of a dangerous times because some countries may not be pushed about, like China, Mexico, the EU.
Hitler used rhetoric, look what happened then?
People have already drawn similarities between Donald Trump and Hitler.
the curse " may you live in interesting times" means imo what we have now, people making promises that appeal to people's emotions ( curb immigration leave the EU, make America great again etc etc)
It's all part of a return to ideology and emotional decisions.
I don't think there was ever a golden age, just calm between bursts of rhetoric and ideology.
Ideology went out of fashion for a little while, now it's coming back in all it's polarising destructiveness.
Even labour was starting to look like a mild version of the conservatives, we are going from wishy washy ideology back to radical ideology.
People get fed up with wishy washy ideology I suppose.
-
People get fed up with wishy washy ideology I suppose.
Personally I think we could do with a great deal more 'wishy-washy' ideology.
When hard line ideology takes hold, whether touted by Donald Trump or ISIS - someone always suffers.
-
Personally I think we could do with a great deal more 'wishy-washy' ideology.
When hard line ideology takes hold, whether touted by Donald Trump or ISIS - someone always suffers.
Yes so do I.
Which is why I mentioned the curse " may you live in interesting times " :)
-
There is no ideology of the left then?
I would have thought that there is, and it is in part responsible for the interesting times we now find ourselves in.
-
There is no ideology of the left then?
I would have thought that there is, and it is in part responsible for the interesting times we now find ourselves in.
I don't think anyone posted that there wasn't ideology on the left - so unsure of your point.
-
Just a general observation. Trump and Hitler get a mention and all the talk is about the right making a comeback, oops I mean the far right.
As far as the OP goes, what's new? Show me a political party and I will show you false promises.
-
Both left and right have tended to have the illusion of control - just pull on these levers, and things will improve. It often ends in disaster, but sometimes ends OK. Guesswork, I suppose, but no political party could campaign on the promise of increased guesswork! I suppose the irony is that when people feel insecure, the certainty seems to increase.
-
The people don't like the truth so the politicians don't tell'em it. Then the truth comes knocking at the peoples' doors and they moan that they weren't kept informed about the issues that has brewed up the now pending mayhem that is just about to happen. Issues that they so loved just a short time ago because they were "free".
-
Just a general observation. Trump and Hitler get a mention and all the talk is about the right making a comeback, oops I mean the far right.
As far as the OP goes, what's new? Show me a political party and I will show you false promises.
I don't, as I made clear in the OP, think there was a golden age when this didn't happen. I also don't think that's the point the article is making. Though I think the article gets the target wrong.
We can certainly argue that there has been a coarsening of the political discourses, and you often see it done when people show detailed discussions being carried out historically on TV, or pull out the speeches from the Lincoln - Douglas presidential debates. I think that views the past through the rosy coloured views of cherry picking. However, I think politics is becoming at least in sound more polarised, and I don't mean by that between left and right. Rather I think that that even small divisions become exaggerated, due to the ease which the loudest voices get heard.
To take your point, you are completely correct that there is a lot of this type of rhetoric from the 'left'. The corrosive attitude that everyone who voted for Brexit was a racist, or that anyone voting for Trump was a redneck loon is just another example of the 'certainty' the article refers to. And Jack Knave is right here in noting that as ever 'the public gets what the public wants', perhaps even more so given the echo chambers of the net, and news media.
Further as wigginhall has raised, in times of insecurity we seek certainty, but we are almost bound to live in the interesting times, Rose mentioned. The sheer speed of change in technology, change in job patterns, change in social patterns is extraordinary and getting faster. Added to that, the ability both to see it happening in the 24 hour news cycle, the ability to then talk to others immediately, and the difficulty in having time to investigate anything to get any reasonable certainty as to truth, and we seem duty bound to grasp for a lifejacket of certainty.
To take a trivial example, the stushie in the last few days over the comments on under age *s*e*x by Milo Yiannopolous, something that will pass many people by, have generated huge amounts of writing, and arguing, and personal attacks, across the politisphere. And in many of that this 'conversation' I have seen people entrench themselves deeper and deeper into a Milo is a martyr for free speech or he's a disgusting supporter of child abuse. And all through it, due the nature of the tapes that were released, the trolling nature of some of his previous comments, and the deafening shouting of views from all points on the web, I don't see how people could take an informed opinion without spending huge amounts of time investigating what is an unimportant case.
I am at a loss how we control it, and indeed am conscious that despite my best efforts, I have contributed to it. I am, as ever, haunted by the words of Yeats that 'the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity' - words which are a clearer summing up Massie's article, and indicate that this isn't a new issue. I think though that Yeats has it wrong, and that what the best and the worst of us need to do is question how we debate and contribute to the discourse. To avoid the easy traps of generalizations, the constant othering, to admit that now more than ever we can be wrong.
-
And Jack Knave is right here in noting that as ever 'the public gets what the public wants', perhaps even more so given the echo chambers of the net, and news media.
Not always the case.
USA election.
-
Not always the case.
USA election.
I wasn't meaning so much individual elections, rather than the conduct of them. The Democrats fought a lousy entitled campaign that went low just as much as Trump's. We get the politicians we deserve.
-
I wasn't meaning so much individual elections, rather than the conduct of them. The Democrats fought a lousy entitled campaign that went low just as much as Trump's. We get the politicians we deserve.
Yeah, same with Remain's Project Fear.
-
Yeah, same with Remain's Project Fear.
One of the things about that is I think it illustrates the problem. I am not sure if Jeremy Corbyn's 7/10 for the EU was a completely hones answer but it was less certain than most would use as an approach and he got pelters for it and not campaigning 'wholeheartedly'. Politicians need to be marking it as absolute zero, or 10 out of 10, maybe 11, if it's George Osborne in the This is Spinal Tap's Referendum
-
One of the things about that is I think it illustrates the problem. I am not sure if Jeremy Corbyn's 7/10 for the EU was a completely hones answer but it was less certain than most would use as an approach and he got pelters for it and not campaigning 'wholeheartedly'. Politicians need to be marking it as absolute zero, or 10 out of 10, maybe 11, if it's George Osborne in the This is Spinal Tap's Referendum
You mentioned the keyword in a post above: Polarization. If one shows a slight smidgen of double in one's position or shows any weakness then the hoards come out to cut you down. People/politicians know this and so present themselves as firm and true in their ideas and cause. But this also hides the flaws, which could have been dealt with if a more moderate attitude had been taken by all, and so these flaws fester in the background until they burst out like some rancid zit.
-
You mentioned the keyword in a post above: Polarization. If one shows a slight smidgen of double in one's position or shows any weakness then the hoards come out to cut you down. People/politicians know this and so present themselves as firm and true in their ideas and cause. But this also hides the flaws, which could have been dealt with if a more moderate attitude had been taken by all, and so these flaws fester in the background until they burst out like some rancid zit.
Which is exactly why I said you were right in this point to n my previous post. Indulging in it as a politician would seem to me wrong. Would you agree?
-
Which is exactly why I said you were right in this point to n my previous post. Indulging in it as a politician would seem to me wrong. Would you agree?
But by the nature of the game, polarization, they have no, or little choice, because their self preservation dictates it. And add to that the stupidity of many of the voters who can't follow detailed and nuanced arguments or are easily fooled by one side pointing out the hesitations etc. of the others as weakness and incompetence, and untrustworthiness. Then there's things like project fear which plays on the lack of detail and understanding of the average voter.
-
But by the nature of the game, polarization, they have no, or little choice, because their self preservation dictates it. And add to that the stupidity of many of the voters who can't follow detailed and nuanced arguments or are easily fooled by one side pointing out the hesitations etc. of the others as weakness and incompetence, and untrustworthiness. Then there's things like project fear which plays on the lack of detail and understanding of the average voter.
But you have justified Project Fear here by the above
-
But you have justified Project Fear here by the above
No I haven't. But that is why they do it because of the ill informed public. It doesn't make it right though.
-
No I haven't. But that is why they do it because of the ill informed public. It doesn't make it right though.
You said it was the nature of the game, are you disagreeing with yourself?
-
You said it was the nature of the game, are you disagreeing with yourself?
But project fear is about polarization. In fact it is an extreme product of it.
-
But project fear is about polarization. In fact it is an extreme product of it.
Project Fear doesn't exist. It's merely a label invented by Brexiteers to discredit the arguments of their opponents without having to bother with tedious facts and reason.
-
Project Fear doesn't exist. It's merely a label invented by Brexiteers to discredit the arguments of their opponents without having to bother with tedious facts and reason.
Are you saying the Remain camp deal in facts and reason. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Are you saying the Remain camp deal in facts and reason. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Yes, which is more than the out mob do they deal in fear and prejudice!
-
Yes, which is more than the out mob do they deal in fear and prejudice!
At least they know how to write English!
-
At least they know how to write English!
Criticising English spelling or grammar or punctuation on a MB - the last refuge of an internet scoundrel.
-
Criticising English spelling or grammar or punctuation on a MB - the last refuge of an internet scoundrel.
No that's for dipsticks like you who pick fault with cogent posts.
-
No that's for dipsticks like you who pick fault with cogent posts.
Definition of cogent
having power to compel or constrain
appealing forcibly to the mind or reason
convincing •cogent evidence
pertinent, relevant •a cogent analysis
LOL (although I did like your pussy jibe elsewhere made me smile)
-
Definition of cogent
having power to compel or constrain
appealing forcibly to the mind or reason
convincing •cogent evidence
pertinent, relevant •a cogent analysis
LOL (although I did like your pussy jibe elsewhere made me smile)
Cogent ideas pass over the dullards of this world because there is nothing there for it to work on. Hence some people's vacuous responses.
-
Cogent ideas pass over the dullards of this world because there is nothing there for it to work on. Hence some people's vacuous responses.
So you criticise people for missing out a full stop and consider them dullards, and yet a lie is fully acceptable. Interesting priorities.
-
So you criticise people for missing out a full stop and consider them dullards, and yet a lie is fully acceptable. Interesting priorities.
What lie?