Sounds like trump is planning on nominating someone named Amy Coney Barrett to the supreme court.

[Agema]

I dunno man, Aurelian single-handedly saved Rome and made it waddle on for another 200 years. Even one man can turn the tide - like Napoleon. You can't ever see this in action, only in hindsight.

Did Napoleon turn the tide? I don't think so. Inasmuch as Napoleon was an agent of change, he was overwhelmingly representative of the way things were going anyway. He perhaps speeded up the decline of absolute monarchy and aristocracy. His biggest lasting legacy was perhaps the Napoleonic Code, but it was not the first such civic code and European countries were already turning to them.

I think we can't know the future 100%, obviously, but we can see powerful trends in process. I suspect a lot of people don't want to see them because they don't like them.

 

[Iron]

Did Napoleon turn the tide? I don't think so. Inasmuch as Napoleon was an agent of change, he was overwhelmingly representative of the way things were going anyway. He perhaps speeded up the decline of absolute monarchy and aristocracy. His biggest lasting legacy was perhaps the Napoleonic Code, but it was not the first such civic code and European countries were already turning to them.

I think we can't know the future 100%, obviously, but we can see powerful trends in process. I suspect a lot of people don't want to see them because they don't like them.

Napoleon's era was followed by two generation of outstanding state repression and absolutism in Europe. History doesn't flow in any direction we can reliably predict.

 

[Seanchaidh]

The other two mooted options here-- filling the docket and a general strike-- are both complete non-starters for reasons that should be kind of obvious.

Should they?

 

[Agema]

Napoleon's era was followed by two generation of outstanding state repression and absolutism in Europe. History doesn't flow in any direction we can reliably predict.

Two steps forward and one step back is still moving forwards.

 

[tstorm823]

You don’t have to be communist to want to be against fascism

But you do have to be a communist to believe liberal democracy is fascism.

On the topic of "the right side of history" and "being pro-slavery", it's always worth noting that the US party that was pro slavery and pro-segregation has somehow managed to successfully pull off "we changed, we're different now", alongside "and those guys are the real racists!" even while former segregationists still represented their party. History is a funny thing, where one party can end slavery and segregation and their opponents can defend those to the bitter end, and the latter can still convince people they were the good guys just by virtue of having more representation in media and academia.

 

[Silvanus]

Should they?

Well, yes, to be frank.

Firstly, filling the docket. If a bill makes its way through the House, the Senate Majority leader has the option to put it to vote in the Senate or not. He can prioritise whatever he wants. Bills have already been sitting on his desk for months, and he was able to place the nomination hearing at the top of the docket. Adding more and more bills to the pile on his desk accomplishes nothing. They can be bypassed at his discretion without any additional time spent.

(On a side-note, I recall you yourself condemning the Democrats for putting through bills they knew would not pass the Senate).

Secondly, a general strike. Workers throughout America are not (even nearly) uniformly Democratic or Republican voters, but this nomination is widely seen as a party political issue. The Democratic Party calls for a general strike, and it will receive the immediate rejection of ~40-50% of the workforce on that ground alone. Even non-Republicans would not want to involve themselves in a dispute widely seen as partisan. Add to that the regular rate of refusal to participate that any general strike would receive (just from concern about personal loss of income etc), though that refusal would undoubtedly be higher because this issue doesn't concern workers as directly and clearly as wage/safety disputes etc. Support for a general strike on these grounds would inevitably be exceptionally low among the workforce; I'd imagine maybe 20% if we're being really generous. Cue immediate and massive electoral damage for the Democrats for absolutely no gain whatsoever.

The only avenue open to them was organising protest, which numerous senators (including Harris) attempted to do in concert with non-profit organisations before the hearing.

All of this would be the epitome of gesture politics. No chance of success, purely for appearance.

 

[Iron]

Two steps forward and one step back is still moving forwards.

Is there some Fukuyama thinking behind this?

 

[CM156]

And the other stuff-- access to abortion, equal marriage-- are worth risking/ sacrificing for that?

In my opinion? Yes.

If we view it in very a narrow, literal sense, yes, there is no right and wrong in history.

However this is to overlook that it works in a more figurative sense. It's an accusation that someone is futilely trying to hold back irrevocable change, like Canute trying to hold back the tide. The change will come, and those people will be generally be looked on as backward or immoral.

I see the point, but I view history as such a long game that I don't know how many social changes can be truly viewed as "irrevocable".

Not bothering to try also burns political capital.

Probably less capital than trying to win a fight when all the odds are stacked against you.

 

[Agema]

Is there some Fukuyama thinking behind this?

No. I don't believe that there's some magical "end point".

But I do think there are overarching trends. The age of absolute monarchy was in its death throes in the 1800s. Sure, there was fury and confusion that the French could depose and execute their king, but kings and aristocracies had been losing power all over Europe for centuries. The monarchists won, re-established the French king, and they all withered anyway, either as increasingly irrelevant figureheads in constitutional monarchies or simply abolished.

The Confederacy could have won the US Civil War, and slavery would still have gone anyway - in decades, maybe generations, but it would have gone. Women were going to get the vote worldwide in democracies. It was just going to happen, because the logic of increased enfranchisement in full flow could not summon up the rationale to resist it in the long run.

I'm sure people at the time did think it could be stopped. But it couldn't.

I see the point, but I view history as such a long game that I don't know how many social changes can be truly viewed as "irrevocable".

All these things could be "reversed" - although reversed is not the right word, as it's not reversal. It's progression to a system similar to one that existed in the past. But in the meantime, there's going to be a large slug of history where people are writing some pretty unpalatable assessments about those who stood in the way long past the right time.

And realistically, history can of course say that although we one day go back to ideas from the past, even those people in the past whose ideas were back in fashion were still fools in their day.

 

[Silvanus]

In my opinion? Yes.

Alright. It's always worth keeping exchanges like this in mind, in case I ever get suckered into believing that you see people like me as anything except lesser beings.

 

[dreng3]

In my opinion? Yes.

You actually weigh the ability to own a certain object over the right to have a relationship between loving people recognized on an institutional level?

 

[Iron]

No. I don't believe that there's some magical "end point".

But I do think there are overarching trends. The age of absolute monarchy was in its death throes in the 1800s. Sure, there was fury and confusion that the French could depose and execute their king, but kings and aristocracies had been losing power all over Europe for centuries. The monarchists won, re-established the French king, and they all withered anyway, either as increasingly irrelevant figureheads in constitutional monarchies or simply abolished.

The Confederacy could have won the US Civil War, and slavery would still have gone anyway - in decades, maybe generations, but it would have gone. Women were going to get the vote worldwide in democracies. It was just going to happen, because the logic of increased enfranchisement in full flow could not summon up the rationale to resist it in the long run.

I'm sure people at the time did think it could be stopped. But it couldn't.



All these things could be "reversed" - although reversed is not the right word, as it's not reversal. It's progression to a system similar to one that existed in the past. But in the meantime, there's going to be a large slug of history where people are writing some pretty unpalatable assessments about those who stood in the way long past the right time.

And realistically, history can of course say that although we one day go back to ideas from the past, even those people in the past whose ideas were back in fashion were still fools in their day.

Why were they unstoppable - because of the progress of morality, or because of economic reasons? This is a question I'd like you to answer.
The confederacy couldn't have won in its war the same way Hitler wouldn't have won his war. Alt-hist boys like to imagine what-if scenarios (and I am a fan) but there was no real way for them to succeed. It wasn't because of the morality of what they were doing, but because of economic reasons. Simply in terms of materials and manpower, regardless of the genius command of certain generals.

Slavery as an institution was waning because of the industrialization of Britain. It started the crusade against slavery. The last bastions of slavery resisted because they were mostly an agricultural society and relied on large-scale plantations for their economies (Confederacy, Brazil). There wasn't much of an issue of progress or morality in my opinion. Slavery had been widespread in the USSR in the 1920-1950s in the form of forced labor camps (infamous gulags). There was no moral argument against them at the time that succeeded.

Absolutism was still kicking around after the Napoleonic era, and after ww1, and after ww2. The USSR is a good example of this, as is the CCP today. It is still a viable method of governance.

 

[Agema]

Why were they unstoppable - because of the progress of morality, or because of economic reasons? This is a question I'd like you to answer.

I'm not particularly interested in derailing this thread on the topic. But change is everything: morality, philosophy, technology, politics, economics, etc.

 

[CM156]

Alright. It's always worth keeping exchanges like this in mind, in case I ever get suckered into believing that you see people like me as anything except lesser beings.

To be fair, my opinion of the British isn’t that low.

You actually weigh the ability to own a certain object over the right to have a relationship between loving people recognized on an institutional level?

It’s not exactly an easy choice, but it is one I would make if I had no way to get both. I also don’t think there’s any danger of the Supreme Court reversed its opinion on the legalization of same-sex marriage.

 

[Silvanus]

To be fair, my opinion of the British isn’t that low.

I understand the wish to defuse this topic with humour, but I'm not really feeling a sense of levity at the moment; more a sense of profound discomfort, as I always do when I stop to think about this kind of thing for long.

People don't believe I deserve the same rights, because of the way I was born. And you're fine with enshrining that discrimination in law, so long as you get to have a gun in exchange.

I'll never understand how one person can consider someone else unworthy of the same rights, based on nothing under their control whatsoever.

 

[Houseman]

I'll never understand how one person can consider someone else unworthy of the same rights, based on nothing under their control whatsoever.

Based on one's beliefs, one could make the argument that, if you're pro-abortion, then you are guilty of the exact same thing. You would support being able to deny an unborn person their right to life, based on nothing under their control whatsoever.

So it shouldn't be that hard to understand.

 

[CM156]

I understand the wish to defuse this topic with humour, but I'm not really feeling a sense of levity at the moment; more a sense of profound discomfort, as I always do when I stop to think about this kind of thing for long.

People don't believe I deserve the same rights, because of the way I was born. And you're fine with enshrining that discrimination in law, so long as you get to have a gun in exchange.

I'll never understand how one person can consider someone else unworthy of the same rights, based on nothing under their control whatsoever.

I understand where you’re coming from, or at least I think I do. However, I don’t find the fear mongering around the notion that the Supreme Court is somehow going to reverse LGBT protections to be particularly credible. Especially considering that just a few months ago they ruled the title VII applies to both gay and transgender employees, and that decision was 6 to 3.

 

[Seanchaidh]

*

You quoted me but tagged someone else, btw

(On a side-note, I recall you yourself condemning the Democrats for putting through bills they knew would not pass the Senate).

Never did that. Just didn't give such bills undeserved credit.

Well, yes, to be frank.

Firstly, filling the docket.

Fill the docket with impeachments. Those cannot simply be ignored. Do all of these things that they thought about doing prior:

Memo on Supreme Court Delay Tactics Circulates Among Senate Democrats

A new memo spells out the myriad options available to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to delay confirmation of a new Supreme Court justice.

theintercept.com

The big problem here is that actions don't match rhetoric.

“Democrats will not lend a single ounce of legitimacy to this sham vote in the Judiciary Committee,” Schumer said. “We are voting with our feet. We are standing together, and we are standing against this unprecedented mad rush to jam through a Supreme Court nomination just days, days, before an election.”

If it's really an illegitimate process, on the table is physically disrupting any process that proceeds from that illegitimacy. Yell, scream, block the doors into the chamber, anything.

Secondly, a general strike. Workers throughout America are not (even nearly) uniformly Democratic or Republican voters, but this nomination is widely seen as a party political issue. The Democratic Party calls for a general strike, and it will receive the immediate rejection of ~40-50% of the workforce on that ground alone. Even non-Republicans would not want to involve themselves in a dispute widely seen as partisan. Add to that the regular rate of refusal to participate that any general strike would receive (just from concern about personal loss of income etc), though that refusal would undoubtedly be higher because this issue doesn't concern workers as directly and clearly as wage/safety disputes etc. Support for a general strike on these grounds would inevitably be exceptionally low among the workforce; I'd imagine maybe 20% if we're being really generous. Cue immediate and massive electoral damage for the Democrats for absolutely no gain whatsoever.

I never thought this Democratic Party would call for a general strike in the first place, so much of this is immaterial. However, if they wanted to do such a thing, they could easily broaden the list of demands beyond just the Supreme Court. There is plenty for labor to be agitated about right now. The thing is, the Democratic Party doesn't actually want a militant labor movement. They'd rather lose than have a militant labor movement behind them.

The only avenue open to them was organising protest, which numerous senators (including Harris) attempted to do in concert with non-profit organisations before the hearing.

All of this would be the epitome of gesture politics.

All that they did was the epitome of gesture politics.

No chance of success, purely for appearance.

They would like people to think so.

 

[Shadyside]

 

[Iron]

Irrelevant if PA can still count votes 2 weeks after elections.
That is why MSM is shilling for Biden regarding fracking, they are worried they will lose PA to Trump.