United States Politics Thread 47

[rotting bones]

I agree that Roman religion wasn't "what we are used to", but I think you're distorting things a bit by talking about "belief". Roman religion wasn't about mythology; it had no required beliefs. So its practitioners weren't hypocrites for not doing something ("believing") that their religion didn't require them to do.

If it reads like I'm saying Romans weren't religious, I made a mistake. I mentioned that they were thought to be the most religious people in the world. I'm saying they weren't superstitious. Many Japanese celebrate Shinto ceremonies without buying into the mythology. This doesn't stop the ceremonies from being religious. That's the comparison I intended.

As for the relevance of belief, I don't think Romans would find it surprising for us to expect them to believe their religion. In the Tusculan Disputations, Cicero asks people about mythology. Everyone reacts like, "Do you think I'm an idiot?" 1. This is not the reaction Plato records in his Dialogues. 2. If people weren't expected to believe in myth on some level, I don't think Cicero would have asked people about belief in that way.

Their religion just doesn't fit into modern boxes. These "skeptics" walked around Rome with boxes of chickens. That was because officials needed to perform auspices to consecrate any official action, which could include moving between districts in the city. The chickens had to behave in a particular way for the auspices to be favorable. The official was the final judge of whether they were. (The chicken handler was called the pullarius.)

Now Laozi tells us that "ritual is the husk of faith"... but this is far more than saluting the flag or saying a prayer. And other aspects of Roman religion, such as sacrifices or consulting the Sybilline oracles, took even more time and energy. Nor could these activities be delegated to priests: the celebrants were civic officials, and besides, retired civic officials often became priests, as it was a nice lifetime appointment.

...

All this should be balanced with a mention of the mysteries, which involved intense events and doctrines told in secret. These too didn't come with any statement of belief, but they allowed shared, heavy emotion that otherwise had no place in the civic religion.

There is fortune telling in Shinto, elaborate ceremonies for the mikado (often inspired by Vajrayana symbolism), etc.

I have been to a Gnostic Mass one time. I understand the urge to imbue life with meaning, even though I personally prefer not to do it in the religious way.

It's also worth noting that when Augustus took power in a monarchical coup, he carefully accumulated religious offices: he was head of all four priestly colleges. And the Romans spent considerable energy deifying the emperors, which included building temples all over the Empire and holding sacrifices. It's a lot of work if the religion was empty. (On the other hand, the attitude of "it's very very important to do the rituals, but it's discouraged to talk about what they mean" would be a position Confucius would approve of.)

Challenging the forms of religion doesn't mean ignoring it. On the other hand, when you are dealing with a religion like Rome's, which mostly consists of forms, any thoroughgoing divergence in form is a challenge to the religion as practiced. Unlike in Christianity, there's no defense like "faith is more important than the rite". The rite is the religion.

[bradrn]

On Roman ‘religion’ (a word which I loathe for reasons already made clear in this conversation) I’m fond of this series as an introduction to the basic concepts: https://acoup.blog/2019/10/25/collectio ... knowledge/

[rotting bones]

On Roman ‘religion’ (a word which I loathe for reasons already made clear in this conversation) I’m fond of this series as an introduction to the basic concepts: https://acoup.blog/2019/10/25/collectio ... knowledge/

IIRC Cicero defines religio as the correct performance of rites. (I read him years ago. Don't take my word for it.) The term was later applied to monastic life. So maybe Roman religion is what the term should be applied to. Christology is "religious" by analogy at best.

Unless you think the meaning has changed so much, this is an etymological fallacy. But it seems strange to borrow a Latin word and say it doesn't apply to the original context.

[bradrn]

Unless you think the meaning has changed so much, this is an etymological fallacy. But it seems strange to borrow a Latin word and say it doesn't apply to the original context.

It is strange, yes, but that’s just how borrowings work. They don’t always refer to the same thing that they did in the source language. In this case, ‘religion’ has been thoroughly nativised and I would indeed argue that its meaning has changed substantially.

[malloc]

In light of everything that has happened over the past few weeks, does anyone still consider my panic over the Trump situation unwarranted? Would it help if I collected links to all the news stories that paint such a hopeless picture of the future and posted them here?

[rotting bones]

In light of everything that has happened over the past few weeks, does anyone still consider my panic over the Trump situation unwarranted? Would it help if I collected links to all the news stories that paint such a hopeless picture of the future and posted them here?

I don't think a small minority like Trump and his most fanatical cultists can make systemic changes to society when they desire stasis, a situation that has never existed in human history. I don't think humans have a long enough attention span for non-systemic changes to matter. Once they are out of the picture, society will spring back to its default terrible state.

Yes, a lot of people will suffer more than they otherwise would have. What's the point of increasing the suffering even more?

Liberals have always done bad things. Did you know that ICE harassed Native Americans even before Trump? Now Trump wants to pour salt in our wounds. So what? In the long view of history, Trump and Biden will soon be two dead old guys.

[keenir]

In light of everything that has happened over the past few weeks, does anyone still consider my panic over the Trump situation unwarranted?

To the degree you were threatening to react to it? YES, yes, a thousand times yes I do.

Would it help if I collected links to all the news stories that paint such a hopeless picture of the future and posted them here?

I have no doubt you already have a collection of such links...and I would not be surprised if you had - or could find with a day's notice - a similarly-large collection of links to paint a hopeless picture...for ANY US President, even Obama and Mr Tamany Hall himself.

...(heck, or any other leader on the world stage, even the Kims or the former(?) co-leader of Myanmar herself)

[zompist]

In light of everything that has happened over the past few weeks, does anyone still consider my panic over the Trump situation unwarranted? Would it help if I collected links to all the news stories that paint such a hopeless picture of the future and posted them here?

No, because you're cherrypicking and seem to enjoy despair.

I could provide a list of links to stories that provide hope, document the resistance, show off Trumpist incompetence, highlight things individuals can do, and explain why doomerism is self-defeating, and you'd ignore them all, right?

Honestly you're beginning to sound like a Russian troll. Sow discord and despair to assist the fascist takeover.

[malloc]

I could provide a list of links to stories that provide hope, document the resistance, show off Trumpist incompetence, highlight things individuals can do, and explain why doomerism is self-defeating, and you'd ignore them all, right?

What do your links say about the fact that reactionaries own all the social media apps and thus control where most young and these days middle-aged people get their news? What about news channels and newspapers refusing to criticize Trump for fear of reprisals? What about corporations ditching DEI and other progressive measures? Just to name some obvious problems I see raised everyday now.

I don't think a small minority like Trump and his most fanatical cultists can make systemic changes to society when they desire stasis, a situation that has never existed in human history. I don't think humans have a long enough attention span for non-systemic changes to matter. Once they are out of the picture, society will spring back to its default terrible state.

They can certainly make them last long enough that I will not live to see things improve in this country. From the standpoint of individual humans, one century might as well be stasis.

[rotting bones]

What do your links say about the fact that reactionaries own all the social media apps and thus control where most young and these days middle-aged people get their news? What about news channels and newspapers refusing to criticize Trump for fear of reprisals? What about corporations ditching DEI and other progressive measures? Just to name some obvious problems I see raised everyday now.

Many of these things didn't exist for most of history. Trump and his cronies can only get away with removing them because lots of people in positions of power have wanted them done away with for a long time. That's the real problem, which liberalism was doing nothing to solve.

They can certainly make them last long enough that I will not live to see things improve in this country. From the standpoint of individual humans, one century might as well be stasis.

The most likely scenario is that it will all be reset in the next few elections at most. I would be very surprised if it lasts 30 years. It's possible that I will be old by the time things go back to the terrible normal. I wouldn't be disappointed either way because my life has not had an upward trajectory in a while.

[keenir]

I could provide a list of links to stories that provide hope, document the resistance, show off Trumpist incompetence, highlight things individuals can do, and explain why doomerism is self-defeating, and you'd ignore them all, right?

What do your links say about the fact that reactionaries own all the social media apps and thus control where most young and these days middle-aged people get their news?

what about it? the reactionaries who own them, also want to make money off their stuff, so they can't do what you think they do.

What about news channels and newspapers refusing to criticize Trump for fear of reprisals?

Even the BBC and CNN aren't doing that, nor are any of the newspapers - state, local, and national - that I have access to IRL.

I don't think a small minority like Trump and his most fanatical cultists can make systemic changes to society when they desire stasis, a situation that has never existed in human history. I don't think humans have a long enough attention span for non-systemic changes to matter. Once they are out of the picture, society will spring back to its default terrible state.

They can certainly make them last long enough that I will not live to see things improve in this country. From the standpoint of individual humans, one century might as well be stasis.

go ahead, name a century that was static. I'll wait.
(ironic, given what you've said about technology leapfrogging in 10 years historically, yet you think there are any that are static too?)

[Ares Land]

In light of everything that has happened over the past few weeks, does anyone still consider my panic over the Trump situation unwarranted? Would it help if I collected links to all the news stories that paint such a hopeless picture of the future and posted them here?

Ahem. I'd like to point out that nobody here was exactly overjoyed about the situation at the time, and nobody is particularly happy with it now either. You seem convinced you're the only one to feel terrible about all that, but that's very much not the case.

With that being said, the whole Trump thing is terrible but it's not the end of the world.

Right now, the MAGA crowd looks unbreakable and all powerful, while the opposition looks pathetic or divided, or even non-existent. That is a normal stage and a very common situation in any democracy when one side landed a good electoral victory. That state of affairs never lasts.

Another point is that the Trump side is made up of idiots. You would think that billionaire business owners slash politicians would have a minimum of common sense, but evidently they don't. They're morons. They start off being as cartoonishly evil as possible.
I'm incredibly disgusted at what happened on day one; threatening to annex Greenland? Nazi salutes? Whatever that... thing with Gaza was?
But politics is really like a giant pendulum, and you know, Trump and associates are pulling it as hard and as fast as they can in one direction. Both cartoonish and idiotic; we're about on the level of Wile E. Coyote here. You'd really think they'd know better than to do that, but they just don't.

The whole situation is incredibly sad and, as I said, disgusting, but it's definitely not hopeless.

[Raphael]

I remember how unbeatable George W. Bush and his brand of politics appeared between 2001 and 2005. Now neoconservatism is basically a spent force. (OK, people like Glenn Greenwald might claim that neoconservatives run the Democratic Party these days, but that is, of course, nonsense.)

[Ares Land]

I remember how unbeatable George W. Bush and his brand of politics appeared between 2001 and 2005. Now neoconservatism is basically a spent force. (OK, people like Glenn Greenwald might claim that neoconservatives run the Democratic Party these days, but that is, of course, nonsense.)

Not just him; if you had to rely from post-2012 sources alone, I wouldn't blame you for thinking George W. Bush was a Democrat

Prediction: in ten years, everyone'll have forgotten Trump and all bad consequences from his terms will be blamed on the Democrats.

[malloc]

what about it? the reactionaries who own them, also want to make money off their stuff, so they can't do what you think they do.

Promoting reactionary views benefits their financial situation in the long run because it prevents more left-wing politicians from taking office while building consensus for further tax cuts and deregulation. Why bother catering to liberals when you can simply brainwash them into reactionaries?

go ahead, name a century that was static. I'll wait.

Russia spent over seventy years under one form of dictatorship and the Putin dictatorship shows no signs of ending anytime soon. Franco held power in Spain for decades while the Kims have ruled North Korea for generations.

There is good reason to believe that the MAGA regime is cleverly engineering precisely the kind of crisis need to perpetuate it indefinitely.

[keenir]

what about it? the reactionaries who own them, also want to make money off their stuff, so they can't do what you think they do.

Promoting reactionary views benefits their financial situation in the long run because it prevents more left-wing politicians from taking office while building consensus for further tax cuts and deregulation. Why bother catering to liberals when you can simply brainwash them into reactionaries?

because thats too long-term for pretty much any of them; easier to just take liberals' money now.

go ahead, name a century that was static. I'll wait.

Russia spent over seventy years under one form of dictatorship and the Putin dictatorship shows no signs of ending anytime soon.

I said static, because you said static. The fact that different Soviet leaders have done different things internally and externally - and have been open to different diplomatic tactics - argues against a static nation over even 70 years...which is less than the century you initially argued for.

Franco held power in Spain for decades while the Kims have ruled North Korea for generations.

A few years ago, one of the daughters in the Kim family was proposed to be the next leader of North Korea; is that something that would have been suggested seriously in the 1950s or '60s?

Was Franco's Spain identical in his second year in office, to his Spain a year before his death?

{I would be honestly shocked if either had the answer of Yes; but given that those are parts of history that I'm not strong in, I'd accept it}

[malloc]

because thats too long-term for pretty much any of them; easier to just take liberals' money now.

Right now they are flooding social media with fascist propaganda and rapidly pushing people there rightward. Regardless of what you may think, Elon Musk doesn't seem terribly worried about liberals boycotting twitter and losing their money.

I said static, because you said static. The fact that different Soviet leaders have done different things internally and externally - and have been open to different diplomatic tactics - argues against a static nation over even 70 years...which is less than the century you initially argued for.

Obviously I was speaking metaphorically. Yes all dictatorships undergo superficial changes throughout their existence but that hardly changes their basic nature. People are trying to comfort me with the conclusion that MAGA will eventually collapse, whereas I am making the point that eventual collapse means little on the scale of human lifetimes.

[Ares Land]

People are trying to comfort me with the conclusion that MAGA will eventually collapse, whereas I am making the point that eventual collapse means little on the scale of human lifetimes.

The idea that Trump will somehow set up a dictatorship that will last decades is an extraordinary claim, which requires extraordinary evidence.

There just isn't any evidence that he or Musk or Vance or whatever have the means to set up that sort of thing; or even that they'd get any kind of support trying to set this up; besides, do they even want that?

This is all terrible news, but you know, there will still be presidential elections in four years.

[Ahzoh]

Prediction: in ten years, everyone'll have forgotten Trump and all bad consequences from his terms will be blamed on the Democrats.

That's how they win. All good things during a Democratic term are actually because of a previous Republican term and all bad things during a Republican term are because of a previous Democratic term.

And the American population is braindead fucking stupid enough to fall for it every time. Low-information ass voters.

[malloc]

The idea that Trump will somehow set up a dictatorship that will last decades is an extraordinary claim, which requires extraordinary evidence.

There just isn't any evidence that he or Musk or Vance or whatever have the means to set up that sort of thing; or even that they'd get any kind of support trying to set this up; besides, do they even want that?

They have the entire federal government under their control, not only the executive branch but congress and the supreme court. Major corporations are rapidly embracing their policies from ditching DEI to renaming the Gulf of Mexico on digital maps. Even public opinion is broadly onboard, unlike last time when Trump faced widespread disapproval. There simply aren't any institutions left willing or able to oppose the MAGA regime, let alone the broad majority needed to stop them.