American conservatism, boiled down, is really nothing more than a radical form of Calvinism. Without getting into a theological lecture, it means, if you're rich, it's because God wanted you to be rich. If you're poor, God meant for you to be poor. My fear is they're going to apply this to whether you deserve to live or not.
Please do go to a theological lecture next time, because this is literally just as ridiculous as saying that "Islamic terrorists hate our freedoms".
Putting aside your caricature of ("radical") Calvinism, large strains of American conservatism are unrelated to religious belief, and there are many American conservatives that aren't Protestant, Reformed or even Christian.
Wouldn't lump everyone into that statement my fellow forumite. Not all of us sit on here all day virtue signaling and then doing nothing to change things. My opinion totally of course. As for Pocahontas, I think she also is a career swindler of a politician, again my opinion of course.
To be blunt, you are hostile to progressive goals and thus not much of a useful judge of these things. The fact you dislike Warren is if anything a nod to her actual progressive accomplishments.
You're also parroting Trump's insults and bullshit, which speaks for itself.
It is your opinion, at the same time you may be beating your partner and coming on here being all progressive. You may even be a racist and a bigot. The internet is funny like that, no? What is for certain is that Elizabeth Warren is a liar, swindler and con artist. Anything for a vote and as soon as she was backed into a corner she accepted the 'legal bribe'. I certainly didn't attack you but you felt compelled to put me down to make yourself feel better about Elizabeth Warren, not cool.
I wouldn't get too mad though, they are all thieves and crooks. Realization of this is maddening at first, fits of rage and lashing out are normal. It does get better with time.
It is your opinion, at the same time you may be beating your partner and coming on here being all progressive. You may even be a racist and a bigot. The internet is funny like that, no? What is for certain is that Elizabeth Warren is a liar, swindler and con artist. Anything for a vote and as soon as she was backed into a corner she accepted the 'legal bribe'. I certainly didn't attack you but you felt compelled to put me down to make yourself feel better about Elizabeth Warren, not cool.
I didn't put you down at all. I said you are hostile to progressive goals (virtually every post you have made is evidence of this), and that you are therefore not a useful judge of how progressive Warren is. I also said you are parroting Trump's insults and bullshit, which you did. It is not a matter of opinion who you are deriving the "Pocahontas" name from.
So, what precisely of the above is "my opinion" or putting you down? Are you secretly a leftist stalwart, or are you going to claim that you came up with the Pocahontas nickname yourself while being blissfully ignorant of Trump using it?
I wouldn't get too mad though, they are all thieves and crooks. Realization of this is maddening at first, fits of rage and lashing out are normal. It does get better with time.
It is rather amusing that you appear to think "politicians are thieves and crooks" is some sort of edgy, unprecedented take. Maybe next you can opine that lawyers are greedy and deceitful?
'hostile to progressive goals', 'you are therefore not a useful judge of how progressive Warren is', 'came up with the Pocahontas nickname yourself while being blissfully ignorant of Trump using it', 'some sort of edgy, unprecedented take'.
'lawyers are greedy and deceitful' The only thing said in that post that actually is true. Would you like to talk about politics next time or continue your shtick?
American conservatism, boiled down, is really nothing more than a radical form of Calvinism. Without getting into a theological lecture, it means, if you're rich, it's because God wanted you to be rich. If you're poor, God meant for you to be poor. My fear is they're going to apply this to whether you deserve to live or not.
Please do go to a theological lecture next time, because this is literally just as ridiculous as saying that "Islamic terrorists hate our freedoms".
Putting aside your caricature of ("radical") Calvinism, large strains of American conservatism are unrelated to religious belief, and there are many American conservatives that aren't Protestant, Reformed or even Christian.
I don't understand what's ridiculous about saying that "Islamic terrorists hate our freedoms". While I suppose you could argue they are purely motivated by love of their own religion and a desire to spread that by force for our own good, I think most people would accept that hate plays a significant role in the motivation of terrorists. The lines between hating freedoms and other things like different religions or political/military power are pretty fuzzy, so I wouldn't argue if you said the quoted statement was simplistic - but can you explain why you find it ridiculous?
I also wouldn't be so quick to reject the idea that people's condition in life will be blamed on them. While that's not a philosophy shared by conservatives as a whole, it clearly exists (and extreme examples of it have been posted in this thread before). I do think that while this type of philosophy is less significant now than in the past, it's effects are still noticeable today (for instance I would say it's a contributory factor to the lack of a general health service in the US).
There are already noticeable numbers of people who apply this philosophy to life and death as a result of their religious convictions - we typically hear about those as a result of court cases about whether parents are entitled to withhold treatment from children. Given the extreme social pressures as a result of increasing levels of disease in the next few weeks, I don't think it's at all a stretch to suggest that there will be an increase in the number of people who try to explain the situation in terms of 'God's will'. I would hope that won't have an effect on decision making, but given the impact even a single person of power can have I can't be certain it won't.
I'm not even necessarily arguing that the reasoning will be religious in nature. Not in any sense we understand as "Christian". So perhaps I should have left the "God" part out. The way Calvinism effects the general ethos is by essentially saying "your lot in life is your fault, inherently, and is a direct measure of your worth and virtue". American capitalism's god is green. It's Mammon. And we hate (and I mean HATE) poor people in a macro sense in this country. My argument is that when businesses have been shut down a month, and the bottom lines of the Chamber of Commerce-types have been significantly reduced, will they hesitate to throw the "weak" (as in physically) in the same lot as they now do the poor?? Do we think they won't willingly suggest sacrificing a million people to save their own net worth??
Someone else I saw talking about this dynamic brought up "therapeutic nihilism", which is the idea that trying to "cure" or "treat" something on a societal level is more harmful than useful, and that it should sort itself out. There is already a heavy strain of nihilism on the right in terms of the quasi-fascist movement we've seen spring up online in the past 5 years. The way Calvinism holds sway in America is in the form of something called the "prosperity gospel", which is preached by every silver-tounged mega-church charlatan in the country. I'm arguing that this merges with the callous indifference to the suffering of others and calls for, essentially, these "weak" individuals to be sacrificed at the altar of the free market. Not your typical god, but the only one we understand.
So I'll rephrase. I'll leave God out of it, but it's informed by the same ethos. If you survive the virus, it's because you deserved to. If you don't, you were a leech on society anyway, and if getting rid of you allows us to continue our way of life without inconvenience, so be it.
And the reason I bring the conservative movement in America into the discussion is I can't forsee any situation where the left calls for things to be "returned to normal" at the expense of these lives. It's been demonstrated very clearly in the last two weeks, mostly as a result of what has been conveyed by the President until recently, but ESPECIALLY what has been conveyed by conservative media. The pandemic was being outright dismissed and mocked as a plot to tank the economy to hurt Trump. Until that became untenable. For now, they've moved on to xenophobia, but xenophobia isn't going to keep the money flowing. They'll need another narrative for that. And it will have to be a narrative that excuses hundreds of thousands of dead bodies and a callous indifference for the safety of workers. It is not the American left, in any large-scale sense, who is currently saying (even to this hour) that we can't let this disrupt our lives and freedom. It is almost exclusively the view of conservatives and libertarians.
I don't understand what's ridiculous about saying that "Islamic terrorists hate our freedoms". While I suppose you could argue they are purely motivated by love of their own religion and a desire to spread that by force for our own good, I think most people would accept that hate plays a significant role in the motivation of terrorists. The lines between hating freedoms and other things like different religions or political/military power are pretty fuzzy, so I wouldn't argue if you said the quoted statement was simplistic - but can you explain why you find it ridiculous?
I am actually rather shocked to see that response. Islamic terrorists (and "terrorists", since the word often just means "Muslim that does anything Western countries don't like") are primarily motivated by none of the things above, but rather by the atrocities committed routinely directly (bombing) and indirectly (propping up corrupt dictatorships, opposing democratic movements) by the West on much of the Islamic world. This has been shown repeatedly and consistently by polling and personal explanations of both organisations and individuals for many years.
Most members of the current Taliban are not particularly religious (in the context of the society they live in). They are motivated in great part by the ceaseless killing of civilians by American bombs, not by whatever freedoms Americans do or do not have. Even more ideological individuals and organisations are routinely motivated by and recruit with Western (particulary American) atrocities as a prime factor, and their religious arguments are often less concerned with what the Western world is doing as self-absorbed Western media and chattering classes assume.
To be very blunt, nobody cares about "your freedoms". They hate primarily that Americans keep murdering them (and supporting Israel, who also routinely murders them). These are not difficult motivations to grasp, nor is it difficult to find copious evidence that American atrocities against Muslims and one-sided support for Israel are the prime movers of sentiment against America that drives terrorism. While it would be simplistic to say those are the only factors involved, it's a great deal more accurate than saying love of religion or desire to spread it are more than vaguely relevent to the grievances, motivations and goals of most Islamic terrorists.
I also wouldn't be so quick to reject the idea that people's condition in life will be blamed on them. While that's not a philosophy shared by conservatives as a whole, it clearly exists (and extreme examples of it have been posted in this thread before). I do think that while this type of philosophy is less significant now than in the past, it's effects are still noticeable today (for instance I would say it's a contributory factor to the lack of a general health service in the US).
Of course some people do think like that, either in whole or in part. What I vociferously rejected was the statement that that mindset was "American conservatism, boiled down" (also that it was a fair or accurate summation of the beliefs of Reformed Christians of any significant denomination).
It's reductive dehumanising, particularly objectionable at a time when most American conservatives are completely on board with massive government interventions to mitigate the effects of the current crisis.
Pocahontas and Sleepy Biden are particularly nasty nicknames, but if was Bernie I'd run with Crazy Bernie. It would be an awesome campaign slogan and a direct gut punch to Trump.
Kudos to Putin as Russia sends military experts and equipment to the hardest hit places in Italy.
Seriously. As well as to Conte for accepting the aid. I honestly do not know if there is an ulterior motive behind this besides attempting to get goodwill from the world, but it's this type of cooperation that will get the entire world through this.
Kudos to Putin as Russia sends military experts and equipment to the hardest hit places in Italy.
Seriously. As well as to Conte for accepting the aid. I honestly do not know if there is an ulterior motive behind this besides attempting to get goodwill from the world, but it's this type of cooperation that will get the entire world through this.
That's one side of Russia's story in this. But we likely aren't being told anything about the other one:
Kudos to Putin as Russia sends military experts and equipment to the hardest hit places in Italy.
Seriously. As well as to Conte for accepting the aid. I honestly do not know if there is an ulterior motive behind this besides attempting to get goodwill from the world, but it's this type of cooperation that will get the entire world through this.
It's probably not just out of altruism, but who knows these days? I've heard that things might be worse in Russia then they're letting on so this might just be a smokescreen.
Kudos to Putin as Russia sends military experts and equipment to the hardest hit places in Italy.
Seriously. As well as to Conte for accepting the aid. I honestly do not know if there is an ulterior motive behind this besides attempting to get goodwill from the world, but it's this type of cooperation that will get the entire world through this.
That's one side of Russia's story in this. But we likely aren't being told anything about the other one:
Well obviously. Oppressive regimes are going to do that regardless. Insert jab about Trump sending congratulatory letter to North Korea about their COVID numbers here. Hell China did it until they knew they couldn't contain it, then 180ed.
But even with a lot of mistrust on some state actors, sometimes, it is good to put that mistrust slightly to the side and realize, that humanity is in this all together. And Putin offering and sending medical aid to one of the hardest hit countries should not be overlooked.
I don't understand what's ridiculous about saying that "Islamic terrorists hate our freedoms". While I suppose you could argue they are purely motivated by love of their own religion and a desire to spread that by force for our own good, I think most people would accept that hate plays a significant role in the motivation of terrorists. The lines between hating freedoms and other things like different religions or political/military power are pretty fuzzy, so I wouldn't argue if you said the quoted statement was simplistic - but can you explain why you find it ridiculous?
I am actually rather shocked to see that response. Islamic terrorists (and "terrorists", since the word often just means "Muslim that does anything Western countries don't like") are primarily motivated by none of the things above, but rather by the atrocities committed routinely directly (bombing) and indirectly (propping up corrupt dictatorships, opposing democratic movements) by the West on much of the Islamic world. This has been shown repeatedly and consistently by polling and personal explanations of both organisations and individuals for many years.
Most members of the current Taliban are not particularly religious (in the context of the society they live in). They are motivated in great part by the ceaseless killing of civilians by American bombs, not by whatever freedoms Americans do or do not have. Even more ideological individuals and organisations are routinely motivated by and recruit with Western (particulary American) atrocities as a prime factor, and their religious arguments are often less concerned with what the Western world is doing as self-absorbed Western media and chattering classes assume.
To be very blunt, nobody cares about "your freedoms". They hate primarily that Americans keep murdering them (and supporting Israel, who also routinely murders them). These are not difficult motivations to grasp, nor is it difficult to find copious evidence that American atrocities against Muslims and one-sided support for Israel are the prime movers of sentiment against America that drives terrorism. While it would be simplistic to say those are the only factors involved, it's a great deal more accurate than saying love of religion or desire to spread it are more than vaguely relevent to the grievances, motivations and goals of most Islamic terrorists.
I agree with a lot of what you say above. Clearly the actions of Western countries have been a great recruitment tool for terrorists. However, I really can't see why terrorists can't both be motivated by atrocities and a wider hatred of Western society. If you look at the actions of recent regimes formed by terrorist movements (Islamic State and the Taliban) they both not only made propaganda points about the corruption and decadence of Western society, they also operated their own societies without many of what we would consider to be core freedoms (such as freedom of religion and universal education). Given that, I see no reason to doubt that when the leaders of those regimes say they hate Western society, that's what they mean. While terrorists may not have a similar mindset to the leadership, it would be surprising if they did not share at least some of that hatred of Western society.
I think your argument is also essentially about terrorists recruited in oppressed countries. However, that ignores the fact that the majority of the terrorism now seen in Western countries is committed by individuals brought up in those countries - with no direct experience of any oppression or atrocities. Experience in the UK is that religion is a major factor in local recruitment - in recent years extreme interpretations of Islam have mainly been spread through social media and in prison rather than the mosques and fundamentalist preachers that were more significant around the turn of the 21st century.
I don't understand what's ridiculous about saying that "Islamic terrorists hate our freedoms". While I suppose you could argue they are purely motivated by love of their own religion and a desire to spread that by force for our own good, I think most people would accept that hate plays a significant role in the motivation of terrorists. The lines between hating freedoms and other things like different religions or political/military power are pretty fuzzy, so I wouldn't argue if you said the quoted statement was simplistic - but can you explain why you find it ridiculous?
I am actually rather shocked to see that response. Islamic terrorists (and "terrorists", since the word often just means "Muslim that does anything Western countries don't like") are primarily motivated by none of the things above, but rather by the atrocities committed routinely directly (bombing) and indirectly (propping up corrupt dictatorships, opposing democratic movements) by the West on much of the Islamic world. This has been shown repeatedly and consistently by polling and personal explanations of both organisations and individuals for many years.
Most members of the current Taliban are not particularly religious (in the context of the society they live in). They are motivated in great part by the ceaseless killing of civilians by American bombs, not by whatever freedoms Americans do or do not have. Even more ideological individuals and organisations are routinely motivated by and recruit with Western (particulary American) atrocities as a prime factor, and their religious arguments are often less concerned with what the Western world is doing as self-absorbed Western media and chattering classes assume.
To be very blunt, nobody cares about "your freedoms". They hate primarily that Americans keep murdering them (and supporting Israel, who also routinely murders them). These are not difficult motivations to grasp, nor is it difficult to find copious evidence that American atrocities against Muslims and one-sided support for Israel are the prime movers of sentiment against America that drives terrorism. While it would be simplistic to say those are the only factors involved, it's a great deal more accurate than saying love of religion or desire to spread it are more than vaguely relevent to the grievances, motivations and goals of most Islamic terrorists.
I agree with a lot of what you say above. Clearly the actions of Western countries have been a great recruitment tool for terrorists. However, I really can't see why terrorists can't both be motivated by atrocities and a wider hatred of Western society. If you look at the actions of recent regimes formed by terrorist movements (Islamic State and the Taliban) they both not only made propaganda points about the corruption and decadence of Western society, they also operated their own societies without many of what we would consider to be core freedoms (such as freedom of religion and universal education). Given that, I see no reason to doubt that when the leaders of those regimes say they hate Western society, that's what they mean. While terrorists may not have a similar mindset to the leadership, it would be surprising if they did not share at least some of that hatred of Western society.
I think your argument is also essentially about terrorists recruited in oppressed countries. However, that ignores the fact that the majority of the terrorism now seen in Western countries is committed by individuals brought up in those countries - with no direct experience of any oppression or atrocities. Experience in the UK is that religion is a major factor in local recruitment - in recent years extreme interpretations of Islam have mainly been spread through social media and in prison rather than the mosques and fundamentalist preachers that were more significant around the turn of the 21st century.
I think the tactics of the US have been fundamentally flawed by the idea that the oppressed in other countries will have both the will and the means to overthrow their oppressive governments if we just try to put the financial squeeze on their oppressors. That clearly hasn't worked and has only fueled the impression that we're oppressing those very people ourselves!
So, for the first bit of news, Rand Paul has tested positive. Perhaps the BIGGER news is that even though he was AWAITING A TEST RESULT, he dined with other GOP Senators and used the Senate gym this morning.
Meanwhile, the GOP plan for the corporate side of the bailout is being revealed, and it ain't pretty:
Maximum two per customer is a thing. Heck, when I went grocery shopping, I couldn’t buy more than 2 packages of fresh chicken (I usually buy like five - whole, wings, breasts, thighs, pre cut stir fry) due to their shortages and ended up only buying one.
Oh well, I hope she enjoys those napkins in 2027. Stupidity at it’s finest.
Maximum two per customer is a thing. Heck, when I went grocery shopping, I couldn’t buy more than 2 packages of fresh chicken (I usually buy like five - whole, wings, breasts, thighs, pre cut stir fry) due to their shortages and ended up only buying one.
Oh well, I hope she enjoys those napkins in 2027. Stupidity at it’s finest.
No, stupidity at it's finest will be those morons buying from her at a 500% mark-up...
So, for the first bit of news, Rand Paul has tested positive. Perhaps the BIGGER news is that even though he was AWAITING A TEST RESULT, he dined with other GOP Senators and used the Senate gym this morning.
Meanwhile, the GOP plan for the corporate side of the bailout is being revealed, and it ain't pretty:
(corporate slush fund)
I'm less thrilled that Rand Paul can get tested while asymptomatic while the rest of us can't even get test unless we're near death.
"He is asymptomatic and was tested out of an abundance of caution due to his extensive travel and events. He was not aware of any direct contact with any infected person," the statement read.
The hypochondriacs would be getting tested every day if we let everybody get tested every time they feel like it. I have a friend who's a doctor and you wouldn't believe the stories he tells about that (and that was before the coronavirus).
I feel so much better knowing that it's a 'Chinese' virus that's killing people. It would be so much worse if it was an 'American' virus killing those same people...
Wow, Trump is all for 'good' healthcare and is totally against 'bad' healthcare. I feel so much better now...
At this point his refusal to actually use the Defense Production Act seems like an active act of spite against blue states where the hardest outbreaks are hitting. We already know how he viewed hurricane and wildfire relief. This is no different. He doesn't believe he has any obligation to anyone who didn't vote for him. He is also clearly relishing the fact that Mitt Romney is in isolation after being near Rand Paul. Mitt Romney is in isolation because his wife is in her 70s and has MS. This is saying ALOT coming from me, but I'd take George W. Bush back in a heartbeat at this point. I'd take Nixon without batting an eyelash. This shit is just absurd.
Wow, Trump is all for 'good' healthcare and is totally against 'bad' healthcare. I feel so much better now...
At this point his refusal to actually use the Defense Production Act seems like an active act of spite against blue states where the hardest outbreaks are hitting. We already know how he viewed hurricane and wildfire relief. This is no different. He doesn't believe he has any obligation to anyone who didn't vote for him. He is also clearly relishing the fact that Mitt Romney is in isolation after being near Rand Paul. Mitt Romney is in isolation because his wife is in her 70s and has MS. This is saying ALOT coming from me, but I'd take George W. Bush back in a heartbeat at this point. I'd take Nixon without batting an eyelash. This shit is just absurd.
He's even trying to be more likeable and still can't help being an asshole. I don't think he listens to anybody. Certainly not any of his speechwriters.
I lasted 25 seconds. Once he started with securing both the northern and southern border, it showed he is a complete idiot that doesn’t grasp the difference between shutting the border down due to a pandemic and shutting the border down because brown people bad. Starting with a New York Post opinion headline almost made me stop at 10 seconds, but I decided to give him a second chance.
Nothing, not one thing Trump had done leading up to this pandemic can be accounted for him planning ahead for it. Anything else is revisionist history.
The CDC website in regards to tracking cases and testing hasn't been updated in nearly 3 days and the information contained there is woefully inaccurate. A group of citizens volunteering their time are doing a FAR better job of this at the COVID-19 Tracking Project:
Not all states update every day. Indeed, it appears at least 19 states didn't report today (Sunday) at all. We still easily surpassed 30,000 cases, a day earlier than I estimated we would a week ago. When tomorrow's numbers come in from the states that didn't report, plus the new Monday numbers, we could easily be seeing 45,000. There doesn't seem to be any scenario where there isn't at last 150,000 by this time next week.
The CDC website in regards to tracking cases and testing hasn't been updated in nearly 3 days and the information contained there is woefully inaccurate. A group of citizens volunteering their time are doing a FAR better job of this at the COVID-19 Tracking Project:
Not all states update every day. Indeed, it appears at least 19 states didn't report today (Sunday) at all. We still easily surpassed 30,000 cases, a day earlier than I estimated we would a week ago. When tomorrow's numbers come in from the states that didn't report, plus the new Monday numbers, we could easily be seeing 45,000. There doesn't seem to be any scenario where there isn't at last 150,000 by this time next week.
Comments
Please do go to a theological lecture next time, because this is literally just as ridiculous as saying that "Islamic terrorists hate our freedoms".
Putting aside your caricature of ("radical") Calvinism, large strains of American conservatism are unrelated to religious belief, and there are many American conservatives that aren't Protestant, Reformed or even Christian.
It is your opinion, at the same time you may be beating your partner and coming on here being all progressive. You may even be a racist and a bigot. The internet is funny like that, no? What is for certain is that Elizabeth Warren is a liar, swindler and con artist. Anything for a vote and as soon as she was backed into a corner she accepted the 'legal bribe'. I certainly didn't attack you but you felt compelled to put me down to make yourself feel better about Elizabeth Warren, not cool.
I wouldn't get too mad though, they are all thieves and crooks. Realization of this is maddening at first, fits of rage and lashing out are normal. It does get better with time.
I didn't put you down at all. I said you are hostile to progressive goals (virtually every post you have made is evidence of this), and that you are therefore not a useful judge of how progressive Warren is. I also said you are parroting Trump's insults and bullshit, which you did. It is not a matter of opinion who you are deriving the "Pocahontas" name from.
So, what precisely of the above is "my opinion" or putting you down? Are you secretly a leftist stalwart, or are you going to claim that you came up with the Pocahontas nickname yourself while being blissfully ignorant of Trump using it?
It is rather amusing that you appear to think "politicians are thieves and crooks" is some sort of edgy, unprecedented take. Maybe next you can opine that lawyers are greedy and deceitful?
'lawyers are greedy and deceitful' The only thing said in that post that actually is true. Would you like to talk about politics next time or continue your shtick?
I don't understand what's ridiculous about saying that "Islamic terrorists hate our freedoms". While I suppose you could argue they are purely motivated by love of their own religion and a desire to spread that by force for our own good, I think most people would accept that hate plays a significant role in the motivation of terrorists. The lines between hating freedoms and other things like different religions or political/military power are pretty fuzzy, so I wouldn't argue if you said the quoted statement was simplistic - but can you explain why you find it ridiculous?
I also wouldn't be so quick to reject the idea that people's condition in life will be blamed on them. While that's not a philosophy shared by conservatives as a whole, it clearly exists (and extreme examples of it have been posted in this thread before). I do think that while this type of philosophy is less significant now than in the past, it's effects are still noticeable today (for instance I would say it's a contributory factor to the lack of a general health service in the US).
There are already noticeable numbers of people who apply this philosophy to life and death as a result of their religious convictions - we typically hear about those as a result of court cases about whether parents are entitled to withhold treatment from children. Given the extreme social pressures as a result of increasing levels of disease in the next few weeks, I don't think it's at all a stretch to suggest that there will be an increase in the number of people who try to explain the situation in terms of 'God's will'. I would hope that won't have an effect on decision making, but given the impact even a single person of power can have I can't be certain it won't.
Someone else I saw talking about this dynamic brought up "therapeutic nihilism", which is the idea that trying to "cure" or "treat" something on a societal level is more harmful than useful, and that it should sort itself out. There is already a heavy strain of nihilism on the right in terms of the quasi-fascist movement we've seen spring up online in the past 5 years. The way Calvinism holds sway in America is in the form of something called the "prosperity gospel", which is preached by every silver-tounged mega-church charlatan in the country. I'm arguing that this merges with the callous indifference to the suffering of others and calls for, essentially, these "weak" individuals to be sacrificed at the altar of the free market. Not your typical god, but the only one we understand.
So I'll rephrase. I'll leave God out of it, but it's informed by the same ethos. If you survive the virus, it's because you deserved to. If you don't, you were a leech on society anyway, and if getting rid of you allows us to continue our way of life without inconvenience, so be it.
And the reason I bring the conservative movement in America into the discussion is I can't forsee any situation where the left calls for things to be "returned to normal" at the expense of these lives. It's been demonstrated very clearly in the last two weeks, mostly as a result of what has been conveyed by the President until recently, but ESPECIALLY what has been conveyed by conservative media. The pandemic was being outright dismissed and mocked as a plot to tank the economy to hurt Trump. Until that became untenable. For now, they've moved on to xenophobia, but xenophobia isn't going to keep the money flowing. They'll need another narrative for that. And it will have to be a narrative that excuses hundreds of thousands of dead bodies and a callous indifference for the safety of workers. It is not the American left, in any large-scale sense, who is currently saying (even to this hour) that we can't let this disrupt our lives and freedom. It is almost exclusively the view of conservatives and libertarians.
I am actually rather shocked to see that response. Islamic terrorists (and "terrorists", since the word often just means "Muslim that does anything Western countries don't like") are primarily motivated by none of the things above, but rather by the atrocities committed routinely directly (bombing) and indirectly (propping up corrupt dictatorships, opposing democratic movements) by the West on much of the Islamic world. This has been shown repeatedly and consistently by polling and personal explanations of both organisations and individuals for many years.
Most members of the current Taliban are not particularly religious (in the context of the society they live in). They are motivated in great part by the ceaseless killing of civilians by American bombs, not by whatever freedoms Americans do or do not have. Even more ideological individuals and organisations are routinely motivated by and recruit with Western (particulary American) atrocities as a prime factor, and their religious arguments are often less concerned with what the Western world is doing as self-absorbed Western media and chattering classes assume.
To be very blunt, nobody cares about "your freedoms". They hate primarily that Americans keep murdering them (and supporting Israel, who also routinely murders them). These are not difficult motivations to grasp, nor is it difficult to find copious evidence that American atrocities against Muslims and one-sided support for Israel are the prime movers of sentiment against America that drives terrorism. While it would be simplistic to say those are the only factors involved, it's a great deal more accurate than saying love of religion or desire to spread it are more than vaguely relevent to the grievances, motivations and goals of most Islamic terrorists.
Of course some people do think like that, either in whole or in part. What I vociferously rejected was the statement that that mindset was "American conservatism, boiled down" (also that it was a fair or accurate summation of the beliefs of Reformed Christians of any significant denomination).
It's reductive dehumanising, particularly objectionable at a time when most American conservatives are completely on board with massive government interventions to mitigate the effects of the current crisis.
Bernie 2020
Crazy like a Fox!
Seriously. As well as to Conte for accepting the aid. I honestly do not know if there is an ulterior motive behind this besides attempting to get goodwill from the world, but it's this type of cooperation that will get the entire world through this.
That's one side of Russia's story in this. But we likely aren't being told anything about the other one:
https://codastory.com/waronscience/russia-coronavirus-mistrust/
It's probably not just out of altruism, but who knows these days? I've heard that things might be worse in Russia then they're letting on so this might just be a smokescreen.
Well obviously. Oppressive regimes are going to do that regardless. Insert jab about Trump sending congratulatory letter to North Korea about their COVID numbers here. Hell China did it until they knew they couldn't contain it, then 180ed.
But even with a lot of mistrust on some state actors, sometimes, it is good to put that mistrust slightly to the side and realize, that humanity is in this all together. And Putin offering and sending medical aid to one of the hardest hit countries should not be overlooked.
Sounds like a genius. Did she give her address while she was ranting?
I agree with a lot of what you say above. Clearly the actions of Western countries have been a great recruitment tool for terrorists. However, I really can't see why terrorists can't both be motivated by atrocities and a wider hatred of Western society. If you look at the actions of recent regimes formed by terrorist movements (Islamic State and the Taliban) they both not only made propaganda points about the corruption and decadence of Western society, they also operated their own societies without many of what we would consider to be core freedoms (such as freedom of religion and universal education). Given that, I see no reason to doubt that when the leaders of those regimes say they hate Western society, that's what they mean. While terrorists may not have a similar mindset to the leadership, it would be surprising if they did not share at least some of that hatred of Western society.
I think your argument is also essentially about terrorists recruited in oppressed countries. However, that ignores the fact that the majority of the terrorism now seen in Western countries is committed by individuals brought up in those countries - with no direct experience of any oppression or atrocities. Experience in the UK is that religion is a major factor in local recruitment - in recent years extreme interpretations of Islam have mainly been spread through social media and in prison rather than the mosques and fundamentalist preachers that were more significant around the turn of the 21st century.
I think the tactics of the US have been fundamentally flawed by the idea that the oppressed in other countries will have both the will and the means to overthrow their oppressive governments if we just try to put the financial squeeze on their oppressors. That clearly hasn't worked and has only fueled the impression that we're oppressing those very people ourselves!
Meanwhile, the GOP plan for the corporate side of the bailout is being revealed, and it ain't pretty:
This is on Dollar Tree really.
Why in the world would they let her buy them out?
Maximum two per customer is a thing. Heck, when I went grocery shopping, I couldn’t buy more than 2 packages of fresh chicken (I usually buy like five - whole, wings, breasts, thighs, pre cut stir fry) due to their shortages and ended up only buying one.
Oh well, I hope she enjoys those napkins in 2027. Stupidity at it’s finest.
No, stupidity at it's finest will be those morons buying from her at a 500% mark-up...
I'm less thrilled that Rand Paul can get tested while asymptomatic while the rest of us can't even get test unless we're near death.
Ideally, we'd all be able to be tested.
At this point his refusal to actually use the Defense Production Act seems like an active act of spite against blue states where the hardest outbreaks are hitting. We already know how he viewed hurricane and wildfire relief. This is no different. He doesn't believe he has any obligation to anyone who didn't vote for him. He is also clearly relishing the fact that Mitt Romney is in isolation after being near Rand Paul. Mitt Romney is in isolation because his wife is in her 70s and has MS. This is saying ALOT coming from me, but I'd take George W. Bush back in a heartbeat at this point. I'd take Nixon without batting an eyelash. This shit is just absurd.
He's even trying to be more likeable and still can't help being an asshole. I don't think he listens to anybody. Certainly not any of his speechwriters.
I lasted 25 seconds. Once he started with securing both the northern and southern border, it showed he is a complete idiot that doesn’t grasp the difference between shutting the border down due to a pandemic and shutting the border down because brown people bad. Starting with a New York Post opinion headline almost made me stop at 10 seconds, but I decided to give him a second chance.
Nothing, not one thing Trump had done leading up to this pandemic can be accounted for him planning ahead for it. Anything else is revisionist history.
https://covidtracking.com/
Not all states update every day. Indeed, it appears at least 19 states didn't report today (Sunday) at all. We still easily surpassed 30,000 cases, a day earlier than I estimated we would a week ago. When tomorrow's numbers come in from the states that didn't report, plus the new Monday numbers, we could easily be seeing 45,000. There doesn't seem to be any scenario where there isn't at last 150,000 by this time next week.
Unless the internet suddenly gets interrupted...
(I'm only partially kidding.)