TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

The General US Politics Thread

Go To

Nov 2023 Mod notice:


There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.

If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines before posting here.

Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.

If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules when posting here.


In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.

Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM

CharlesPhipps Since: Jan, 2001
#274926: Mar 20th 2019 at 4:42:14 PM

Um...

[leans in]

We have statues of just heads and they're quite popular. They're called busts.

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
Wryte Since: Jul, 2010
#274927: Mar 20th 2019 at 4:45:51 PM

There’s a difference between acknowledging white supremacy and displaying their propaganda.

There's also a difference between displaying their propaganda as if it were legitimate, and displaying it in a way that points out and emphasizes what a piece of garbage it is, and how pathetic the people who put it up and clung to it were; to show people that this is the face of white supremacy.

RainingMetal (Handed A Sword) Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#274928: Mar 20th 2019 at 4:47:24 PM

This reminds me of the debate as to what should be done about the Holocaust camps. Same arguments from people on the same sides.

ASAB: All Sponsors Are Bad.
Soban Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: 700 wives and 300 concubines
#274929: Mar 20th 2019 at 4:56:36 PM

Ok, so I heard an argument from someone to the right of me that I wanted to pass along and get your thoughts on. The person in question belongs to the same religion I do, and is fairly devout.

In essence, his argument was that the Bible absolutely advocates charity towards the poor, however, it does so on a personal level not on a communal level. What it does say is to avoid oppressing the poor. His argument thus was that we should have (for the lack of a better term) anti-exploitation laws, but that welfare needs to be on a personal level not a political one.

I might not be representing his argument at it's best, but I wanted to get your feedback on it. Where is the line between not oppressing someone and not helping them? Is welfare the same as charity? Do you think the argument (from a religious perspective) has weight?

Ultimatum Disasturbator from the Amiga Forest (Old as dirt) Relationship Status: Who needs love when you have waffles?
Disasturbator
#274930: Mar 20th 2019 at 4:58:26 PM

Thats an entirely different matter,the death camps are a crimescene for a genocide that occurred 60 years ago,I wouldn't even like to wade in on whether to preserve them or not

[up][up]

Edited by Ultimatum on Mar 20th 2019 at 11:58:39 AM

have a listen and have a link to my discord server
LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#274931: Mar 20th 2019 at 5:01:46 PM

I was going to say how it seems like some of you were deliberately misunderstanding what Clarste's point actually was, but it seems like that got sorted out by itself.

Either way, I'm pretty ambivalent on "just destroy them all" or "destroy most, but keep some as reminders of a dark past".

LeGarcon Blowout soon fellow Stalker from Skadovsk Since: Aug, 2013 Relationship Status: Gay for Big Boss
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
#274932: Mar 20th 2019 at 5:02:53 PM

[up][up][up]Given the systemic issues leading to poverty and the exploitation of the poor then the only way to follow the spirit of Christ's teachings in supporting those in need is to do it at a communal and societal level.

Otherwise you're just refusing to actually take serious steps to address the problem.

At that point are you actually interested in helping people or are your charitable contributions just there to make you feel better about yourself? Are you not willing to help people even if it costs you in your taxes?

I'm sure you could draw parallels to the rich men donating to charity for more societal status as opposed to the poor widow who donates her only two coins.

[down]Also that

Edited by LeGarcon on Mar 20th 2019 at 8:06:43 AM

Oh really when?
Wryte Since: Jul, 2010
#274933: Mar 20th 2019 at 5:04:28 PM

I might not be representing his argument at it's best, but I wanted to get your feedback on it. Where is the line between not oppressing someone and not helping them? Is welfare the same as charity? Do you think the argument (from a religious perspective) has weight?

Given that our nation is not governed according to the Bible, no, I don't think his argument has any weight whatsoever.

RainehDaze Nero Fangirl (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Nero Fangirl
#274934: Mar 20th 2019 at 5:05:55 PM

Also "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's".

wisewillow She/her Since: May, 2011
She/her
#274935: Mar 20th 2019 at 5:12:26 PM

I would also point out that as the Bible says EVERYONE is supposed to leave the edges of the fields for the poor... well, that’s communal. And it’s not optional. It’s not a choice, it’s a command. Only now we pay taxes that pay for food stamps, as most of us don’t have fields.

Edited by wisewillow on Mar 20th 2019 at 8:12:54 AM

DingoWalley1 Asgore Adopts Noelle Since: Feb, 2014 Relationship Status: Can't buy me love
Asgore Adopts Noelle
#274936: Mar 20th 2019 at 5:12:49 PM

Also, if we were a Christian Nation (which we aren't), it only goes to argue that we'd follow Jesus' teachings of giving unto the poor as official policy, thus a Christian Nation would demand an ever expanding Welfare State to care for all the poor in this Country.

Clarste One Winged Egret Since: Jun, 2009 Relationship Status: Non-Canon
One Winged Egret
#274937: Mar 20th 2019 at 5:14:20 PM

Isn't voting in people who would make it communal a personal choice anyway? By voting against government support for poverty, you're making the personal choice not to help them.

We are governed by the people and for the people, after all.

Edited by Clarste on Mar 20th 2019 at 5:14:49 AM

Ingonyama Since: Jan, 2001
#274938: Mar 20th 2019 at 5:23:13 PM

@ Clarste: I see what you're saying, but the first problem is you seem to be assuming that if all or most of the statues are destroyed, future historians and archaeologists won't know anything about the 60's. I hardly think such statues were the only ones, or the only pieces of art/artifacts of history, being produced in the 60's. Getting rid of them won't make the 60's a mythical time period or make it seem like we hated statues; it would make it clear it was white supremacy/the Lost Cause that was (finally!) hated. That said, preserving a few and displaying them in a way that does not valorize them/makes it clear they were propaganda would allow people to know white supremacy existed and why it was wrong without supporting or continuing it.

Secondly, you are sidestepping the important argument of how the few we did keep would be preserved without forcing POCs to pay for their upkeep or museums to get rid of other artifacts which might be in danger of truly being lost and forgotten, and which don't support oppression and prejudice. To that I would suggest first what's already been stated, a museum dedicated just to this (so it isn't taking the place of other artifacts) and that it be funded only by those who want it to exist. Like how whenever you do your taxes, at the end they ask you if you want to dedicate any part of your refund to various charities and such. Yes, that means those who want to keep the Lost Cause going would likely be the only ones donating, but at least if there were such a museum, those most harmed by its existence wouldn't be paying for it. If the number donating isn't large enough (because there's less who care/have the money for it than we are told), too bad. And if they won't donate because the museum actually puts it all in context and doesn't valorize it, also too bad.

The point is, we shouldn't forget this awful time happened or yes, it could well be repeated...but we also need to make sure we aren't just perpetuating the cycle by our preservation efforts. History should not be forgotten, but certain historical ideas would benefit us all if they were.

@ Soban: That sounds nice in theory, but the problem is that even if we could all agree on what exploitation is and what laws against it are fair and would work (not a guaranteed outcome at all), individual and personal assistance to the poor and oppressed is not nearly enough to properly deal with the issue. Just saying "oh it's too big a problem/the government shouldn't handle it" is simply dismissing something as endemic to human existence/something that can never be truly eliminated, so why even bother? Except that premise is not only not one we can prove, it undercuts any chance of even dealing with the situation at all; it's hard enough as it is trying to motivate people to have empathy, if it depended solely on people doing what they could individually and piecemeal? Not happening, and not effective if it did.

Plus to keep this still in the religious perspective, it's not like Jesus said "don't give to your government so they can address large issues". In fact he specifically did say "Render unto Caesar..." If the government wants to use money in large programs to address systemic issues like poverty, that is its prerogative, since it is supposed to act for the benefit of larger society. And those who want to help on an individual level instead/in addition to that, can still do so. I feel confident Jesus would totally support the "Why not both?" meme in this instance at least. And if he didn't say anything more about government assistance on these issues, I suspect that says more about the government of the time and his opinions of those who were part of it than anything more philosophical.

EDIT: [nja], particularly on the "Render to Caesar" bit.

Edited by Ingonyama on Mar 20th 2019 at 5:30:48 AM

Parable Since: Aug, 2009
#274939: Mar 20th 2019 at 5:35:28 PM

I think Charles frequently mentions that the churches in Kentucky would scream with joy if the state government actually made an effort to help the poor since their charities are overworked and overextended.

Clarste One Winged Egret Since: Jun, 2009 Relationship Status: Non-Canon
One Winged Egret
#274940: Mar 20th 2019 at 5:36:02 PM

@ Clarste: I see what you're saying, but the first problem is you seem to be assuming that if all or most of the statues are destroyed, future historians and archaeologists won't know anything about the 60's. I hardly think such statues were the only ones, or the only pieces of art/artifacts of history, being produced in the 60's.

How much do detail do we know about the 1160s? How about BCE? As time keeps on rolling forward, everything about the past becomes more and more fragmentary and larger swaths of history will be painted with the same brush.

Yes, modern society looks different from back then, and so will the artifacts that we leave behind. But there will be societies that come after us, and they'll pave over our ruins just as we did to our ancestors. I don't believe that this will be "the end of history" in any sense. Even most of the stuff that we already have in museums will likely tossed in the garbage at some point. But while keeping something in a museum doesn't guarantee it'll be preserved a thousand years from now, destroying it right now guarantees it won't be. In the long run, every little bit of history counts, in my opinion.

That said, I don't think history is necessarily so valuable that it's worth starving our children for. If we can't find the money, then that's just how it goes.

Edited by Clarste on Mar 20th 2019 at 5:38:07 AM

CharlesPhipps Since: Jan, 2001
#274941: Mar 20th 2019 at 5:44:38 PM

Yes, there's two different religious points on this.

Big box Churches - Hate government programs because they're corporations and devote all of their money to self-proliferation. Government programs invite scrutiny and they believe "Christianity" should be their charity. They're also more or less hand in pocket with the Republican party and are almost completely a scam. You can see them with their ten million dollar private jets and heavy donations to their patron politicians.

Local Churches and Local Church Alliances- Groups that usually run soup kitchens, food programs, private schools for underprivileged members, food banks, homeless shelters, and other things that desperately are overstretched. They get no government assistance because the current conservative ideology is Kill the Poor. Strangely enough, they aren't political for the most part and thus get ignored.

IC:

In Kentucky, the second is actually dealing with the Kentucky Hunger Crisis which sounds like it should be a joke—and is.

Kentucky's children are food insecure—in the United States

Edited by CharlesPhipps on Mar 20th 2019 at 5:48:05 AM

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
Ingonyama Since: Jan, 2001
#274942: Mar 20th 2019 at 5:53:37 PM

[up][up]Again, you are playing semantics and avoiding the issue. Who says that if we got rid of all or most of the Confederate statues that we would be left with no artifacts or art or historical items from the 60's? If what you mean is we wouldn't have any evidence of the Civil Rights Movement specifically (and those who pushed back against it), then say what you mean. Because contrary to opinion, there were other things going on, and other art and artifacts being made then, besides Civil Rights and the Lost Cause.

And even then, it's far more important to preserve the Civil Rights side of things, as it also is to preserve the Allied side of World War II and not the Nazis. By all means preserve as much as needed to show all of history that you can, but make it clear which view prevailed and why certain views were deemed worth fighting against. Otherwise we become in danger of "both sides"-ing history.

Edited by Ingonyama on Mar 20th 2019 at 5:55:45 AM

Clarste One Winged Egret Since: Jun, 2009 Relationship Status: Non-Canon
One Winged Egret
#274943: Mar 20th 2019 at 5:57:05 PM

All I'm saying is that we don't get to make the choice of what will survive in a thousand years. It's impossible for us to make that choice. All we can choose is what won't survive. Keeping as many things around as possible therefore just makes it more likely that something will survive. It's just a matter of probability.

You all seem to be assuming that "most" things will survive on their own. This is demonstrably untrue if we look at the history of humanity. There's also an undercurrent of "but we're different now!" which is also a completely baseless, unproven hypothesis.

If you have to triage, then sure, that's a matter of practicality. But the ideal is still to preserve everything. There's nothing in history that should never be preserved.

Edit: It's about redundancy.

Edited by Clarste on Mar 20th 2019 at 6:05:59 AM

Ingonyama Since: Jan, 2001
#274944: Mar 20th 2019 at 6:08:07 PM

No one is assuming that at all. Because we are specifically talking only about getting rid of the Confederate statues. Nothing else. If doing so would leave us with no items from the 60's, or too few to give a chance of having any be preserved for posterity, then that says something about the era, particularly when it's so relatively recent. If nothing else was produced, or no one bothered to save anything but those statues, then that would make me at least wonder if the era was worth remembering.

However, that is hardly the case, there's far more preserved than just that, and to suggest otherwise is silly. And if the concern is making sure enough artifacts are preserved that this era could have something representing it centuries from now, I happen to think it's more important (and more likely to be successful) if it's Civil Rights items being preserved.

Edit: you can achieve redundancy by saving lots of Civil Rights artifacts. It's not necessary, and counterproductive to the aim of ensuring white supremacy is not continued, to save equal amounts of Lost Cause artifacts.

Also, I'm not saying we're different now and I don't think anyone else is either. Just that if we want to be better in the future, we'd do better to not put too much (or the wrong kinds of) emphasis on the darker parts of our history. We have to acknowledge and come to terms with it, not pretend it has equal value.

Edited by Ingonyama on Mar 20th 2019 at 6:11:20 AM

PhysicalStamina i'm tired, my friend (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Coming soon to theaters
i'm tired, my friend
#274945: Mar 20th 2019 at 6:08:12 PM

Um...

[leans in]

We have statues of just heads and they're quite popular. They're called busts.

Is this the part where you try to convince me that busts carry the same gravitas as full, often larger-than-lifesize statues?

Also, busts at least include the shoulders. I'm literally talking about leaving only the head to put on display.

i'm tired, my friend
Gilphon (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#274946: Mar 20th 2019 at 6:11:15 PM

I mean, it's weird as hell to say 'Well, although the Bible definitely says we should give money to the poor, in context it's talking about the individual level, not the communal one, and therefore we should oppose communal charity'.

Like, what, we're supposed to oppose everything that Bible doesn't specifically and clearly say we should be in favour of? That's no way to live.

Really it sounds like the issue of Religion is a red herring here- that's the kind of argument one gives in response to a question along the lines of 'how do you reconcile your opposition to welfare with your religion?', when it fact the real answer is that the opposition to welfare isn't primarily based on religion.

Clarste One Winged Egret Since: Jun, 2009 Relationship Status: Non-Canon
One Winged Egret
#274947: Mar 20th 2019 at 6:15:41 PM

particularly when it's so relatively recent

That's exactly the problem! You're only thinking about right now, as if we are at the end of history. You're thinking about what we need to be reminded of, and about what we know from the artifacts that have survived until now. It's a very narrow, self-centered perspective, imo.

I am talking about archaeologists in the year 4000 digging up the ruins of a planet destroyed in the Martian Wars. A world where the USA no longer exists, and all students learn about it is a single blurb on the single page that covers all of 20th Century history. Because, you know, that's exactly how we treat most things that happened 2000 years ago.

But historians would want to know more than that. They'd want to know how advanced our plumbing was, what we ate, and how we lived. What we disagreed on, and what was important in our politics. And if we want to do them a favor, we wouldn't intentionally destroy these things.

Edited by Clarste on Mar 20th 2019 at 6:16:05 AM

Ingonyama Since: Jan, 2001
#274948: Mar 20th 2019 at 6:19:46 PM

Talk about completely ignoring everything else I said.

First, I said that if nothing else was preserved from a relatively recent era, that would suggest nothing else was considered worth preserving. And if all that was considered worth preserving was Confederate statues, I wouldn't want to have that era remembered.

And then I said but far more has been preserved from the 60's than just Confederate statues. So getting rid of all or most of them would not, in fact, leave with us too few artifacts for posterity. Or do you have evidence that there aren't enough 60's artifacts for museums if you ignore everything Lost Cause-related?

Lastly, as a matter of fact I wasn't talking about what we need to be reminded of, but what future generations should be reminded of. Yes, let them know what we did, how we lived, and all the rest of that. But also tell them that white supremacy is wrong and does not deserve to be valorized. If some artifacts are necessary to tell that story, fine. But not so many as to make it seem more important than, or of equal weight as, equality.

Edited by Ingonyama on Mar 20th 2019 at 6:22:36 AM

Clarste One Winged Egret Since: Jun, 2009 Relationship Status: Non-Canon
One Winged Egret
#274949: Mar 20th 2019 at 6:20:33 PM

The museums were also destroyed in the Martian Wars, you know. Again, you're only thinking about now. The fact that you think I'm changing the subject just tells me that you were never paying attention to my point in the first place.

Edited by Clarste on Mar 20th 2019 at 6:21:27 AM

RainingMetal (Handed A Sword) Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#274950: Mar 20th 2019 at 6:20:39 PM

Thats an entirely different matter, the death camps are a crimescene for a genocide that occurred 60 years ago,I wouldn't even like to wade in on whether to preserve them or not
I know. It's a more recent set of events, and one at a far greater scale. However, people still debate on whether to smash them up for obvious reasons, or to keep them around to remind people about the consequences of forgetting the darkest parts of history.

ASAB: All Sponsors Are Bad.

Total posts: 417,856
Top