What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Razgovory]

Sudan is in the news, obviously.  That's why we are talking about it.  I didn't say someone was in favor of a civil war, I am saying that people who define themselves as anti-genocide, don't care about civilians being massacred if they are not massacred by the Israelis.  This leads me to believe they don't actually care about Palestinians, they simply want to instrumentalize Palestinian suffering as way to destroy a hated country in the Middle East.  I believe that the majority of people, both in the West and the Middle East, (including Hamas!) would be fine with the conflict ending with only 10 Palestinians left alive if it meant zero Israelis are left.

I think it is important to understand what this animus is about: It boils down to identity.

I didn't say you said someone was in favor of civil war in Sudan and Yemen. 

I said people don't get worked up about it precisely because no one is in favor.

People don't get worked up because they can't use the deaths of people in Sudan and Yemen to further their political goal.  Obviously people do favor a side in both Sudan and Yemen.  Britain, the US, France and Canada all sell weapons to the Saudis.  If the Pro-Pal crowd cared that children were being starved, 80 thousand kids starved to death by some estimations, they would march to pressure their governments to stop selling weapons.  But they do not do so.  So clearly dead kids isn't that important.  And their governments are fine with child starvations so there is someone to disagree with the protesters.

[Admiral Yi]

People don't get worked up because they can't use the deaths of people in Sudan and Yemen to further their political goal.  Obviously people do favor a side in both Sudan and Yemen.  Britain, the US, France and Canada all sell weapons to the Saudis.  If the Pro-Pal crowd cared that children were being starved, 80 thousand kids starved to death by some estimations, they would march to pressure their governments to stop selling weapons.  But they do not do so.  So clearly dead kids isn't that important.  And their governments are fine with child starvations so there is someone to disagree with the protesters.

I concede the point about arms sales to Saudi Arabia.  The part about being fine with child starvation is a strawman, but let's leave that aside.

I would concede the point about child starvation too, except I don't have to because I made the exact same argument long ago, but about "peace" instead of "child starvation."  I agree that the true motivation of the pro-Pals appears to be anger at Israel rather than love of humanity.

The one area I will not agree with you is that this conclusively demonstrates they are all evil racists.  I think the West Bank settlements are a travesty and the settlers who chop down olive trees and burn Pal homes some of the lowest life on earth.  Am I an evil anti-Semite?  You said that you were opposed to the settlements.  Are you an evil anti-Semite?  You can be angry at actions without hating a people entirely.

[Razgovory]

Yeah, but this isn't about the settlements, because, yet again, it is a pretext.  The Pro-Pal crowd would be still upset if every settlement in the West Bank was abandoned.  That's why pointing out the hypocrisy is germane.  Because we can arrive at what people are really angry about.  It is about the wrong type of people living in that part of the world.  Both Left and Right come to this from different angles, but the basic answer is the same.  Identity.  

For the Far-Right, there is no proper place in the world for the Israelis.  They simply want them destroyed.  This goes for the Islamists as well.  They see these people as simply too dangerous to live.  Both Islamists and Western far right see Israel is running the US, and the destruction of Israel will emancipate the world.   The left is somewhat different, they seem to much of themselves in the Israelis.  For the Europeans the Israelis are a stand in for European colonialism and of course the hated imperialism of the Americans.  For Americans they represent both white supremacy and the uncomfortable fact that they live on stolen land.  By being anti-Israel they are distancing themselves from the parts of their own countries they hate.  Israel is the scapegoat where all the sins of the West are invested and then toss off a cliff to be destroyed.  Fundamentally, they feel the the Israelis the wrong color to live in the region.  There is an element of world emancipation in this as well.  Both far-left and far-right are shockingly similar in viewpoints.

And that's the thing.  This isn't about the Palestinian children, or the settlements, or the Nakbah, it's about how we see ourselves in the world.  It's not really about people over there, it's about us.  And that is what I find alarming.  Both left and right see Israel as what they want to destroy about us, here in the West.  Especially America.  It is the extremes against the Middle.

[Admiral Yi]

Yeah, but this isn't about the settlements, because, yet again, it is a pretext.  The Pro-Pal crowd would be still upset if every settlement in the West Bank was abandoned.  That's why pointing out the hypocrisy is germane.  Because we can arrive at what people are really angry about.  It is about the wrong type of people living in that part of the world.  Both Left and Right come to this from different angles, but the basic answer is the same.  Identity. 

You have run out of arguments and are resorting to the mantra.  The way you can test this is by asking yourself "how do I know this to be true?"

[Razgovory]

Yeah, but this isn't about the settlements, because, yet again, it is a pretext.  The Pro-Pal crowd would be still upset if every settlement in the West Bank was abandoned.  That's why pointing out the hypocrisy is germane.  Because we can arrive at what people are really angry about.  It is about the wrong type of people living in that part of the world.  Both Left and Right come to this from different angles, but the basic answer is the same.  Identity. 

You have run out of arguments and are resorting to the mantra.  The way you can test this is by asking yourself "how do I know this to be true?"

I know this to be true from the things they say.  The explicitly talk about this being about white supremacy.  They constantly use racial language to describe the conflict.  That's why they don't care about other conflicts.  It doesn't have the identity   issue to it.  You could march for the children of Yemen, or Syria, or the Uyghurs, but are you fighting white supremacy?  Fighting colonialism (with the Uyghurs you would be, but it's not the right type of colonialism).  Are you upholding the dignity of Islam or the Arab Race?  No.

There was some polling I saw from back in 2019, I was going to post it, but never got around to it.  It showed that among American white leftists, approval of Israel went down at the same time as "warm feelings" about white people declined.  They were the only group that showed more approval of outgroups than the ingroup.  This was strange and I think telling.  I think it also helps explain why Trump has risen to power.  A large number of white leftists are kinda hostile to other white people, and since this is majority white country, it doesn't do much for you in an election.  I've seen this on things like Facebook where white people are demonstrating contempt for white people.  That is, in my opinion, really fucking weird.  I don't fully understand it.

[Admiral Yi]

Ah, I finally see the point you've been trying to make.  It's a variant of white guilt vis a vis blacks, which I've criticized before, or the peacenik tenet that only the West can do wrong, everyone else is a victim, which I've also criticized.  I won't argue this doesn't exist in the pro-Pal camp; what I will argue with is whether this accurately describes the *entire* pro-Pal camp.  Which is the language you consistently use.  Consider dropping that part of your thesis and see where it gets you.

[Razgovory]

Well, the Muslim and Arab portions also tend to focus on Identity, but not as part of white guilt of course.

[DGuller]

A large number of white leftists are kinda hostile to other white people, and since this is majority white country, it doesn't do much for you in an election.  I've seen this on things like Facebook where white people are demonstrating contempt for white people.  That is, in my opinion, really fucking weird.  I don't fully understand it.

I have a theory as to what drives it.  Condemning your own group is treated as a badge of enlightenment.  You're not one of those primitive tribal people, you follow the truth even if it leads you to self-denunciation.  Unfortunately some people love feeling enlightened so much that they denounce their own group first, and then look for principled reasons to denounce it.

[Valmy]

Ok. I don't care at all about white guilt. Being guilty about the past when white nationalists are doing horrible things right fucking now is beyond insane. Just bizarre. Are you feeling bad about bad things white people did in the past? Well maybe work to stop white people from currently doing horrible things. And all the non-white people doing horrible things to.

[Zoupa]

I think you need to spend less time on the internet Raz.

[Jacob]

Jacob, I would like to withdraw, or at least reformulate, my comment.

I too see the need for judicious hypocrisy.  At gay karaoke I'm often asked by customers if I liked their singing, or, less often if I think they're pretty.  I started out by trying to be truthful.  Now I just tell everyone they're awesome.

Yeah, that's the shape of it.

Building on that - I believe that as socio-political situations increase in complexity, so does the tension between multiple competing values or principles that a person may hold and it is inevitable that they will clash in way that cannot be resolved while remaining true to both (or all) of them; at least if the person engages in good faith and with some measure of intellectual rigour. There are edge cases and complexities and life is generally messy. So you have to find a way to pick and choose.

However you resolve the irresolvable conflicts as they occur will make you a hypocrite in the eyes of those who disagree with your solution.

I believe this to be a fundamental reality of human social existence, and I rather suspect it is deeply embedded in how our species reason.

I still don't see how your maxim can be applied to Gaza though.

I wasn't intending to make a statement specifically on Gaza, because I have less than zero interest in engaging in that topic on languish. My main point was simply that charges of "hypocrisy" are basically meaningless in this context.

That said given the complexity and variety of involved parties in the conflict in Gaza (and beyond), as a general rule I do expect that anyone with more than one principle beyond some flavour of pure ethno-chauvinism or the simply monstrous will find some conflict between them when applied. And while those conflicts can potentially be resolved, they'll make you a hypocrite in the eyes of those who don't agree with your solution.

I think it could be an interesting intellectual exercise to dig into in a friendly long-form discussion - for any given person's set of principles and position - but I very much doubt languish is the place for it.

[Jacob]

I have a theory as to what drives it.  Condemning your own group is treated as a badge of enlightenment.  You're not one of those primitive tribal people, you follow the truth even if it leads you to self-denunciation.  Unfortunately some people love feeling enlightened so much that they denounce their own group first, and then look for principled reasons to denounce it.

Does white guilt still have currency these days?

[Razgovory]

A large number of white leftists are kinda hostile to other white people, and since this is majority white country, it doesn't do much for you in an election.  I've seen this on things like Facebook where white people are demonstrating contempt for white people.  That is, in my opinion, really fucking weird.  I don't fully understand it.

I have a theory as to what drives it.  Condemning your own group is treated as a badge of enlightenment.  You're not one of those primitive tribal people, you follow the truth even if it leads you to self-denunciation.  Unfortunately some people love feeling enlightened so much that they denounce their own group first, and then look for principled reasons to denounce it.

Yeah, my theory is basically that.  It is sort of like original sin and being born-again.  It is through politics that white people can be redeemed and be worthy of their privilege.  That's why I used the scape goat analogy with Israel.  The sins of the West are unloaded on the victim and thrown off a cliff.  It's like a religious thing.

[Admiral Yi]

However you resolve the irresolvable conflicts as they occur will make you a hypocrite in the eyes of those who disagree with your solution.

I believe this to be a fundamental reality of human social existence, and I rather suspect it is deeply embedded in how our species reason.

I resolve the irresolvable conflicts by applying balancing tests between conflicting principles and by leaving myself open to reasoned argumentation that my balancing tests are suboptimal or that I have neglected an important principle.  If someone who doesn't recognize the existence of irresolvable conflicts calls me a hypocrite I am indifferent.  I don't need their positive judgement to survive.

[Razgovory]

When Trump condemns political violence, but only mentions left-wing violence, encourages right-wing violence, and pardons people who commit violence on his behalf, do we take him at his word that he is opposed to political violence?  Is the political situation so complex that his political views naturally conflict with one another, or is his hypocrisy lead us to believe that he actually opposes something else?  Hint:  It's that he's not really concerned with political violence.

It's the same deal.