#rhetoric check first though im a debater :} | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

yessoupy · 5 years

Text

Rep. Justin Amash, MI-3:

When my dad was 16, America welcomed him as a Palestinian refugee. It wasn’t easy moving to a new country, but it was the greatest blessing of his life.

Throughout my childhood, my dad would remind my brothers and me of the challenges he faced before coming here and how fortunate we were to be Americans. In this country, he told us, everyone has an opportunity to succeed regardless of background.

Growing up, I thought a lot about the brilliance of America. Our country’s founders established a constitutional republic uniquely dedicated to securing the rights of the people. In fact, they designed a political system so ordered around liberty that, in succeeding generations, the Constitution itself would strike back against the biases and blind spots of its authors.

My parents, both immigrants, were Republicans. I supported Republican candidates throughout my early adult life and then successfully ran for office as a Republican. The Republican Party, I believed, stood for limited government, economic freedom and individual liberty — principles that had made the American Dream possible for my family.

In recent years, though, I’ve become disenchanted with party politics and frightened by what I see from it. The two-party system has evolved into an existential threat to American principles and institutions.

George Washington was so concerned as he watched political parties take shape in America that he dedicated much of his farewell address to warning that partisanship, although “inseparable from our nature,” was the people’s “worst enemy.” He observed that it was “the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.”

Washington said of partisanship, in one of America’s most prescient addresses: “The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty. …

“It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.”

True to Washington’s fears, Americans have allowed government officials, under assertions of expediency and party unity, to ignore the most basic tenets of our constitutional order: separation of powers, federalism and the rule of law. The result has been the consolidation of political power and the near disintegration of representative democracy.

These are consequences of a mind-set among the political class that loyalty to party is more important than serving the American people or protecting our governing institutions. The parties value winning for its own sake, and at whatever cost. Instead of acting as an independent branch of government and serving as a check on the executive branch, congressional leaders of both parties expect the House and Senate to act in obedience or opposition to the president and their colleagues on a partisan basis.

In this hyperpartisan environment, congressional leaders use every tool to compel party members to stick with the team, dangling chairmanships, committee assignments, bill sponsorships, endorsements and campaign resources. As donors recognize the growing power of party leaders, they supply these officials with ever-increasing funds, which, in turn, further tightens their grip on power.

The founders envisioned Congress as a deliberative body in which outcomes are discovered. We are fast approaching the point, however, where Congress exists as little more than a formality to legitimize outcomes dictated by the president, the speaker of the House and the Senate majority leader.

With little genuine debate on policy happening in Congress, party leaders distract and divide the public by exploiting wedge issues and waging pointless messaging wars. These strategies fuel mistrust and anger, leading millions of people to take to social media to express contempt for their political opponents, with the media magnifying the most extreme voices. This all combines to reinforce the us-vs.-them, party-first mind-set of government officials.

Modern politics is trapped in a partisan death spiral, but there is an escape.

Most Americans are not rigidly partisan and do not feel well represented by either of the two major parties. In fact, the parties have become more partisan in part because they are catering to fewer people, as Americans are rejecting party affiliation in record numbers.

These same independent-minded Americans, however, tend to be less politically engaged than Red Team and Blue Team activists. Many avoid politics to focus on their own lives, while others don’t want to get into the muck with the radical partisans.

But we owe it to future generations to stand up for our constitutional republic so that Americans may continue to live free for centuries to come. Preserving liberty means telling the Republican Party and the Democratic Party that we’ll no longer let them play their partisan game at our expense.

Today, I am declaring my independence and leaving the Republican Party. No matter your circumstance, I’m asking you to join me in rejecting the partisan loyalties and rhetoric that divide and dehumanize us. I’m asking you to believe that we can do better than this two-party system — and to work toward it. If we continue to take America for granted, we will lose it.

#declaring independence on Independence day #Justin Amash #politics #politics 2020 #American politics

1 note · View note

patriotsnet · 3 years

Text

Who Gives More To Charity Republicans Or Democrats

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/who-gives-more-to-charity-republicans-or-democrats/

Who Gives More To Charity Republicans Or Democrats

Republicans Give Less In Democratic

Who LIES More- Republicans or Democrats?

Whether Republicans lived in a red county or a blue county affected their giving, the study found. Republican donors tended to give less in Democratic-leaning counties.

One theory was that taxes tended to be higher in counties where a majority of residents were Democrats. Republicans had less to give, and they were not persuaded to give more to reap a bigger tax deduction.

A second hypothesis is that donors do not necessarily have confidence in giving when their beliefs are not shared or the institutions they are giving to might support causes that are not theirs.

If Im a Republican and only in the minority, my preferences are not held in common or high regard, Dr. Christensen said. When theyre in the majority, they feel they can share their wealth this way.

Republicans Vs Democrats: Where Do The Two Main Us Political Parties Stand On Key Issues

After an impeachment, a positive coronavirus test and an unforgettable first presidential debate rounded out the final months of Donald Trumps first term, it seems fair to say the past few years have been a roller-coaster ride for US politics.

On November 3, Americans will decide which candidate will win the 2020 presidential election, sparking either the beginning, or end, for each nominee.

But how does it all work?

Well, the US political system is dominated by two main parties the Democrats and the Republicans and the next president will belong to one of those two.

Just how different are their policies?

Heres what you need to know, starting with the candidates.

Republicans Give More To Charity Than Democrats But Theres A Bigger Story Here

November 3, 2018; New York Times

The political differences between Republicans and Democrats dont play out solely at the ballot box; they also predict how likely people are to donate to charity. This finding from a newly published research project reflects a key difference, one tied to political affiliation, about how our nation should take on critical social issues like homelessness, poverty, and health care. The data also suggest that in times of political strife, both parties supporters pull back, making problem-solving harder.

Using voting and IRS data for the residents of 3,000 counties across the nation, the four-professor research team found, according to the New York Times, that counties which are overwhelmingly Republican report higher charitable contributions than Democratic-dominated counties, although giving in blue counties is often bolstered by a combination of charitable donations and higher taxes. But as red or blue counties become more politically competitive, charitable giving tends to fall. The full study was recently published in the Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly.

Importantly, the study did not find that in Republican counties, private funds replaced public funds so that social services were equally supported.

Don’t Miss: Snopes Trump Republican Dumb

Elected Officials Seen As Out Of Touch In Us France And Uk

Nearly two-thirds of Germans say the statement elected officials care what ordinary people think describes their country well. However, fewer than half of those surveyed in France, the U.S. and the UK express this opinion.

The share of Germans who say elected officials care what ordinary people think has risen precipitously since 2018, when only 44% held this view. In France, too, the share saying elected officials care has risen 9 points . Indeed, all partisan groups in France studied registered an increase in the percentage who say this.;

In the UK and U.S., however, the share who say elected officials care about ordinary people has remained largely unchanged since 2018, although it has risen in the UK among those who identify with Conservative Party and decreased among those who identify with the Labour Party. Today, Conservatives are more likely to say elected officials care than are Labour Party supporters. Those who have a favorable view of the Brexit Party are also more likely than those who have an unfavorable view of the party to say elected officials care what ordinary people think .;

Partisan identity colors opinion about whether elected officials are seen as caring in each of the countries surveyed except for Germany. For example, in France, about two-thirds of those who identify with President Emmanuel Macrons party En Marche say elected officials care, compared with fewer than half of supporters of the Socialist Party and the Republicans .

Republicans Winning Money Race As They Seek To Take Over House In 2022

The National Republican Congressional Committee announced Wednesday that it had raised $45.4 million in the second quarter of 2021, the most it has ever raised in three months of a non-election year, as Republicans seek to take over the House in 2022.

House GOP leader Kevin McCarthy This story has been updated with additional developments Wednesday.

Also Check: Did Trump Call Republicans Stupid In 1998

Can A Religious White Republican Party Survive

The partisan gap between black and white voters is the most durable and powerful split in modern American politics. Soon after President Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964, he remarked, I think we just delivered the South to the Republican Party for a long time to come. He wasnt wrong. Afterward, the Republicans courted racist white voters by opposing school and housing integration.

Among white people, religion is the most stable and important determinant of party choice. But the way religion shapes party attachment has changed. Today, the best way to sort the population of white voters is not by which religion they belong to, but by how religious they are.

Among white Americans:

else

Religious

The number of religious white Americans is plummeting. In the long term, that spells disaster for Republicans. I dont think the Republican Party right now has a sustainable business model, said Alan Abramowitz, a political scientist at Emory University.

The party knows this. Or at least it should. After Republicans lost the 2012 election, the party leadership commissioned a report on how to move forward. One answer was clear: appeal to nonwhite and less conservative voters. But in the years since, the Republicans led by Mr. Trump have doubled down on white identity politics and seem to believe that their path to a majority is through gerrymandering, voter suppression or attempts to skew the census.

Recommended Reading: Do Republicans Or Democrats Give More To Charity

Democrats Tend To Have A Lot More Anger And Negativity In Their Rhetoric According To Them If You Support President Trump Well Then You Are A Racist And A Nazi

They generally seem to be out to get someone making things more personal.; Why are they so afraid to use the facts to reinforce what they want to do? Its agenda first then find or make up facts to support the rhetoric.

If they cant beat you at the polling booth, they try and beat you in court and thats just a great example of something thats not a pleasant experience. And not quite working in the long run. They keep getting overturned.

Recommended Reading: Democratic Controlled States

Democrats Or Republicans: Who Has The Higher Income

In the end, many people assume Republicans are richer based on these figures. Although, this is only a look at the richest families and politicians in America though. In everyday American households, it seems that Democrats have a higher mean salary. Its true that many of the wealthiest families in the country are contributing to Republican campaigns. On the contrary, families registered as Democrats have higher annual salaries than Republicans, statistically speaking.

These findings still have some loopholes in them, of course. For instance, the data was collected over the last 40 years or so. Moreover, it is only based on the most recently collected information. As you know, demographics are constantly changing. These figures may have been affected as well. There is also a margin of error with every type of data collection like this. So, what do you think? Who is richer? Democrats or Republicans?

The Political Force Of Michael Bloombergs Tactical Charity

Conservatives & Christians are Far More Charitable than Bleeding-Heart Liberals & Athiests

In his quest for the Democratic presidential nomination, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has already spent nearly a quarter of a billion dollars, more than that of the major Democratic candidates combined. But, ironically, focusing on his immense campaign budget underrates the impact of Bloombergs money on his chances. Just as important is the political force of his charitable giving.

Traditionally, presidential nominations have been than by grassroots mobilization. Bloomberg may be able to gin up some public support through campaign ads and Tammany Hall-style politics, but in the inside game, it would seem he is at a disadvantage. He has never run for national office, has supported Republican candidates, and was himself a Republican.

But politics in America is increasingly organized around institutions reliant on big-donor philanthropy. Candidates, local and state parties, advocacy organizations, think tanks, and many foundations are in a constant scramble for money. Few leaders of these organizations will want to offend a man whose personal wealth makes their entire operating budgets look like a negligible rounding error.

Don’t Miss: Percentage Of Americans That Are Republican

If A Party Gets What It Wants In The Pursuit Of Delivering Something Most People Want Most Of The Time So Be It

Theres nothing morally wrong with being the party of corporate interests. Theres nothing wrong, for that matter, with viewing politics as the preserve of the few, not the many. Whats wrong is lying about it. Whats wrong is treating the opposition as if it does not have a legitimate claim. Whats wrong is setting off a conflagration of white-power fury that consumes nearly everything, even the republic itself, in order to slake a thirst for power. The day Joe Biden decided to run for president was the day this white-power fury burned through Charlottesville, screaming, Jews will not replace us. That day, according to published reports, is the day Biden chose to fight to restore the soul of America.

Maybe hes full of it. Maybe Biden and the Democrats dont really believe what they say when they talk about everyone being in this together. Thats certainly what the Republicans and their media allies believe. A critic said Thursday that we can expect to see from Biden lofty rhetoric about unity, while acting below the radar to smash norms to implement the Left-wing agenda. The same day, a Times reporter asked the White House press secretary why the administration has not offered a bipartisan fig leaf to the Republicans, given the president putting so much emphasis on unity. Maybe the Democrats dont mean what they say. Maybe its just politics-as-usual.

Not All Parties That Employ Populist Rhetoric Are Opposed To Liberal Democratic Principles

Greeces Coalition of the Radical Left, more commonly referred to as Syriza, is one of the only major parties of the radical left in the west to favour populist over pluralistic rhetoric.

Though an overwhelming majority of western parties described by ParlGov as liberal and conservative are likely to be positive towards ethnic minorities, the same cannot be said for their attitudes towards immigration.

You May Like: Leader Of The Radical Republicans

Are Republicans More Ethical Than Democrats

It is easy to be cynical about the corrosive effects of power. ;No party has a monopoly on corruption and misuse of public office.; Yet cynicism is not the same as wisdom.; Such every day cynicism helps Democrats escape from the uncomfortable moral challenges posed to big government advocates by the slew of scandals erupting in Washington.;

What we are seeing involves systemic flouting of the law by Democrats, from elected and appointed officials to unionized bureaucrats, who have targeted ordinary citizens because they are political opponents, riding rough shod over our rights to free speech, assembly, freedom of the press and equal application of the law.;

There has not been abuse of power on this scale in this baby boomers lifetime.; This is beyond the ordinary, and ordinary cynicism will not suffice.; The debate over whether our President is guilty of active abuse, leadership by example, or incompetence is important.; But it is not the most important thing going on.; The problem is far larger than the Oval office, and will extend past this presidency unless there is significant government reform.

New York Times journalist Thomas Friedman daydreams of what he and fellow liberals could accomplish ruling America with all the powers of the Chinese Communist Party.; Republican politicians, no matter how power hungry and narcissistic, know that is a nightmare.; Their followers know that is a nightmare.; Democrats do not.;

Democratic Party Enters 2021 In Power And Flush With Cash For A Change

The Democratic National Committee has a roughly $75 million war chest, raising the partys hopes of keeping power in 2022 and accelerating a Democratic shift in the Sun Belt states.

After years of flirting with financial disaster, the Democratic Party entered 2021 not only in control of the White House, the House and the Senate but with more money in the bank than ever before at the start of a political cycle.

The Democratic National Committee will report to the Federal Election Commission on Sunday that it ended 2020 with $38.8 million in the bank and $3 million in debts, according to an advance look at its financial filings. In addition, there is roughly $40 million earmarked for the party, left over from its joint operations with the Biden campaign, according to people familiar with the matter. This gives the Democrats a roughly $75 million war chest at the start of President Bidens tenure.

This is a number that is unimaginable, said Howard Dean, a former party chairman.

Party data, resources and infrastructure undergird candidates up and down the ballot, and Democratic officials are already dreaming of early investments in voter registration that may accelerate the political realignment Democrat are hoping to bring about in key Sun Belt states.

We had to juggle who we were going to pay, Tom Perez, who until earlier this month was the chairman of the D.N.C., said of the early part of his tenure, which began in 2017.

Recommended Reading: Did Trump Say Republicans Are Stupid

Americans Are Especially Likely To Say Politicians Are Corrupt

This report examines peoples trust in government and satisfaction with democracy, as well as their attitudes toward elected officials and political reform.

For this analysis, we use data from nationally representative telephone surveys of 4,069 adults from Nov. 10 to Dec. 23, 2020, in the U.S., France, Germany and the UK. In addition to the survey, Pew Research Center conducted focus groups from Aug. 19 to Nov. 20, 2019, in cities across the U.S. and UK . We draw upon these discussions in this report.

Here are the questions used for the report, along with responses, and the survey methodology.

As they continue to struggle with a public health crisis and ongoing economic challenges, many people in the United States and Western Europe are also frustrated with politics.

A four-nation Pew Research Center survey conducted in November and December of 2020 finds that roughly two-thirds of adults in France and the U.S., as well as about half in the United Kingdom, believe their political system needs major changes or needs to be completely reformed. Calls for significant reform are less common in Germany, where about four-in-ten express this view.

Trust in government has also increased slightly in the UK, although while it has risen among supporters of Prime Minister Boris Johnsons Conservative Party, is has actually declined among those who identify with the opposition Labour Party.

Save Story

Save this story for later.

House Republicans Pressuring Democrats To Return Donations From Ocasio

House Republicans’ campaign arm on Monday launched a website calling on a number of vulnerable House Democrats to return campaign donations from progressive Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

The website, dubbed “Socialist Give Back,” comes after Politico reported last week that Ocasio-Cortez donated $5,000 to a number of House Democrats. The;National Republican Congressional Committee;highlighted the Democrats who have returned the donations, including Rep. Chris PappasChristopher Charles PappasNew Hampshire Republican Matt Mowers jumps into key House race, setting up 2020 rematchTop Democrat: ‘A lot of spin’ coming from White House on infrastructureFormer Trump aide announces run for New Hampshire House seatMORE .

Ocasio-Cortez’s Courage to Change PAC donated to the New Hampshire Democrat on March 29, but Pappas’s campaign returned the funds, citing a clerical error.

Other House Democrats who returned the campaign cash include Reps. Conor Lamb , Elissa SlotkinRonald James KindGOP sees Biden crises as boon for midterm recruitmentDemocrats fret over Trump-district retirements ahead of midtermsMORE .

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spokesman Chris Hayden told Politico last month that the campaign arm was appreciative of Ocasio-Cortez’s efforts, adding “due to a miscommunication, some transfers were made in error, but that has been addressed.

Recommended Reading: How Many Republicans In California

Democrat Or Republican: Whos More Charitable

J. Hugh Liedtke Professor of Marketing

Lay belief suggests that Democrats are more charitable than Republicans because of a more community-minded orientation. However, surveys of giving show that Republicans give more to charity than Democrats, though the charitable giving also includes religious organizations. A careful reading of the evidence precludes strong conclusions.

A recent study by WalletHub;compiled charitable giving data from different states. When combined with state-level political identity data from the American National Election Studies;a simple analysis was conducted. A simple regression suggests a positive association between charitable giving and being a Republican. You can find your state in the graph above.

This simple analysis, however, does not tell the whole story. Understanding charitable giving by Republicans and Democrats is more complex than portrayed in this graphic. My colleagues Karen Page Winterich at Penn State and Yinlong Zhang at UT-San Antonio conducted a series of controlled experiments to investigate this issue. The study published in the International Journal of Research in Marketing;can be downloaded here:

Specifically, the study showed:

Overall, Democrats and Republicans are equally likely to be charitable.

In another study, we created two descriptions of âChildrenâs Advocatesâ. They started with the same introduction, but had two different descriptions, one republican-oriented and another democrat-oriented:

versus

0 notes

typhonatemybaby · 7 years

Link

I stumbled across this article on twitter the other day and IMO it represents simultaneously the worst and most socially positive elements of what a lot of people think about when they think about scottish independence. Im from Scotland and support independence in the current climate, but for a variety of reasons, some of which are identical to the standard pro-indy platform, some wildly divergent. It starts off well enough, by poking a few holes in Ruth Davidsons generally tepid takes on the broad campaign for independence as well as highlighting her hypocrisy as regards her take on nationalism in general ( cue timely reference to the infamous tank photograph). After this the author takes the tack of using this as a platform for arguing for: “ ...the independence movement to challenge her "thinking" (quote marks very much needed) by giving stronger and more coherent meaning to the philosophy of our cause.“

Which in general is a program i support, especially given that the nature of the mainstream lines of the debate have sort of solidified into entrenched positions since indyref 1.0. However Im broadly speaking an anarchist so any chance of my actual views getting into the rhetoric of the independence debate is pretty slim. Regardless we crack on and Mr Mcalpine immediately starts talking about academic theories and conceptions of nationalism, which i would agree is a fair point to start. However this is also where i start to run int trouble with this article. Instead of using the theories he has outlined to help approach the matter materialistically and even state which of these he believes is closer to accuracy ( though to be fair he does do this later), McAlpine immediately simply lays them out as an offering and moves on to his first major calumny. I find it fitting that he does this after making the error that all online anarchos love to point out : “ oooooh you assumed the nation state is a good model at ALL. you FOOL” etc etc

So what is this first major issue? well:

“Because here's the thing – there is more or less no person in the world who is not wholly reliant on and deeply committed to the nation state system. I get deeply irritated by the 'citizen of the world' crowd who, hypocritically, expect someone else's nation state to provide the police to protect their MacBooks as they check into a hotel in someone else's country using someone else's roads paid for by someone else's nation state raising taxes on their population.

If you are a fascist, an anarcho-syndicalist, a theocrat or a believer in undemocratic kingdoms or empires, or of a single world government, then you have taken a legitimate position from which to attack nationalism. Everyone else is some kind of nationalist.”

Fuck me, bad post op.

First of all this is, for someone who just ragged on Ruth Davidson for not knowing about academic theories of nationalism in human society, this guy displays a total absence of knowledge when it comes to literally any of the ideological positions he’s just listed. Secondly, given the way this guy seems to conceive of nationalism i find the ( I assume rhetorical) claim he makes that “everyone is some kind of nationalist” to be somewhat farcical. Some people deliberately extricate themselves form this mode of thinking. some never fall into it at all and others merely drift away. Its either that or he is going for the Orwell argument, in which case, buddy, me and my pal Max have some news for you.

On the other hand if McAlpine is making the argument that “ we all live within political systems pervaded by the importance of the nation-state” or something along those lines, then frankly that’s one hell of a circular point seeing as he proselytizes the idea of Nation States as inherently legitimate, or at least seems to. If this latter argument is being made here then its not wildly different to that time Louise Mensch got up of Have I Got News For You and complained that anti capitalists protesters were idiots because they’d probably consumed capitalist goods. Not least i find this disgusting because of his insistence on the conception of “our roads” as if humans can cut out cubes of the air and trademark them. A criticism of tourist-colonialism is very justified, i agree, and the idea that the colonized nation, repressed by the colonizer is legitimate in resistance is one that many would say carries some water, but here he turns it utterly on its head, not only by arguing that Scotland is in any way similar to being an imperial colony in any significant degree, but also by turning this argument into a complete unconscious capitulation to the essentialism of the republic. Mcalpine worships the citizen, and now because of it anyone can build upon that ideological failure to wring up whatever evolved form of essentialism they may choose. It is from this that the whole failure of much of the self described civic nationalists springs. Their ideology has replaced the old totem with a new one and now the imagined republic forms what they strive for. It will of course never exist, vote or no. I happily voted Yes once and will do so again, but while i described myself as a civic nationalist last time i don’t any longer. I dont think this article really vindicates why anyone should

In that it is treated differently within the UK political landscape by the powers that be it is more akin to a collection of low priority constituencies, safe seats that neither side is compelled to compete over and thus will not invest in. The vestiges of serious English/Scottish violent tension or the post 1707 internal repression are not actually materially important any more. Scots aren’t being brutally oppressed in that way any more. In the Current material conditions it is about austerity over the course of decades, the aftermath of industrial collapse and regrowth, and cutting away from the worst of liberalism and neoliberalism, into a situation where things are merely bad and not catastrophic.

its for this reason that im skeptical of the premise of his next section: that civic, cultural and ethnic nationalism are fundamentally different. Different they are, but not inextricably so. in fact i believe they are merely faces of each other, and because the idea of nationalism does not allow for people to actually escape that loop, are suited to merely melt into each other as the climate requires. If you cant imagine the “ someone elses roads” rhetoric coming out of the mouth of certain other UK political figures mouths. Mcalpine attempts to escape this by stating that he sees the shades of grey and the nuances inherent in the problems of all these theories, but i would argue that the three distinct ideas of nationalism he has outlined do not form separate trends or tendencies, but that they chase each other in a spiral. I believe they have a dialectical relationship.

(Getting wildly off the rails I would liken it to Clausewitz’s “ fascinating trinity”, where three separate components of a concept that at first glance each seem the essential component, each rely on each other and by their own presence force the other aspects to relate to them.* The actual philosophical difference between civic and ethnic nationalism is particularly tenuous for reasons which i should not have to elucidate. These are not separate categories. They are elements in dialectical conversation with each other and each exists in the nationalist ideal, if you look in the right places. Creating a theory of the modern nation state isn't like picking different pokemon at the start of the game)

*I am aware of course that this is obscure as hell. feel free to ignore it Anyway getting back on track: I think that by this point another key error in the Civic nationalist platform should be clear by now: the notion that civic nationalism stands somehow as a desperately radical stance against globalization and modern consumerism, or even that it would materially represent a desperately different way of being from such things. Neither of these things are really expressly mentioned in this article as it isn't really the place for that massive discussion yet i personally get the feeling that we should briefly discuss them nonetheless. The Civic nationalist tendency amongst the main camp of the Independence movement in Scotland frequently effectively offers Scottish nationalism/independence as a bulwark, both materially and ideologically against “ the bad capitalism” presuming their own to be so much better. Again this isn't mentioned in McAlpines article, so its not like its at all his fault but i feel the need, as someone in favor of Independence and as an anti-capitalist who takes a Marxian analysis of capitalist economics to reiterate that this position is blatant nonsense

Anyway Mcalpine then knocks it right out of the park with the inclusion of a joke YouTube video, which to be fair takes a nice swing at BBC British nationalist propaganda, which is to be fair pretty horrendous. This section is a little edgy but whatever. He then moves on to complain that Sturgeon has had to avoid the word “ nationalist” in her rhetoric. Frankly i normally have no problem with the idea of nationalism being unpopular, but his point that it is being made unusable by the deliberate propagandist manipulation of the silent nationalism of the British political landscape (lmao) is an accurate one. Nationalism isn't what those people are arguing against. they are arguing for their own nationalism and their own power. Next up, after this worthwhile insight is a quite positive point, the heart of which i understand but at same time cannot stand alongside: The fixed idea of the citizen and citizenry is again raised. Difference and the validity of such is celebrated. All is Utopian. All is then sacrificed. the preponderance of the nation state over the citizen immediately re-erupts onto the scene, as the citizens become components of the national project. Which is inevitably going to cave to bog standard capitalist exploitation no matter how Utopian you make your Tomorrow-Scotland. Surplus Value is still Surplus Value regardless who the extractor is. McAlpine is not willing to accept this however and states:

“ This means that I believe nationalism is a function of people – that the nation state is explicitly a contract between each of its citizens, and not a contract between individuals and 'the state'. “ ...to which i can only respond with “ yeah right”.

He reiterates his imagined distinction between movement for a nation of citizens and affinity groups and relations, and old school patriotism and rightly criticizes it as a subservience to power, yet fails to reflect on such a notion within a nation. The rest of this article i cant really bring myself to criticize because it is genuinely clearly rather heartfelt in a way which i too have felt and sympathize with: snipe though i may I still sympathize with the general platform and the desires behind it: for a better way of living. Further the general premise of the article is made into a rather useful request at the end, even if i still feel that the author failed to live up to it:

“ If only we could show more courage in defining what our project is about at a fundamental level...”

Well to the author i say this: if that project is independence please count me as, though a critic, an ally. But if it is nationalism then i would encourage you to see which spooks and phantasms still haunt you and to see which wheels turn in your head.

#scottish independence #SNP #scottish national party #indyref2 #scotland

3 notes · View notes

apsbicepstraining · 6 years

Text

Gun ownership is not a human right | SE Smith

Bearing arms is something else: a privilege. And privileges are contingent on meeting reasonable standards of care and respect for others right to life

As the vicious debate over gun control continues unabated in the United States and the NRA distinguishes itself by constantly coming up with new ways to be terrible, theres an interesting trend cropping up here and there. Im noting more and more rhetoric suggesting that gun ownership is a human right, and that people like Secretary Clinton are violating human rights by expressing a desire to put checks on gun ownership and curtail some of its worst abuses.

Its a creative new argument, and also one thats very wrong. I can see why people are doing it: theres a growing sensitivity to human rights, and suggesting that something is an inalienable entitlement makes it seem ironclad. Its an example of how the right attempts to use the language and tools of the left against it, often highly effectively. After all, the logic goes, if marrying anyone you want is a human right and we frown upon any attempts to abridge or interfere with that right, then surely if gun ownership is declared a human right, then the left will be forced to defend that right.

The thing is well, Im not going to play the dictionary game here, but suffice it to say that gun ownership doesnt really meet any of the standards we use to define a human right. Its not even a civil right, even though a section of the constitution appears to suggest that the founders intended to protect gun ownership as part of the civil rights of citizens in their new nation. (Spoiler: they pretty clearly meant it in the context of militias, and also, they favoured pretty aggressive gun control.)

A human right has to do with something intrinsic to who you are as a human being, and your most basic needs. Healthcare, food, housing, and water are human rights. They are all critical things that human beings need to stay alive. Access to reproductive health services is a human right. The ability to participate freely in society regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, or disability status is a human right. These are things society is supposed to guarantee to us because we are part of society, and these things are integral to our very identities.

Owning a gun does not place one in a protected class of society. Its not integral to the inextricable identity of a human being. You can put a gun down and no longer be a person holding a gun. You cannot become unMuslim for an afternoon, or take off your black skin to walk through the streets. While a gun owner may participate in gun culture, may enjoy interacting with guns and fellow gun owners as a recreational activity, may even integrate that activity heavily into daily life, gun ownership still isnt about identity.

And a gun is not a basic necessity for survival. Some guns can be useful for hunting food, but not most, and there are alternatives to hunting for most people. They can sometimes be helpful for self-defense, but not nearly as often as people like to claim. More commonly, they are used to inflict violence, which is an abridgment of other peoples human right to remain alive. Nothing about a gun is intrinsic to identity or survival. Comparing a gun to something like the right to maternity care is patently absurd, and thats just one example of a basic human right.

Gun Nation

Checks on gun ownership, to varying degrees, are perfectly acceptable because, again, owning a gun isnt a human right, and its not a civil right either when its ownership infringes upon the enjoyment of life for other people. Its just not. Gun ownership is something else: a privilege. And privileges are contingent on meeting reasonable standards. People are not entitled to privileges. They are accorded on the basis of fitness to have them.

Gun ownership could better be compared to driving a car. Everyone has the potential to drive a car, but not everyone knows how to drive. Fewer people can operate a vehicle safely. Requiring people to understand how to safely drive a car is viewed as a reasonable requirement for issuing a drivers license. Similarly, drivers are expected to maintain their cars in good working order and carry insurance, to reduce the risk of problems and have a measure in place in the event something bad happens. It is understood that when you fail to obey the law, there will be penalties, up to and including losing your license.

While some drivers seem to think otherwise, driving a car is not a right. A car is an external object that you own (lease, borrow, rent) in order to use it for a variety of purposes. A car is not integral to your identity, although it can facilitate things like getting to work, traveling, or being able to leave your home in a remote area without public transit. Some people are super into their cars and get fancy ones. Some people race their cars and engage in recreational driving. But at the end of the day, they do eventually get out of the drivers seat and walk away. The car is not bound to the driver. Losing a license is a pain, and sometimes it is unjust, as when people are profiled by law enforcement, but it is not an infringement on basic rights.

The right wants to cheapen the notion of human rights with this kind of rhetoric, while also trying to score points. Its a pretty pathetic line of logic, and hopefully theyll figure that out sooner rather than later.

The post Gun ownership is not a human right | SE Smith appeared first on apsbicepstraining.com.

from WordPress http://ift.tt/2i8Ke5R via IFTTT

#IFTTT #WordPress

0 notes

apsbicepstraining · 6 years

Text

Gun ownership is not a human right | SE Smith

Bearing arms is something else: a privilege. And privileges are contingent on meeting reasonable standards of care and respect for others right to life

Gun Nation

The post Gun ownership is not a human right | SE Smith appeared first on apsbicepstraining.com.

from WordPress http://ift.tt/2i8Ke5R via IFTTT

#IFTTT #WordPress

0 notes

apsbicepstraining · 6 years

Text

Gun ownership is not a human right | SE Smith

Bearing arms is something else: a privilege. And privileges are contingent on meeting reasonable standards of care and respect for others right to life

Gun Nation

The post Gun ownership is not a human right | SE Smith appeared first on apsbicepstraining.com.

from WordPress http://ift.tt/2i8Ke5R via IFTTT

#IFTTT #WordPress

0 notes