CDZ A Moderate Maifesto

[Mac1958]

We need some entertaining personalities that hold to a Centrism world view and who can popularize it.

Funny you would say that... In all seriousness, I think that could be a key.

Look at our incredibly shallow, celebrity-driven culture. It could be that a few well-known figures (entertainment, sports, whatever) could at least start something. Maybe some momentum could be gained there.

I've heard of worse ideas, that's for damn sure.
.

In all seriousness, I think that could be a key.

Have we really descended to the point that politicians must be entertaining to garner the electorate's favor?

I think we're close, yeah.
.

 

[Peach]

We need some entertaining personalities that hold to a Centrism world view and who can popularize it.

Funny you would say that... In all seriousness, I think that could be a key.

Look at our incredibly shallow, celebrity-driven culture. It could be that a few well-known figures (entertainment, sports, whatever) could at least start something. Maybe some momentum could be gained there.

I've heard of worse ideas, that's for damn sure.
.

In all seriousness, I think that could be a key.

Have we really descended to the point that politicians must be entertaining to garner the electorate's favor?

We have always been to an extent. Catch phrases, and the "rock" praise is a constant.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Or we could all just pray about it and sit around campfires singing Kumbyah, lol.

Will there be s'mores?

I'm there if there's going to be s'mores.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

What is accelerating and exacerbating this, though, is that it is now so easy to identify and exist in an entire world (via the internet) that supports, nurtures and enables these thought processes and behaviors. That's why I don't know how this changes.
.

The internet is our tower of babble.

I find that precious few people can distinguish between ideology and identity to begin with, and do not orient themselves around understanding the tenets of the ideology, but merely repeating what others of their ideological label are saying. They don't ask themselves, for instance, "is this a liberal ideal", only "what are those calling themselves liberal saying?" They don't ask "is this liberal", only "are you a liberal?" This has led to some absolutely enormous and downright silly gulfs between the actual ideology and the stances taken by those who apply the label to themselves.

It's like the difference between being a cook and just following a recipe. A cook understands the processes, while somebody just banging around in the kitchen only wants some written instructions to follow.

 

[Peach]

As there are no perfect systems, I choose the current, with alterations. No system is immune to abuse, stagnation, and innovation.

 

[Picaro]

No, I'm not having fun with you.

You have just stumbled upon exactly what my point is.

The term is meaningless, in the sense that you're trying to use it.

I disagree.

A systematic expression of connected/interrelated opinions of various schools of thought, however precisely defined or not is an ideology and strikingly different from say the collection of opinions expressed at any bar on a Friday night after the local high school team loses.

Thinking for yourself requires some effort and not all people are willing to put in that work.

So they subscribe to canned ideological thinking.

I see it a bit like buying something off the rack vs. making something from scratch. Most people buy their ideology off the rack, deciding first on the ideology and then going about the process of conforming to the specifics. This process is reinforced by others sharing the ideology through a system of rewards/punishment for uttering pure and impure thoughts. It is a process more of memetics than dialectics.

That is a far different matter than thinking of basic values first, and then arriving at one's position through a dialectic process applying them to real life situations. The end product may appear to be an ideology, and indeed, it can be looked upon as one, but it isn't a SHARED ideology, as it is being driven from within rather than from without.

Agreed.

In the present-day sense, I look at ideology as an affliction as much as anything else. Once infected, the victim conditions themselves into specific thinking patterns that obediently and predictably bend all perceptions, thought processes and conclusions to their ideology.

But here's the fascinating thing to me: I'm now convinced that ideologues are honest, in their own way. They have so trained themselves to think this way that the positives of their ideology is truly the only thing they see. This is why they "don't see" perfectly rational contrary facts, opinions, and data. This is why they "don't see" the abject hypocrisy of many of their positions. This is why they "don't see" the blatant dishonesty of their side's arguments and behaviors. They have trained themselves to automatically block it out.

I don't know how to communicate with someone like this, in all seriousness. I may as well be trying to reason with a wild-eyed teenager on the streets of Damascus. HE'S absolutely certain HE and HIS ideology have all the answers, TOO.

I can do it sometimes in real life if I have some time and if I'm feeling patient. But on an internet message board? No.
.

They suffer from severe 'ingroup thinking', yes.

What is accelerating and exacerbating this, though, is that it is now so easy to identify and exist in an entire world (via the internet) that supports, nurtures and enables these thought processes and behaviors. That's why I don't know how this changes.
.

the larger and more complex a country and the politics gets, the inability of the middle class to govern itself grows right along with the size of the problems. Time to consider restricting voting somewhat, like to those who pass basic civics tests for starters, and raising the age of eligibility to 25, and several other restrictions as well. I would throw in performing some time in public service, for instance. Not popular ideas, though, because of the NAMBLA type 'logic' spewed by propagandists on all sides of the spectrum. I would also take private money out of it entirely, and require our media that uses the public airwaves to provide free programs covering the candidates as part of their 'leases'; it's just stupid to let them rake in billions upon billions for providing time for our own elections on our own publicly owned airwaves. There are simple and easy ways to do this that won't disrupt their own fare of idiotic broadcasting.

 

[Mac1958]

I disagree.

A systematic expression of connected/interrelated opinions of various schools of thought, however precisely defined or not is an ideology and strikingly different from say the collection of opinions expressed at any bar on a Friday night after the local high school team loses.

Thinking for yourself requires some effort and not all people are willing to put in that work.

So they subscribe to canned ideological thinking.

I see it a bit like buying something off the rack vs. making something from scratch. Most people buy their ideology off the rack, deciding first on the ideology and then going about the process of conforming to the specifics. This process is reinforced by others sharing the ideology through a system of rewards/punishment for uttering pure and impure thoughts. It is a process more of memetics than dialectics.

That is a far different matter than thinking of basic values first, and then arriving at one's position through a dialectic process applying them to real life situations. The end product may appear to be an ideology, and indeed, it can be looked upon as one, but it isn't a SHARED ideology, as it is being driven from within rather than from without.

Agreed.

In the present-day sense, I look at ideology as an affliction as much as anything else. Once infected, the victim conditions themselves into specific thinking patterns that obediently and predictably bend all perceptions, thought processes and conclusions to their ideology.

But here's the fascinating thing to me: I'm now convinced that ideologues are honest, in their own way. They have so trained themselves to think this way that the positives of their ideology is truly the only thing they see. This is why they "don't see" perfectly rational contrary facts, opinions, and data. This is why they "don't see" the abject hypocrisy of many of their positions. This is why they "don't see" the blatant dishonesty of their side's arguments and behaviors. They have trained themselves to automatically block it out.

I don't know how to communicate with someone like this, in all seriousness. I may as well be trying to reason with a wild-eyed teenager on the streets of Damascus. HE'S absolutely certain HE and HIS ideology have all the answers, TOO.

I can do it sometimes in real life if I have some time and if I'm feeling patient. But on an internet message board? No.
.

They suffer from severe 'ingroup thinking', yes.

What is accelerating and exacerbating this, though, is that it is now so easy to identify and exist in an entire world (via the internet) that supports, nurtures and enables these thought processes and behaviors. That's why I don't know how this changes.
.

the larger and more complex a country and the politics gets, the inability of the middle class to govern itself grows right along with the size of the problems. Time to consider restricting voting somewhat, like to those who pass basic civics tests for starters, and raising the age of eligibility to 25, and several other restrictions as well. I would throw in performing some time in public service, for instance. Not popular ideas, though, because of the NAMBLA type 'logic' spewed by propagandists on all sides of the spectrum. I would also take private money out of it entirely, and require our media that uses the public airwaves to provide free programs covering the candidates as part of their 'leases'; it's just stupid to let them rake in billions upon billions for providing time for our own elections on our own publicly owned airwaves. There are simple and easy ways to do this that won't disrupt their own fare of idiotic broadcasting.

Interesting thought, but I don't see the voting restrictions happening.

This seems like a cultural issue to me, a natural extension of the "Selfie Generation", in which shallow ego and narcissism have taken over virtually all facets of our society. Each end of the spectrum is being pulled in that direction by forces who have a vested interest in seeing deeper divisions, but we are still ultimately choosing to behave this way.

When something becomes cultural, it becomes much more difficult to fix.
.

 

[Peach]

Cultures change. When I read the statements of a few so called left radicals that they were right radicals, it hit home. They wanted to BE radicals, ideology was picked up as the path was altered.

 

[usmbguest5318]

We need some entertaining personalities that hold to a Centrism world view and who can popularize it.

Funny you would say that... In all seriousness, I think that could be a key.

Look at our incredibly shallow, celebrity-driven culture. It could be that a few well-known figures (entertainment, sports, whatever) could at least start something. Maybe some momentum could be gained there.

I've heard of worse ideas, that's for damn sure.
.

In all seriousness, I think that could be a key.

Have we really descended to the point that politicians must be entertaining to garner the electorate's favor?

I think we're close, yeah.
.

Have we really descended to the point that politicians must be entertaining to garner the electorate's favor?

While it is not a prerequisite it is most certainly a huge advantage.

Well, perhaps presidents should appoint actors, magicians, singers and comedians to head the departments of government. LOL

 

[Mac1958]

We need some entertaining personalities that hold to a Centrism world view and who can popularize it.

Funny you would say that... In all seriousness, I think that could be a key.

Look at our incredibly shallow, celebrity-driven culture. It could be that a few well-known figures (entertainment, sports, whatever) could at least start something. Maybe some momentum could be gained there.

I've heard of worse ideas, that's for damn sure.
.

In all seriousness, I think that could be a key.

Have we really descended to the point that politicians must be entertaining to garner the electorate's favor?

I think we're close, yeah.
.

Have we really descended to the point that politicians must be entertaining to garner the electorate's favor?

While it is not a prerequisite it is most certainly a huge advantage.

Well, perhaps presidents should appoint actors, magicians, singers and comedians to head the departments of government. LOL

 

[Natural Citizen]

Taking Xelors comments out of context to look similar to Mussolini's comment is dishonesty at best.

TY for saying that. I sincerely appreciate your doing so. That you aptly recognize and apply context is a key thing that makes discourse with you interesting and enjoyable, even as we don't always concur.

​

All it shows is that you're both intellectually dishonest.

You echoed Mussolini's sentiment pretty much mirror image. That's the only context that matters. It's right there in black and white. And Jimbo called it one of his finest moments.Of course he's going to defend you.

But from an educated observer's perspective I think jim plays his role well. He's got most people around here fooled, I think.

 

[usmbguest5318]

We need some entertaining personalities that hold to a Centrism world view and who can popularize it.

Funny you would say that... In all seriousness, I think that could be a key.

Look at our incredibly shallow, celebrity-driven culture. It could be that a few well-known figures (entertainment, sports, whatever) could at least start something. Maybe some momentum could be gained there.

I've heard of worse ideas, that's for damn sure.
.

In all seriousness, I think that could be a key.

Have we really descended to the point that politicians must be entertaining to garner the electorate's favor?

I think we're close, yeah.
.

Have we really descended to the point that politicians must be entertaining to garner the electorate's favor?

While it is not a prerequisite it is most certainly a huge advantage.

Well, perhaps presidents should appoint actors, magicians, singers and comedians to head the departments of government. LOL

???

 

[usmbguest5318]

Taking Xelors comments out of context to look similar to Mussolini's comment is dishonesty at best.

TY for saying that. I sincerely appreciate your doing so. That you aptly recognize and apply context is a key thing that makes discourse with you interesting and enjoyable, even as we don't always concur.

​

All it shows is that you're both intellectually dishonest.

You echoed Mussolini's sentiment pretty much mirror image. That's the only context that matters. It's right there in black and white. And Jimbo called it one of his finest moments.Of course he's going to defend you.

But from an educated observer's perspective I think jim plays his role well. He's got most people around here fooled, I think.

from an educated observer's perspective I think jim plays his role well.

OT:
Whom do you channel in order to have such a perspective?

 

[Picaro]

Taking Xelors comments out of context to look similar to Mussolini's comment is dishonesty at best.

TY for saying that. I sincerely appreciate your doing so. That you aptly recognize and apply context is a key thing that makes discourse with you interesting and enjoyable, even as we don't always concur.

​

All it shows is that you're both intellectually dishonest.

You echoed Mussolini's sentiment pretty much mirror image. That's the only context that matters. It's right there in black and white. And Jimbo called it one of his finest moments.Of course he's going to defend you.

But from an educated observer's perspective I think jim plays his role well. He's got most people around here fooled, I think.

You've stumbled on a veritable hive of Communists and fellow travelers here; we couldn't fool you, could we?

 

[oldsoul]

Oh stop bickering, boys.
The initial post sounded lovely. The second post had what to me seemed embedded messages from the conservative corner. Maybe I'm just being mistrustful, but the message in #6 about Identity Politics is clear, at any rate.

The article also has some commonalities with liberalism.

But I just didnt want to quote the whole article.

Also, Identity {Politics is fairly much rejected by the majority of people as it is basically a new form of racism inherently, as it does precisely IDENTIFYING people/categorizing them/ pigeonholing them by race and explaining their behavior and rights by race.

I'm not sure what you are thinking of as "Identity Politics." What I'm thinking of is the criticism that liberals are using "Identity Politics" when they point out areas where there are inequalities between one group and the dominant group. Such as BLM. That isn't valid, though, since no one can point out inequalities without mentioning the identify of the group.

I cannot speak for anyone but myself, however, oftentimes when I hear things like, "well the (insert group here)....." I hear the message that someone/something is to blame for that group's failures. You bring up BLM, when I think of BLM I think, well of course black lives matter, so do everyone else's. I think of the whole "hands up, don't shoot" thing that was based on a lie. I think, it's a free country, if you don't like where you are, move (I know, easier said than done, but the Oregon trail was mostly walked with what one could carry or put in a small wagon). I think of the slogan, "by any means necessary" (yea, I know that's Antifa).
This is the problem, oftentimes when liberals "point out areas where there are inequalities between one group and the dominant group" it comes across as I have somehow done something wrong. That I am racist, bigoted, or otherwise unfair to minorities just because of my birth. I have said and done some things that have been quite hurtful to people. That doesn't mean that I am a racist, sexist, or homophobe. It means I was once young and naive, and therefore did things that were hurtful. Often it seems as though no one is given the benefit of the doubt. (IE. "Did you realise that what you said/did was hurtful in this way?") Too often people assume other people understand what they mean when they are unclear. We all know what happens when one ASSuMEs.
Getting back to the example of BLM, it would be much better received to say "Black Lives Matter, too"(you will notice I capitalized the BLM and left the "too" lower case, adding the emphasis where it belongs). Of course that doesn't grab you though, however, it is much more conducive to starting a conversation. I have to wonder, was the BLM movement started to kick off a long overdue conversation, or just to get attention? Don't get me wrong, we do need to shine a very bright spotlight on bigotry in all forms, but I believe it should be in the form of starting conversations, not shouting matches.

oftentimes when liberals "point out areas where there are inequalities between one group and the dominant group" it comes across as I have somehow done something wrong. That I am racist, bigoted, or otherwise unfair to minorities just because of my birth.
I'm not sure what makes you think that, but that is your problem. Not to hurt your feelings, but it is actually YOUR personal reaction, not a reaction to the facts of existing inequalities.

I'm also not sure why you immediately leap to the defense of "shouting matches." I've heard lots of people talk about those issues without shouting. Don't expect intelligent discussion during a street march, oldsoul. It will never happen. Otherwise, there are plenty of opportunities to have a conversation if you can enter it without a lot of preconceived notions.

I'm not sure what makes you think that, but that is your problem. Not to hurt your feelings, but it is actually YOUR personal reaction, not a reaction to the facts of existing inequalities.

Is it?
White people, here are 10 requests from a Black Lives Matter leader - LEO Weekly Ok, I can get on board with number 10, sort of.
Can't imagine how someone is supposed to interpret this in any other way. Please explain that to me. How is this NOT a statement AGAINST white people?

I'm also not sure why you immediately leap to the defense of "shouting matches." I've heard lots of people talk about those issues without shouting. Don't expect intelligent discussion during a street march, oldsoul. It will never happen. Otherwise, there are plenty of opportunities to have a conversation if you can enter it without a lot of preconceived notions.

Fair enough. Where are you finding these conversations? They certainly are quite rare in the national media...

 

[oldsoul]

I have to say that I don't really understand this need for people to identify themselves as centrist or moderate. Or why they feel they hold high ground in political discourse. It baffles me.

Also, I didn't really read the article as a manifesto. It is more just a list of defining qualities. Which is fine, but isn't it a form of identity politics?

I agree with you here. Which hasn't been too often.

Ultimately, collectivism is a mindset which teaches/promotes the view that humans are strictly members of groups rather than Individuals. The obsession with group identity is inherently collectivist. The true antidote to collectivism is to promote/teach Individual liberty.

Well said. It is a much more clear and concise way of stating why so many people have a problem with "identity politics" than my attempt in post #25. It's really not "identity" that is the problem, it's "collectivism" disguised as "identity" politics. To put it, hopefully, more clearly:

I do not have a problem with identity politics per se, it's when it spills into collectivist politics and identifying by "membership" in a particular group that I have a problem with.

An example:
"Black people are poor." collectivist
VS.
"Many black people are poor." identifying

I am in no way suggesting anyone is making such a blanket statement as "Black people are poor." it is merely an example used to demonstrate my point, poorly I fear.

 

[oldsoul]

Okay? So, then, collectivism is not the concept of viewing humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals?

Why not? Explain, please. Thanks!

"Collectivism" is a rhetorical insult. It's something that you, and others, assign to people when you don't agree with them.

Please provide data which supports your claim. Thanks!

Search for the term "collectivism" on this message board.

Read those posts.

Q.E.D.[/QUOTE]
I'll bit, but I'll do one better. The first entry when one Googles "collectivism":
"the practice or principle of giving a group priority over each individual in it."
So, it would seem as though you are incorrect here.

 

[rightwinger]

I would like to see moderates seize control of the Government

Right now, moderates meekly go along with the extremes of their party
The right mocks them as RINOs while the left calls them Blue Dogs

In the Senate, if 15 moderate Democrats and 15 moderate Republicans were to get together and agree to compromises on legislation they could force the extremes to concede or lose

They would be the most powerful voting block in Congress

 

[usmbguest5318]

Oh stop bickering, boys.
The initial post sounded lovely. The second post had what to me seemed embedded messages from the conservative corner. Maybe I'm just being mistrustful, but the message in #6 about Identity Politics is clear, at any rate.

The article also has some commonalities with liberalism.

But I just didnt want to quote the whole article.

Also, Identity {Politics is fairly much rejected by the majority of people as it is basically a new form of racism inherently, as it does precisely IDENTIFYING people/categorizing them/ pigeonholing them by race and explaining their behavior and rights by race.

I'm not sure what you are thinking of as "Identity Politics." What I'm thinking of is the criticism that liberals are using "Identity Politics" when they point out areas where there are inequalities between one group and the dominant group. Such as BLM. That isn't valid, though, since no one can point out inequalities without mentioning the identify of the group.

I cannot speak for anyone but myself, however, oftentimes when I hear things like, "well the (insert group here)....." I hear the message that someone/something is to blame for that group's failures. You bring up BLM, when I think of BLM I think, well of course black lives matter, so do everyone else's. I think of the whole "hands up, don't shoot" thing that was based on a lie. I think, it's a free country, if you don't like where you are, move (I know, easier said than done, but the Oregon trail was mostly walked with what one could carry or put in a small wagon). I think of the slogan, "by any means necessary" (yea, I know that's Antifa).
This is the problem, oftentimes when liberals "point out areas where there are inequalities between one group and the dominant group" it comes across as I have somehow done something wrong. That I am racist, bigoted, or otherwise unfair to minorities just because of my birth. I have said and done some things that have been quite hurtful to people. That doesn't mean that I am a racist, sexist, or homophobe. It means I was once young and naive, and therefore did things that were hurtful. Often it seems as though no one is given the benefit of the doubt. (IE. "Did you realise that what you said/did was hurtful in this way?") Too often people assume other people understand what they mean when they are unclear. We all know what happens when one ASSuMEs.
Getting back to the example of BLM, it would be much better received to say "Black Lives Matter, too"(you will notice I capitalized the BLM and left the "too" lower case, adding the emphasis where it belongs). Of course that doesn't grab you though, however, it is much more conducive to starting a conversation. I have to wonder, was the BLM movement started to kick off a long overdue conversation, or just to get attention? Don't get me wrong, we do need to shine a very bright spotlight on bigotry in all forms, but I believe it should be in the form of starting conversations, not shouting matches.

oftentimes when liberals "point out areas where there are inequalities between one group and the dominant group" it comes across as I have somehow done something wrong. That I am racist, bigoted, or otherwise unfair to minorities just because of my birth.
I'm not sure what makes you think that, but that is your problem. Not to hurt your feelings, but it is actually YOUR personal reaction, not a reaction to the facts of existing inequalities.

I'm also not sure why you immediately leap to the defense of "shouting matches." I've heard lots of people talk about those issues without shouting. Don't expect intelligent discussion during a street march, oldsoul. It will never happen. Otherwise, there are plenty of opportunities to have a conversation if you can enter it without a lot of preconceived notions.

I'm not sure what makes you think that, but that is your problem. Not to hurt your feelings, but it is actually YOUR personal reaction, not a reaction to the facts of existing inequalities.

Is it?
White people, here are 10 requests from a Black Lives Matter leader - LEO Weekly Ok, I can get on board with number 10, sort of.
Can't imagine how someone is supposed to interpret this in any other way. Please explain that to me. How is this NOT a statement AGAINST white people?

I'm also not sure why you immediately leap to the defense of "shouting matches." I've heard lots of people talk about those issues without shouting. Don't expect intelligent discussion during a street march, oldsoul. It will never happen. Otherwise, there are plenty of opportunities to have a conversation if you can enter it without a lot of preconceived notions.

Fair enough. Where are you finding these conversations? They certainly are quite rare in the national media...

White people, here are 10 requests from a Black Lives Matter leader - LEO Weekly Ok, I can get on board with number 10, sort of.
Can't imagine how someone is supposed to interpret this in any other way.

"Number 10," and perhaps "Number 7," are the only serious behests. [1] The first six are merely presented to illustrate innocuous and understandable yet effective actions that nonetheless contribute to a centuries long process of consolidation of wealth and power among whites.

For instance, several of "1-6" are about upward mobility. There's really no good basis for expecting a decedent to endow someone other than their familial heirs; however, to the extent that opportunities to develop personal wealth has been something by and large not available at all to blacks, they, in contrast to whites, had with every generation to literally start from scratch, economically, educationally, socially, and often enough legally for unlike whites, blacks faced with potential or real charges didn't generally receive the benefit of the doubt and often enough saw charges trumped up to make the someone's scapegoat. When one cannot pass on to one's kids much or anything -- can't help them with school because one has no education to speak of, can't pass on wealth and property because one has none, can't pass on social status because one hasn't any, etc. -- one's kids inherit nothing.

Nobody's seriously imploring anyone to bequeath their property to a poor black family/individual. The BLM author is merely pointing out, at a very personal level, how America's culture contrived to oppress blacks.

There is another key point that's being made: the oppression of blacks has, in the 21st century more so than ever before, become almost synonymous with oppression of the poor, regardless of race. Poor people of any race suffer from the same consolidatory processes, customs, policies and structures that, in the past, were largely consigned to blacks. Thus the key "take away" from points "1-6" is that be one poor, one is deluding oneself if one thinks one's fortunes are notably better than are those of similarly situated blacks. That's always been more or less the case, but as white primacy increasingly erodes, poor folks are better off aligning without regard to race than they are doing so along the lines of race. That appears, at least to me, to be the tacit exhortation and illustration given in points "1-6."


Note:

1. I wouldn't have any problem doing "Number 7." I've never personally needed to lead the charge to do it, but given the firm's culture -- we have zero tolerance for all the "isms" because they are very bad for business -- it's definitely something I have enough authority and leverage to do were I certain a member of the firm or an employee is a racist.

 

[oldsoul]

Nobody's seriously imploring anyone to bequeath their property to a poor black family/individual. The BLM author is merely pointing out, at a very personal level, how America's culture contrived to oppress blacks.

You may well be right. However, if this author was serious about starting a conversation, they would, surely, have used a far less divisive tactic. Therefore, it still illustrates the point I was trying to make, which is:
Many of those who claim they wish to start a national dialog, really aren't interested in hearing any debate, they just want to shout about how they have been wronged and provide few, if any real solutions.