So for many, there's always going to be an imminent apocalypse thats more interesting and urgent than any of their actual day to day problems.
The case against crisis-mongering
21–30 of 131 posts
Re: The case against crisis-mongering
#22Also missing is the threat of a full-scale war between nuclear-armed powers. There hasn't been a real non-proxy war between major powers for 75 years, but is there anyone who thinks tensions between NATO and Russia or China have been decreasing or even level? They have obviously been increasing, so the potential of a nuclear crisis walks alongside all of that. Former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara thought so, as do others.
He says he is in an area with as progressive and pro-climate a local government as you could want, then he says he had to fight for his own initiative to put solar panels on his roof. Every year more carbon pours into the atmosphere. His assertion that amounts to "liberalism is not preventing this, but is capable of understanding it" is not encouraging. Like Covid, major corporations at the center of the economy and hegemony are actively involved in spreading the idea that this is not even happening, which many buy into.
Insofar as fascism and events like Charlottesville, a town voted to remove a statue, a number of people came to protest, many openly calling themselves fascist. One townsperson marching to remove the statue was deliberately run over and killed by the other side. It's a manifestation of a fascist movement and it had a certain size and result. People are not wrong to notice Charlottesville or other things like that and see some level of a fascist threat, the question is how large it is - he is probably right that some reactions to such things are overblown, but they're not reacting to something that doesn't exist. I probably agree with Yglesias on the odds of the country becoming fascist in the next decades, but with Charlottesville, storming the Capitol to stop the election count and such things, it is correct to concern those on the watch for fascism, even if as Yglesias says, this can become overblown.
Also some people just have a historical perspective Yglesias doesn't get. Like an imminent collapse of the middle class would strongly portend an attempted fascist seizure of power.
One sign of a sea shift - liberal is an old word, and speech codes, measures against hate speech, blocking presidents on platforms like Twitter, canceling and the like are departures from liberalism. The groups and institutions which formerly supported freedom of speech are now in favor of different things. There may or may not be good reasons for this but it is a departure from liberalism. That these institutions and groups which formerly embraced liberal ideals with regards to speech have now abandoned them is a sign of changes within the institutions he discusses. Liberalism hasn't changed, the formerly liberal groups and institutions have abandoned aspects of liberalism, for good or ill.
Re: The case against crisis-mongering
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am not even an American, but in a huge federal country like the US, not everything can be attributed to the presidency - negative or positive. Governors, state senators etc. have a responsibility too, and they should not be able to shirk it by screaming "look at the bad guy above me!" It is actually similar in the EU. The EU and the Commission has a lot of power, but not enough to pin everything on them. Local poli…
> Local politicians love to point towards Brussels, though, everytime they fsck something up. When I lived in Europe they did not point towards the EU and say, "we are going to handover much of our lawmaking power to these EU bureaucrats", but, that is exactly what has happened.
"We decide on something, leave it lying around and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don't understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back." (1999)
"If it's a Yes, we will say 'on we go', and if it's a No we will say 'we continue'." (On the 2005 French referendum on the Lisbon Treaty)
""Britain is different. Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?" (2007)
"When it becomes serious, you have to lie." (2013)
"There can be no democratic choice against the European treaties, one cannot exit the euro without leaving the EU." (2015)
This mentality contributed a lot towards Euroscepticism. It is not as if Brussels is a confederacy of angels.
Re: The case against crisis-mongering
#24So a summary of this essay: 1. Donald Trumps presidency in no way justifies the claim that the United States is drifting towards fascism 2. BLM protests have stopped happening so this is probably not so much of an issue now. 3. The US and EU economies grew with a small drop in emissions so global warming will be fixed. Have these been adjusted for the fact that a lot of the activities that support a first world lifes…
If it helps the inevitable greying of your post on HN, I mostly agree with your assessment of this article. The argument and particularly graphics showing how GWB was compared to nazism were trying to make a comparison that I feel is not apt at all, I protested the GWB iraq war and I remember the comparisons made of GWB's presidency to facism. My personal experience is that era, while scary for what the future held,…
Another important point is that the “same old same old” wasn’t actually that good for plenty of people. The point of understanding history like the world wars is to understand the ideas that led to them and hopefully learn a few lessons. Well, extreme economic distress along with xenophobic nationalist rhetoric led to the rise of Nazism. It’s hard to avoid comparisons when similar rhetoric gets used in the modern day. It led to wars in the past, so it is hugely fair to at least be cautious about it today.
While climate change is a new one, if we indeed can’t reverse the effects (even if we keep it stable from now on), we’d still be looking at big changes wrt food and water sources. It’s completely fair to be concerned that could lead to resource scarcity. We know from history that when that happens, you get total revolution (see France and Russia). So if that’s a possible outcome, it’s fair to think “ok, how do we avoid that?”
Sure, scaremongering is wrong, and media does it all the time by over-emphasizing the amount of murders compared to, say, the amount of cancer cases. But there are still loads of things that should hopefully make us concerned for our future and try to do better in the present.
Re: The case against crisis-mongering
#25If we survive and end up with a lifeless urban planet that feeds us is that success?
Re: The case against crisis-mongering
#26What I would more like is The Case for Resilience. We have a crisis every so often. As a society, we ought to be able to survive it. That might be a pandemic, war, climate change (whether man-made, or from a volcano/asteroid/etc.), nukes, or what-not. Being resilient means: * Some level of economic isolation. Each region ought to be able to produce the bare necessities for themselves, and supply chains shouldn't be b…
Resiliency helps us avoid squabbling about what might or might not happen and instead focus on being prepared regardless.
Re: The case against crisis-mongering
#27Honestly it seems no one really understands what fascism actually is. What fascism used to be was ultra nationalistic, non democratic, centralised control of people's lives and the economy for the greater good of the state. And I means these to the most extreme you can possibly take these ideas, that's fascism. The word has no meaning when you throw it around against anyone with slightly conservative view points.
Re: The case against crisis-mongering
#28Re: The case against crisis-mongering
#29Re: The case against crisis-mongering
#30Honestly it seems no one really understands what fascism actually is. What fascism used to be was ultra nationalistic, non democratic, centralised control of people's lives and the economy for the greater good of the state. And I means these to the most extreme you can possibly take these ideas, that's fascism. The word has no meaning when you throw it around against anyone with slightly conservative view points.
> What fascism used to be was ultra nationalistic, non democratic, centralised control of people's lives and the economy for the greater good of the state. And I means these to the most extreme you can possibly take these ideas, that's fascism. That's not entirely true. As Umberto Eco says[1]: > Eco grew up under Mussolini’s fascist regime, which “was certainly a dictatorship, but it was not totally totalitarian, not…