Hotter, Badder, and Unpopularer Takes

[Antonio the Sixth]

The US Senate has only slightly more democratic legitimacy than the European Commission.

On a similar note, the European Commission has outright more democratic legitimacy in setting policy for the UK that the House of Lords.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'm honestly at the point when I'd rather have a moderate neocon (say, Condi Rice rather than John Bolton) than a hard-leftist when it comes to foreign policy.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I've said it multiple times recently in other threads, but I figure I'll say it here too: Revenge of the Sith is the best Star Wars movie.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Bit of a random issue but I’ve noticed in documentaries about the French Revolution that there is an uncomfortable amount of leftists academics that completely support the reign of terror and subscribe to the Leninist idea that no revolution can be made without mass violence and state terror. In particular there is a documentary on Robespierre were Slavoj Zizek comes off like a blood thirsty madman

I don't think that's a particularly hot take (if anything, that seems to be the standard attitude among Anglo-Saxon liberals), so let me play the devil's advocate and provide an actual hot take: while it absolutely went too far (and in the end became ridiculously counterproductive for the revolutionary government itself), it is hard to deny that the terror was to some extent necessary for the revolution to survive in late 1792 - early 1793. With counterrevolutionary insurgencies popping up everywhere and multiple foreign armies on the brink of marching on Paris, only decisive and sometimes brutal actions could prevent the inevitable. And of course, had the French revolution been quashed so early, it's very doubtful than even the moderate form of democracy that we saw emerge in the 19th century would have taken hold in Europe. It's possible that the advance of democracy would have been set back by another century. (And before you tell me that democracy was an inevitable consequence of industrialization - no, it wasn't. Plenty of countries have industrialized and remained authoritarian regime, with industrial growth strengthening the regime as often as it weakened it. Without the key ideals that the French revolution spread through Europe, there would never have been such a strong impetus for democracy across the continent.)

[Antonio the Sixth]

Canto Blight was the only good part of The Last Jedi.

I wouldn't go so far, but I'd definitely say that Rose was the best character in it.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I really don't care much for the MCU in general (there are a few individual movies I really like, but most are paint-by-numbers and forgettable) so that's my hot take.

[Antonio the Sixth]

While I absolutely understand the rationale behind it, the Allies' decision to dissolve Prussia after World War II was shortsighted and pretty unfortunate.  I see no evidence that modern Germany's shedding of its darkest hour from the national cultural fabric has anything to do with there no longer being a state called Prussia, and Prussia's "inseparability" from the drive for German expansionism and even militarism is shoddy at best.

I personally think it would be really cool if there were a "Prussian Revival" sort of movement in Northern Germany/areas that were once part of Prussia, providing those areas with a more "local" flare not unlike that of Bavaria.  For example, most of the beers outsiders associate with Germany are from the southern half of the country, like Pilsners.  I read recently, however, that Prussia was much more known for its ales, not unlike those popular in England.  This is more of an annoyance of mine than any serious proposal, as I think it's annoying that so many Americans associate Bavarian customs and traditions with just being *German* ... plus, my family came from areas that were part of Prussia at the time of their emigration (Brandenburg and Schelswig-Hostein).

(Again, what the actual German people of those areas want is obviously the most important, haha ... and I doubt they pay this subject much attention.)

The thing is, most of the lands that historically constituted Prussia are not ethnically German anymore. Historical "Prussia" is now settled by Russians and Poles, and while the ethnic cleansing of Germans after WW2 was a tragedy, it's not exactly something that can be undone.

There's Brandenburg, sure (and really, the state that existed from 1701 to 1870 should more properly have been called Brandenburg, in the same way that the "Kingdom of Sardinia" was really Piedmont), but I'm not sure what exactly it gains by returning to a name whose meaning has always been nebulous and vague. As for places like Schleswig-Holstein or Rhineland, those were recent conquests that always had their own regional identities.

[Antonio the Sixth]

While I absolutely understand the rationale behind it, the Allies' decision to dissolve Prussia after World War II was shortsighted and pretty unfortunate.  I see no evidence that modern Germany's shedding of its darkest hour from the national cultural fabric has anything to do with there no longer being a state called Prussia, and Prussia's "inseparability" from the drive for German expansionism and even militarism is shoddy at best.

I personally think it would be really cool if there were a "Prussian Revival" sort of movement in Northern Germany/areas that were once part of Prussia, providing those areas with a more "local" flare not unlike that of Bavaria.  For example, most of the beers outsiders associate with Germany are from the southern half of the country, like Pilsners.  I read recently, however, that Prussia was much more known for its ales, not unlike those popular in England.  This is more of an annoyance of mine than any serious proposal, as I think it's annoying that so many Americans associate Bavarian customs and traditions with just being *German* ... plus, my family came from areas that were part of Prussia at the time of their emigration (Brandenburg and Schelswig-Hostein).

(Again, what the actual German people of those areas want is obviously the most important, haha ... and I doubt they pay this subject much attention.)

The thing is, most of the lands that historically constituted Prussia are not ethnically German anymore. Historical "Prussia" is now settled by Russians and Poles, and while the ethnic cleansing of Germans after WW2 was a tragedy, it's not exactly something that can be undone.

There's Brandenburg, sure (and really, the state that existed from 1701 to 1870 should more properly have been called Brandenburg, in the same way that the "Kingdom of Sardinia" was really Piedmont), but I'm not sure what exactly it gains by returning to a name whose meaning has always been nebulous and vague. As for places like Schleswig-Holstein or Rhineland, those were recent conquests that always had their own regional identities.

Fair enough ... I guess I meant it would function as more of a pseudo-exonym in that it would sort of conveniently use "Prussian" as a cultural backdrop for Northern Germany the way Bavaria uses its former kingdom.

That's fair. Personally I'd prefer a different term (I was going to say "High German", but I just realized the High German dialects are actually from Southern Germany, so you guys are actually Low Germans ) both because it'd be more accurate and honestly because Prussia has been a force of evil in Europe since the days for Frederick """the Great"'". But if you want to, go for it.

[Antonio the Sixth]

In terms of the interest in monarchy itself, I think Edmund Burke touched upon this when he discussed the beauty of the Sublime (which can include monarchy).

Please just go look at some mountains. We have so many of them. No need to read tabloids about some inbred family in some other country

Yeah

lmao, the idea there's anything "sublime" about these out-of-touch rich doofuses

[Antonio the Sixth]

The political matrix should go from being a square to being a diamond. It's deranged otherwise.

Is the idea that one can be extreme on one-dimension, but not on both? 

The way it is set up now, “upper left”, or “authoritarian left”, is actually just authoritarian on both axes. And “libertarian right” has the same problem. “Authoritarian right” is just Reaganism on steroids and “libertarian left” has the equivalent problem. The compass should be rotated 45 degrees to the right, so “authoritarianism” on both axes stands at the top. The geographically farthest right position would thus be right-wing on both axes, the same for the left, and so on. “Authoritarian” and “libertarian” modifiers to right-wing and left-wing would them occupy top right, top left, bottom right, and bottom left—between pure right, pure left, pure auth, pure lib. I can post a picture later if this is confusing but googling the Nolan Chart would be instructive in terms of the visual layout if not the specifics.

Conceptualizing politics as being primarily about the amount of power you want the state to have is in and of itself buying into libertarian presuppositions. Nobody who's given serious thought to political theory cares about "big" vs "small" government, because it tends to obfuscate the real issues rather than clarifying them.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The political matrix should go from being a square to being a diamond. It's deranged otherwise.

Is the idea that one can be extreme on one-dimension, but not on both? 

The way it is set up now, “upper left”, or “authoritarian left”, is actually just authoritarian on both axes. And “libertarian right” has the same problem. “Authoritarian right” is just Reaganism on steroids and “libertarian left” has the equivalent problem. The compass should be rotated 45 degrees to the right, so “authoritarianism” on both axes stands at the top. The geographically farthest right position would thus be right-wing on both axes, the same for the left, and so on. “Authoritarian” and “libertarian” modifiers to right-wing and left-wing would them occupy top right, top left, bottom right, and bottom left—between pure right, pure left, pure auth, pure lib. I can post a picture later if this is confusing but googling the Nolan Chart would be instructive in terms of the visual layout if not the specifics.

Conceptualizing politics as being primarily about the amount of power you want the state to have is in and of itself buying into libertarian presuppositions. Nobody who's given serious thought to political theory cares about "big" vs "small" government, because it tends to obfuscate the real issues rather than clarifying them.

I mean, you hopefully know me well enough to understand that I agree. But as long as one were to even use the political compass, I say it's 45 degrees tilted to the left and I have beef with that.

Yeah, that's why I was surprised to see you make these arguments. But fair enough, I see the value of working within that framework and improving it.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The usage of "it" to refer to little children, which apparenty is not uncommon in English, irks me and strikes me as dehumanizing.

It irks many English-speakers and strikes them as dehumanizing as well. I never hear anybody who doesn't vocally hate children use it, (ETA) except sometimes for infants--and it bothers me when used for infants as well.

I'm the opposite way, as I wish "it" could be normalized as a gender-neutral pronoun that can apply to human beings regardless of age. I don't understand what's so terrible about things and people sharing pronouns. Romance languages do that all the time (in the other direction) and I don't think that has rendered the relevant countries more callous toward human beings.

Of course, I know it's probably too late. The grammatically clunky singular-they is probably the best we'll ever get to a gender-neutral pronoun. As if having the same pronoun for 2nd p. sing. and 2nd p. plur. wasn't confusing enough already.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The usage of "it" to refer to little children, which apparenty is not uncommon in English, irks me and strikes me as dehumanizing.

It irks many English-speakers and strikes them as dehumanizing as well. I never hear anybody who doesn't vocally hate children use it, (ETA) except sometimes for infants--and it bothers me when used for infants as well.

I'm the opposite way, as I wish "it" could be normalized as a gender-neutral pronoun that can apply to human beings regardless of age. I don't understand what's so terrible about things and people sharing pronouns. Romance languages do that all the time (in the other direction) and I don't think that has rendered the relevant countries more callous toward human beings.

Of course, I know it's probably too late. The grammatically clunky singular-they is probably the best we'll ever get to a gender-neutral pronoun. As if having the same pronoun for 2nd p. sing. and 2nd p. plur. wasn't confusing enough already.

Well, "they" is a pretty easy lift since it's been used that way since Chaucer.

I know. That doesn't make it any less grammatically clunky.

The singular/plural "you" has also been a thing for centuries and it still gives me headaches. I'm desperately hoping "y'all" becomes standard English so we can have a distinction again.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The usage of "it" to refer to little children, which apparenty is not uncommon in English, irks me and strikes me as dehumanizing.

It irks many English-speakers and strikes them as dehumanizing as well. I never hear anybody who doesn't vocally hate children use it, (ETA) except sometimes for infants--and it bothers me when used for infants as well.

I'm the opposite way, as I wish "it" could be normalized as a gender-neutral pronoun that can apply to human beings regardless of age. I don't understand what's so terrible about things and people sharing pronouns. Romance languages do that all the time (in the other direction) and I don't think that has rendered the relevant countries more callous toward human beings.

Of course, I know it's probably too late. The grammatically clunky singular-they is probably the best we'll ever get to a gender-neutral pronoun. As if having the same pronoun for 2nd p. sing. and 2nd p. plur. wasn't confusing enough already.

I wasn't aware that "y'all" or "youse" could apply to a single person.


EDIT: Joke already made, I see.

Not a joke, I unironically like "y'all". I've never heard "youse" used in the wild yet, but I'm not opposed to it either.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Most people would have a very hard time justifying their political views if they were actually put under heavy scrutiny, and this is true regardless of where one is on the political spectrum.

This is due to people picking political views of their personal feelings and beliefs instead of actual fact.

Imagine being delusional enough to believe that it's remotely possible to base all of your political views solely on "facts" without any input from 'personal beliefs or feelings'.

Where did I imply that? I definitely have some political positions which I base on beliefs. But if one really, really grilled me on this positions, I would have to admit at a certain point, there are at least partially based on my personal beliefs which I cannot prove.

But of course, many would deny this themselves.

Any normative statement must by its very nature be justified by something else beyond mere factual claims. You can't derive an ought from an is.

People who actually believe their politics are "just based on facts" are the most ignorant of all.