Tuesday, October 15, 2024

Political Terraforming

This observation by David Roberts helped me crystalize some thoughts. I wrote them originally as a reply thread, but have included a tidier and slightly expanded form below that for easier reference.
   —Kent Pitman

In reply to David:

Rachel Maddow, over the last few weeks, has run some great pieces. In one of them, I recall her quoting one of Vance's idols saying something about just needing to rip out government agencies and install a smart guy who innately knows what needs doing. Your remark on libertarians matches that.

What they propose is utterly self-serving, not defensibly fair. It's full of bias and subject to corruption and degradation. No notion of oversight, like the current Supreme Court overseeing itself. [Image of a construction crew with a crane and wrecking ball, starting to demolish the US Supreme Court. The wrecking ball is suspended not directly from the crane, but from a horizontal bar at the top of the crane's arm. The crossbar has a wrecking ball at one end and the remains of what might have been the scales of justice on the other end, as if that weighing capability was also structurally compromised.] But they soothe themselves that bludgeoning democracy into collective unconsciousness is ‘minimal,’ indulge the claim it's therefore a principled action, and then—in the safety of their own minds—call it a win.

This is why they dislike diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI). If everyone were just like them—not diverse, if they had no obligation to include anyone not like them, then equity and fairness would come for free and there would be no one to include.

A need to satisfy someone other than oneself creates a problem they can't solve. They've given it no thought. In that light, it's easy to see why narcissists find DEI troubling. To them it is just an irritating inefficiency to be forced into having a mechanism for dealing fairly with anyone other than themselves.

Attacks on DEI aren't random. Just as attacks on women are not. Nor racial attacks. Nor those related to sexual preference or gender identity. And so on. It isn't just that they disdain these groups, though they do. It's that they want no rights at all. Rights are potential barriers to them. And barriers to them are the only ones they want to remove.

They want no rules. That's the kind of ‘libertarianism.’ they seek. But as I've long said:

“Where there are no rules, bullies rule.”
me

They, these bullies, are terraforming our world to be habitable to them—at the expense of our pre-existing forms of life, which had previously thrived but which they have no use for.

Author's Notes:

If you got value from this post, please “Share” it.

The graphic was produced at abacus.ai using Claude Sonnet 3.5 and Flux.1. The prompt was “Draw a black and white sketch of a bulldozer mowing down the supreme court's building with a crane and a wrecking ball.”. Using Gimp, I made some adjustments to the image it generated, flipping which side of the “T” the ball was on, adding a public domain image of the scales portion, adjusting the rubble and taking a small bite out of the columns.

2 comments:

Vassil Nikolov ' Васил Николов said...

"Subject to corruption and degradation" hits the nail on the head.
This all is a very worrying match for Bolshevism, stripped of its envelope of lies ⌫ propaganda, and we know what that is.
(If someone doesn't, there are two documentaries, _1984_ and _Animal Farm_.)

netsettler said...

Thanks, Vassil. It's a useful observation, and also makes a second useful point at the meta-level, about the value of diversity. Global social media has its issues, but at its best, it gives us access to the perspectives of people with quite varied life experiences, and all the knowledge, hopes and fears that come of that, keeping us better informed. If we eschew people of different backgrounds and histories and cultures, or even just people with different reading interests, we rob ourselves of potential knowledge and intuitions and priorities that might otherwise turn out to be readily at hand and essential to efficiency or even survival in any given moment. As always, thanks for taking the time to read and comment.