Republicans: continued

[JimC]

Not villains, just tactically unsound...

[Seabass]

Maybe, maybe not. Doesn't matter.

Charlie Hebdo?

[Brian Peacock]

The issue for me is that to act 'tactically' in this context one must appear to be reasonable within an environment of public discourse, the terms of which are, to a great extent, determined by bad faith actors with no interest in the truth and no moral obligations to logical consistency or intellectual honesty.

[Scot Dutchy]

Here is an interesting article concerning what the Repugs are doing to secure power. The art of gerrymandering.

As Biden won the presidency, Republicans cemented their grip on power for the next decade

Democrats lost big in state elections which could cost them when new political maps are drawn

While the world focused on the election between Donald Trump and Joe Biden in November, some of the most consequential contests were in state legislative races between candidates many have never heard of.

State lawmakers have the authority to redraw electoral districts in most US states every 10 years. In 2010, Republicans undertook an unprecedented effort – called Project Redmap – to win control of state legislatures across the country and drew congressional and state legislative districts that gave them a significant advantage for the next decade. In 2020, Democrats sought to avoid a repeat of 2010 and poured millions of dollars and other resources into winning key races.

It didn’t go well.

Democrats failed to flip any of the legislative chambers they targeted and Republicans came out of election night in nearly the best possible position for drawing districts, according to an analysis by FiveThirtyEight, and will have the opportunity to draw 188 congressional seats, 43% of the House of Representatives. Democrats will have a chance to draw at most just 73 seats. Republicans will probably also be able to draw districts that will make it more difficult for Democrats to hold their majority in the US House in 2022.

“It was really bad. It was devastating to the project of building long-term power,” said Amanda Litman, the co-founder and executive director of Run for Something, a group focused on local races.

[Hermit]

Not villains, just tactically unsound...

Maybe, maybe not. Doesn't matter.

Charlie Hebdo?

Great example of being tactically unsound. What were they hoping to achieve by their provocative re-publication of the Jyllands-Posten cartoons of Muhammad? Increased sympathy for secularism by Muslims? Increased recognition of the groundlessness of religion? I don't know. They certainly achieved this: 12 dead in their office, 11 injured and an unknown number of Muslims further alienated from secularism. Bravo, Charlie Hebdo.

[pErvinalia]

The Texas GOP Really Thinks Planned Parenthood Works With Satanists


The end of 2020 is in sight, which apparently means it’s time for Texas Republicans to accuse Planned Parenthood of working hand in hand with supporters of the devil.

In a statement on Thursday, the Republican Party of Texas vowed to continue to fight to restrict abortion, or, as the group put it, to “relentlessly work to end the murder of unborn children in our state during this coming legislative session.”

“We will not allow organizations like Planned Parenthood, who openly work with Satanists, to continue to slaughter the most vulnerable members of society,” the Texas GOP wrote.

The party’s statement contains a link to a 2017 article from Breitbart that alleges Planned Parenthood “teams up with Satanists to promote abortion” in Missouri—based, it seems, solely on the fact that both Planned Parenthood and an organization named the Satanic Temple support abortion rights.

“Satanism has a millennial history of association with child sacrifice, which makes the Temple’s financial and moral support of abortion a natural activity for the sect,” the Breitbart article reads.

But despite its splashy name, the Satanic Temple doesn’t actually believe in the existence of Satan—or any supernatural phenomena at all (or, it should go without saying, child sacrifice). Instead, the group tries to promote critical thinking, the separation of church and state, and what it calls “reasonable agnosticism.” For members of the Satanic Temple, Satan represents a metaphorical resistance against tyrannical rulers.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkdza8/ ... -satanists

GOP works with white supremacists. Because both support Trump.

[Hermit]

The issue for me is that to act 'tactically' in this context one must appear to be reasonable within an environment of public discourse...

You say that as if it were a bad thing.

In this context the activities of members of the Satanic Temple are counterproductive. To wit: "We will not allow organizations like Planned Parenthood, who openly work with Satanists, to continue to slaughter the most vulnerable members of society."

[Tero]

We don't even need gerrymandering, the rurals are always overrepresented. We have too much farming going on to be too liberal.

With a two party system, the rurals only need to get 55% in each district that has a congressman, and the senate thing never really evolved to compromise with a centrist Democrat representing the whole state. Jesus guns and babies. If we get 90% of the votes in urban areas, that does not help. Possibly we could get some movement to smaller cities, like mine, as it is no longer necessary to have New York type of cities. We can provide liberals all the arts and entertainment they need in a city of 300 000.

[Brian Peacock]

The issue for me is that to act 'tactically' in this context one must appear to be reasonable within an environment of public discourse...

You say that as if it were a bad thing.

In this context the activities of members of the Satanic Temple are counterproductive. To wit: "We will not allow organizations like Planned Parenthood, who openly work with Satanists, to continue to slaughter the most vulnerable members of society."

I think the subsequent qualifier addresses that.

[Hermit]

The issue for me is that to act 'tactically' in this context one must appear to be reasonable within an environment of public discourse...

You say that as if it were a bad thing.

In this context the activities of members of the Satanic Temple are counterproductive. To wit: "We will not allow organizations like Planned Parenthood, who openly work with Satanists, to continue to slaughter the most vulnerable members of society."

I think the subsequent qualifier addresses that.

How so?

[Brian Peacock]

In as much as claiming that Planned Parenthood are in league with Satanists is a bad faith claim, one with no reference to the truth and with no regard for intellectual honesty. If it hadn't been Satanists it could just as easily have been Socialists, Communists, Progressives, far-left radical extremists, fascists Antifa, Marxist BLM, or whatever - no doubt with a similar amount of regard for the facts.

By this token, not only is it a 'tactical' error for Socialists, Communists or Progressives to refer to themselves in that way, it's also an error to be associated with those things, however indirectly, on the off-chance that a mealy-mouthed, bad-faith Republicans might use it to smear groups supporting women's reproductive health.

As I said, to engage in public discourse on these terms is, to a great extent, to participate within an environment determined and controlled by bad faith actors with no interest in the truth and no moral obligations to logical consistency or intellectual honesty.

[Hermit]

I still don't get your point, Brian, so I just rephrase mine and await your reply.

The activities of members of the Satanic Temple are counterproductive because their stance will be exploited to mislead thousands of gullible people with half-truths, egregious distortions and outright lies. Gullible people are legion. Just look at the millions of victims being bled white by the owners of megachurches and associate fundamentalist religious sects. Tactically unwise moves make it easier for those leaders to achieve their ends.

[Seabass]

Not villains, just tactically unsound...

Maybe, maybe not. Doesn't matter.

Charlie Hebdo?

Great example of being tactically unsound. What were they hoping to achieve by their provocative re-publication of the Jyllands-Posten cartoons of Muhammad? Increased sympathy for secularism by Muslims? Increased recognition of the groundlessness of religion? I don't know. They certainly achieved this: 12 dead in their office, 11 injured and an unknown number of Muslims further alienated from secularism. Bravo, Charlie Hebdo.

Tactics shmactics. I don't think sane people should ever kowtow to religious nutbags.

[Brian Peacock]

I still don't get your point, Brian, so I just rephrase mine and await your reply.

The activities of members of the Satanic Temple are counterproductive because their stance will be exploited to mislead thousands of gullible people with half-truths, egregious distortions and outright lies. Gullible people are legion. Just look at the millions of victims being bled white by the owners of megachurches and associate fundamentalist religious sects. Tactically unwise moves make it easier for those leaders to achieve their ends.

I'm pretty sure I get what you're saying: that if one wishes to promote rational agnosticism and freedoms to and from religion, particularly in the US context, then identifying with the mythology of Christianity, and with the personification of evil in that tradition, is a tactical error - counterproductive.

It seems pretty clear to me that a group of rational agnostics who choose to call themselves Satanists are making a point about the extent of religious freedom in society and challenging (predominantly Christian) affirmations of religious freedom in a context where such affirmations are not only partially or inconsistently applied, but where the notion of 'religious freedom' itself is generally understood to be synonymous with demands for 'Christian dominance'. So I think they chose 'Satanic' because it exposes (particularly Christian) religious intolerance in a way that 'rational agnostic' wouldn't have on its own - and because it's amusing to non-believers and a bit trollish while we're about it.

I don't see that as a tactical error unless, that is, one has made a commitment or is otherwise obliged to play the game on religion's ground and according to religion's rules.

That aside, what I've been talking about is the Republican branding of Planned Parenthood as Satanic simply because the 'Satanic Temple' are also pro-choice in their outlook. Here I don't think Satanic Temple's asserted tactical error even comes into play because the scope of Republican bigotry, logical inconsistency, and intellectual dishonest seem, at this point, to know no bounds. It's not that the Republicans are stooping low now - in fact they'd have a tough job getting up high enough to stoop low, starting as they do from the position of "lower than a snake's belly." In this regard, to the Republican mind at least, calling yourself Satanic is no more a tactical error or different than calling yourself Dionysian, Pastafarian, Unicornist, Atheist, or Democrat.

[JimC]

I still don't get your point, Brian, so I just rephrase mine and await your reply.

The activities of members of the Satanic Temple are counterproductive because their stance will be exploited to mislead thousands of gullible people with half-truths, egregious distortions and outright lies. Gullible people are legion. Just look at the millions of victims being bled white by the owners of megachurches and associate fundamentalist religious sects. Tactically unwise moves make it easier for those leaders to achieve their ends.