Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-22-2019, 11:05 AM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,141

Proposed "Geneva Conventions" for politics


It may have been Mao Zedong who said that politics is peaceful warfare and warfare is violent politics - that the two are simply different points on a spectrum of conflict. Since there are Geneva Conventions that mandate humane conduct in warfare (proper treatment of POWs, no use of chemical weapons, no torture, etc.), there ought to be an informal "Geneva Conventions" that govern conduct in politics as well.

I suggest:
  • No mis-quoting of people out of context (i.e., Tlaib's Holocaust comment)
  • No cheating in elections (no foreign collusion, no illegal-immigrant votes, no dead voters, no casting of multiple ballots, no purging of legit voters from the rolls, etc.)
  • It is perfectly fair to speak ill of the dead. If Thatcher, Reagan, Chavez, Castro, etc. were spoken ill of while alive, there is no reason they can't be spoken ill of right after their death.
  • Argumentation must be done in good faith. Nearly every policy has pros and cons; if your opponent objects to a policy because of its drawbacks, don't falsely claim that he objects to it because of its benefits. In addition, it is perfectly possible to object to a policy because of its practical problems and not be a racist/bigot/anti-American/criminal-sympathizer/homophobe/Islamophobe.
  • Every standard that you hold the other side to must be a standard you hold your own side to as well.
  • No attribution of malicious motives to the opposition where none lies therein.
  • No Godwinizing or use of Nazi/Hitler/fascist comparisons unless a genuine, well-founded similarity exists.
  • The media should report facts and truth. No spreading of false facts or fake news, no bias, slant or favoritism.
  • Tax returns must be disclosed.
  • The Supreme Court and judiciary is not meant to be a partisan political arm. It is supposed to be a neutral referee. Partisanship belongs only in the executive and legislative branches. The process of nominating and confirming a justice should not be politicized (and back then in the day, Ginsburg and Scalia were confirmed by votes of 96-3 and 98-0, respectively)
  • No gerrymandering; all districts should be drawn up by a nonpartisan independent board.



Any others? I am sure we can come up with a very long list.
  #2  
Old 06-22-2019, 11:21 AM
GreenWyvern's Avatar
GreenWyvern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 1,655
You left out a few:
  • The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.
  • And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
  • And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.
  • They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.
  #3  
Old 06-22-2019, 11:22 AM
Covfefe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: 100 miles N. of Chicago
Posts: 1,544
"No foreign collusion" -- Is this pertaining only to elections within the U.S. or elections worldwide that the U.S. may have some influence over?
  #4  
Old 06-22-2019, 11:23 AM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Covfefe View Post
"No foreign collusion" -- Is this pertaining only to elections within the U.S. or elections worldwide that the U.S. may have some influence over?
Well, I had only the former in mind, but the latter may count as well.
  #5  
Old 06-22-2019, 05:46 PM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is gone. For now
Posts: 29,577
Re the OP: I think you're thinking of Von Clausewitz: "War is the continuation of politics by other means."

Mao was more brutal: "Power comes from the barrel of a gun."
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #6  
Old 06-22-2019, 05:59 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,071
"No elected official is above the law."
  #7  
Old 06-22-2019, 09:34 PM
Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
In addition, it is perfectly possible to object to a policy because of its practical problems and not be a racist/bigot/anti-American/criminal-sympathizer/homophobe/Islamophobe.
It is not possible to object to gay marriage without being a homophobe, or interracial marriage without being a racist - when one side is 'treat this group as humans' and the other side is 'don't treat them as humans', the 'don't treat them as humans' side is actually bigoted, whether they want to admit it or not. I certainly don't accept the notion that people are allowed to advocate expressly bigoted policies but that it's beyond the pale to point out their bigotry.

Quote:
[*]No attribution of malicious motives to the opposition where none lies therein.
When a policy is fundamentally malicious, then it's not unreasonable to attribute malicious motives to people supporting it. For example, if you support a policy to separate kids from their parents and refuse to provide them with basic hygiene necessities like soap, then I'm going to attribute malicious motives to you, even if it hurts your feelings.

Quote:
[*]No Godwinizing or use of Nazi/Hitler/fascist comparisons unless a genuine, well-founded similarity exists.
What counts as a "genuine, well-founded similarity"? Currently certain people strongly object to the use of the term 'Concentration camp' for camps in which an ethnic minority, many of which are refugees, are held without charges or trial in conditions that are deliberately cruel and unsanitary, under armed guard that also prevents outside humanitarian aid and monitoring, even though that fits the definition of 'concentration camp'. Similarly, people (often the same people) object to calling groups that wear Swastikas and give Hitler salutes 'Nazis', or to labeling people that support such groups 'Nazi supporters'. How is it not reasonable to make Nazi comparisons when there are literal Nazis involved? I also want to point out that Mike Godwin, the creator of Godwin's law, has specifically come down in favor of calling the concentration camps by their proper name, and calling people like the Charlottesville protestors 'Nazis'.

Last edited by Pantastic; 06-22-2019 at 09:35 PM.
  #8  
Old 06-22-2019, 10:02 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 81,975
It's never going to work.

Quote:
No mis-quoting of people out of context (i.e., Tlaib's Holocaust comment)
Who decides what the context is? Our current President has a history of saying outrageous things and then claiming he was just joking.

Quote:
No cheating in elections (no foreign collusion, no illegal-immigrant votes, no dead voters, no casting of multiple ballots, no purging of legit voters from the rolls, etc.)
These things are already illegal.

Quote:
It is perfectly fair to speak ill of the dead. If Thatcher, Reagan, Chavez, Castro, etc. were spoken ill of while alive, there is no reason they can't be spoken ill of right after their death.
Politicians are allowed to do this now.

Quote:
Argumentation must be done in good faith. Nearly every policy has pros and cons; if your opponent objects to a policy because of its drawbacks, don't falsely claim that he objects to it because of its benefits. In addition, it is perfectly possible to object to a policy because of its practical problems and not be a racist/bigot/anti-American/criminal-sympathizer/homophobe/Islamophobe.
Quote:
No attribution of malicious motives to the opposition where none lies therein.
Same as I said above. Who decides what's allowed? Will politicians being allowed to say outrageously bigoted things and call for outrageously bigoted policies - as long as they deny that their motives are bigotry?

Quote:
Every standard that you hold the other side to must be a standard you hold your own side to as well.
Politicians and their supporters will just continue to draw fine lines between what they're doing and what they're accusing their opponents are doing.

Quote:
No Godwinizing or use of Nazi/Hitler/fascist comparisons unless a genuine, well-founded similarity exists.
How often do you see any politicians doing this? Comparisons to Hitler and Nazis are the kind of thing you see on message boards not in public debates or campaign ads.

Quote:
The media should report facts and truth. No spreading of false facts or fake news, no bias, slant or favoritism.
The media already do this. People who claim otherwise are people who don't like hearing the truth about themselves or their favored politicians so they denounce the media.

Quote:
Tax returns must be disclosed.
I see this as a trivial issue. It's only an issue now because it's a piece in a much larger pattern of deceit and concealment.

Quote:
The Supreme Court and judiciary is not meant to be a partisan political arm. It is supposed to be a neutral referee. Partisanship belongs only in the executive and legislative branches. The process of nominating and confirming a justice should not be politicized (and back then in the day, Ginsburg and Scalia were confirmed by votes of 96-3 and 98-0, respectively)
Quote:
No gerrymandering; all districts should be drawn up by a nonpartisan independent board.
If a organization has political power, it will end up becoming partisan.

Here's the reality; we're a democracy. If we believe that politicians should behave, we should just refuse to vote for people who misbehave. Candidates would quickly get the message and stop misbehaving.

But we're sending them the opposite message. We can claim we want politicians to behave better. But we then turn around and elect the candidates who behave the worst.
  #9  
Old 06-24-2019, 08:19 AM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,821
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander Hamilton
If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.
But they aren't, and they don't.

Besides, he hit me back first.

Regards,
Shodan
  #10  
Old 06-24-2019, 10:02 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,180
The make-up of the list guarantees that no nation on Earth will sign on to it.
  #11  
Old 06-24-2019, 10:30 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,422
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
Mao was more brutal: "Power comes from the barrel of a gun."
The Oregon GOP has become Maoists.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:02 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017