Elections in various countries

[Raphael]

Does a Papal election count as one in a “various countr[y]” for the purpose of this thread? On the one hand, I don't see what other thread would fit, but on the other, the countrihood of the Vatican City is delightfully ambiguous¹.

Well, if Vatican City wouldn't be a country, it would clearly be a part of Italy. And the problem with seeing it as a part of Italy is that Italy itself legally doesn't see it as a part of Italy.

Anyway, now that we're talking Papal elections, and now that Pope Francis is gone, I have to ask: How on Earth did his own election ever happen? I mean, OK, he wasn't nearly as progressive as some people have made him out to be, but by the standards of the Catholic hierarchy, he was still apparently quite reform-oriented. And somehow, he got himself elected by a conclave that consisted entirely of Cardinals who had been created by John Paul II or Benedict XVI. How did that happen?

[Travis B.]

Does a Papal election count as one in a “various countr[y]” for the purpose of this thread? On the one hand, I don't see what other thread would fit, but on the other, the countrihood of the Vatican City is delightfully ambiguous¹.

Well, if Vatican City wouldn't be a country, it would clearly be a part of Italy. And the problem with seeing it as a part of Italy is that Italy itself legally doesn't see it as a part of Italy.

To me saying that the Vatican City is party of Italy is like saying that Monaco is part of France or San Marino is part of Italy -- i.e. legally a falsehood, even though it may be one that the ignorant may not be aware of being such.

Anyway, now that we're talking Papal elections, and now that Pope Francis is gone, I have to ask: How on Earth did his own election ever happen? I mean, OK, he wasn't nearly as progressive as some people have made him out to be, but by the standards of the Catholic hierarchy, he was still apparently quite reform-oriented. And somehow, he got himself elected by a conclave that consisted entirely of Cardinals who had been created by John Paul II or Benedict XVI. How did that happen?

I've thought similar things myself. Of course, that also means that it will be hard to guess whom the next pope will be, since even though a very good portion of the cardinals electing the next pope have been created by Pope Francis, if the cardinals who were created by John Paul II or Benedict XVI ended up electing Francis, that means there are no guarantees at all as to whom the current cardinals including those created by Francis will elect.

[Lērisama]

Anyway, now that we're talking Papal elections, and now that Pope Francis is gone, I have to ask: How on Earth did his own election ever happen? I mean, OK, he wasn't nearly as progressive as some people have made him out to be, but by the standards of the Catholic hierarchy, he was still apparently quite reform-oriented. And somehow, he got himself elected by a conclave that consisted entirely of Cardinals who had been created by John Paul II or Benedict XVI. How did that happen?

My working theory¹ is that in 2013, enough cardinals saw the image of the church as a problem, so they chose someone who was known to be charismatic and likeable, in the hope his charisma and likeability would somehow clean up the image of the church without making any major changes, and accidentally got structural change as part of the choice.

¹ I am not a cardinal, or a Catholic, or even in a particularly Catholic country, and this is just semi-serious guessing; please don't take it as anything more

[Raphael]

Of course, that also means that it will be hard to guess whom the next pope will be, since even though a very good portion of the cardinals electing the next pope have been created by Pope Francis, if the cardinals who were created by John Paul II or Benedict XVI ended up electing Francis, that means there are no guarantees at all as to whom the current cardinals including those created by Francis will elect.

Agreed. That is, one thing I've been somewhat sure about ever since I seriously thought about it during the 2005 conclave is that Italian cardinals are probably at a disadvantage these days, because all the non-Italian cardinals might worry that if they elect another Italian Pope, it'll be another 400 years until the next non-Italian Pope. Then again, Francis himself was of recent Italian ancestry.

[kosen444]

Anyway, now that we're talking Papal elections, and now that Pope Francis is gone, I have to ask: How on Earth did his own election ever happen? I mean, OK, he wasn't nearly as progressive as some people have made him out to be, but by the standards of the Catholic hierarchy, he was still apparently quite reform-oriented. And somehow, he got himself elected by a conclave that consisted entirely of Cardinals who had been created by John Paul II or Benedict XVI. How did that happen?

My working theory¹ is that in 2013, enough cardinals saw the image of the church as a problem, so they chose someone who was known to be charismatic and likeable, in the hope his charisma and likeability would somehow clean up the image of the church without making any major changes, and accidentally got structural change as part of the choice.

¹ I am not a cardinal, or a Catholic, or even in a particularly Catholic country, and this is just semi-serious guessing; please don't take it as anything more

Opting for a pope with mass appeal to rehab the church’s image makes sense on paper, but charisma doesn’t operate in a vacuum. Once you put someone like that in power, especially someone with a pastoral, reform-minded bent, structural shifts almost become inevitable

[malloc]

Another election, another near heart attack. It looks like Canada has avoided catastrophe for now at least.

[alice]

I can recommend meditation and valerian.

[rotting bones]

You simply can't please everyone all the time: https://www.thehindu.com/news/internati ... 475053.ece

These are the cases where I think using far left tactics to brutally annihilate "culture" is the appropriate response.

[Travis B.]

You simply can't please everyone all the time: https://www.thehindu.com/news/internati ... 475053.ece

These are the cases where I think using far left tactics to brutally annihilate "culture" is the appropriate response.

Things like this are why I don't think that being a 'non-Western' people/culture/whatever justifies anything. So what if equality is a 'Western' value -- that doesn't make it any less right.

[Raphael]

You simply can't please everyone all the time: https://www.thehindu.com/news/internati ... 475053.ece

These are the cases where I think using far left tactics to brutally annihilate "culture" is the appropriate response.

Things like this are why I don't think that being a 'non-Western' people/culture/whatever justifies anything. So what if equality is a 'Western' value -- that doesn't make it any less right.

If a visiting space alien would ask me to sum up Earth politics in as few words as possible, I would say something like: "A main part of the tragedy of Earth is that a few people in some cultures came up with fairly good ideas on how to run cultures and societies at exactly the time when those cultures were busy plundering and massacring people all over the planet, and therefore, today, in the eyes of many people, those good ideas are discredited by their association with those cultures."

[Travis B.]

You simply can't please everyone all the time: https://www.thehindu.com/news/internati ... 475053.ece

These are the cases where I think using far left tactics to brutally annihilate "culture" is the appropriate response.

Things like this are why I don't think that being a 'non-Western' people/culture/whatever justifies anything. So what if equality is a 'Western' value -- that doesn't make it any less right.

If a visiting space alien would ask me to sum up Earth politics in as few words as possible, I would say something like: "A main part of the tragedy of Earth is that a few people in some cultures came up with fairly good ideas on how to run cultures and societies at exactly the time when those cultures were busy plundering and massacring people all over the planet, and therefore, today, in the eyes of many people, those good ideas are discredited by their association with those cultures."

To me, your beliefs and views are no more or less right regardless of whether you are a Westerner or a non-Westerner -- and the idea that criticism of non-Western cultures is 'Orientalism' is bullshit -- all belief systems and cultures ought to be judged on the same standards regardless of their origin.

[zompist]

If a visiting space alien would ask me to sum up Earth politics in as few words as possible, I would say something like: "A main part of the tragedy of Earth is that a few people in some cultures came up with fairly good ideas on how to run cultures and societies at exactly the time when those cultures were busy plundering and massacring people all over the planet, and therefore, today, in the eyes of many people, those good ideas are discredited by their association with those cultures."

That's not wrong, though I'd want to impress on the alien that it's not coincidence— it's nearly cause and effect. E.g. the West has a value of religious tolerance precisely because it went through more than a hundred years of wars based on religion; it values democracy because of the excesses of Renaissance absolute monarchy.

(I'd also add that it used to be that democracy was nearly confined to the West, but this has, happily, been outdated for at least 30 years.)

[rotting bones]

Unlike in Islamic law, women in medieval and early modern West theoretically couldn't inherit or own property. Google says women started having limited ownership rights in the US around the 1840s. Even today, Western fascists don't think equality is a Western value.

I don't understand what it means for equal rights to be "Western" given that Bangladeshi women came up with the current proposals themselves. These things are not cultural. It's just about who has the power to dictate policy, the oppressors or the oppressed.

[Raphael]

Unlike in Islamic law, women in medieval and early modern West theoretically couldn't inherit or own property. Google says women started having limited ownership rights in the US around the 1840s.

Yes, the ancient values in a lot of different cultures were very oppressive. Which is one reason why I'm generally distrustful of ancient values.

Even today, Western fascists don't think equality is a Western value.

Stuff like that is why I wrote "a few people in some cultures" above, and not "all the people in some cultures".

I don't understand what it means for equal rights to be "Western" given that Bangladeshi women came up with the current proposals themselves.

Oh, that's simple enough: In the internal arguments of some non-Western cultures, the charge of being Western is an easy-to-make and convenient slur the opponents of equal rights can use against the supporters of equal rights.

[rotting bones]

Yes, the ancient values in a lot of different cultures were very oppressive. Which is one reason why I'm generally distrustful of ancient values.

Yes, it's weird that every so-called "intellectual" the CIA pushes on us suddenly loves traditional values. I'm amazed they thought that would work. This is what I mean when I say everyone is literally Hitler. It seems like we have to ignore the entirety of civilization and think independently.

Stuff like that is why I wrote "a few people in some cultures" above, and not "all the people in some cultures".

Personally, I'm skeptical of the existence of culture. Are humans smart enough to have any? I feel like we are reading patterns into dust clouds.

Oh, that's simple enough: In the internal arguments of some non-Western cultures, the charge of being Western is an easy-to-make and convenient slur the opponents of equal rights can use against the supporters of equal rights.

That's true. Why people take it seriously is anyone's guess. We should be viciously mocking them until they are sad and victimized like they enjoy feeling.

[malloc]

The Australian Labor Party has been reëlected. (It will never not annoy and confuse me that their main right wing party is called the Liberals.)

[Raphael]

(It will never not annoy and confuse me that their main right wing party is called the Liberals.)

Well, some people from Continental Europe might be equally annoyed and confused that in so many Englidh-speaking countries, "liberal" means "moderately left of center".

[bradrn]

The Australian Labor Party has been reëlected. (It will never not annoy and confuse me that their main right wing party is called the Liberals.)

Indeed. And with a huge majority in the lower house, too. I guess we’ll see now what they do…

As for the Liberals: they’ve always leaned to the right, but historically they used to be far more centrist than they are now. The shift is something of the past 15 or so years, I’d say. As of this election, the former centrist Liberals have basically all been replaced by the so-called ‘teal’ independents, leaving the party as a whole much more highly right-wing.

[Travis B.]

Unlike in Islamic law, women in medieval and early modern West theoretically couldn't inherit or own property. Google says women started having limited ownership rights in the US around the 1840s. Even today, Western fascists don't think equality is a Western value.

I don't understand what it means for equal rights to be "Western" given that Bangladeshi women came up with the current proposals themselves. These things are not cultural. It's just about who has the power to dictate policy, the oppressors or the oppressed.

Hence 'Western' is in quotes -- fundamentally the charge of something being bad due to being 'Western' is just a low-hanging fruit for non-Western reactionaries and their Western enablers. And reactionaries are reactionaries regardless of whether they are Western or not.