хорошее о савецком союзе

[mr_k_bx]

несмотря на то, что СССР был агрессивной и [seemingly] мощной империей зла, были в этом и положительные аспекты. Холодная война не давала западу леветь, сдерживала процесс, который в остутствие реальной страшилки потек бесконтрольно и вышел из берегов... как лесной пожар ))

Comments

[ctakan_divanych]

Дружище,что с вами!Вы меня всерьёз начинаете беспокоить!

[mr_k_bx]

мне кажется это тривиальность. поясните, плиз.

[ctakan_divanych]

Ну,что тут пояснять!Было шутливое настроение,вот вам и тривиальность.Если чем задел,приношу извинения.Хотя,признаться,после наших с вами прений по Америке,не ожидал!

[mr_k_bx]

тривиальность в смысле я сказал, а вот что вам показалось несочетаемым с моими предыдущими взглядами - не понимаю. Но если влом объяснять то не буду занудой ))

[kovrov]

I don't buy it. If you compare the mainstream political climate in the States to what it was when the Soviet menace was at its worst, the shift you will find is anything BUT leftward. One merely needs to compare the views of somebody like Barry Goldwater t the proto-fascist reactionary hysteria that passes for conservatism today.

[mr_k_bx]

even if we accept that the right became "righter" it says nothing about the position of the median. "Proto-fascist reactionary hysteria" sounds more like a bit of propaganda, i don't really know what you mean. Extremely extreme right in my opinion appear as a reaction to a general "turn to the left" in society as a whole. Also, I didn't point it out originally but imo the process is more prominent in Europe than it is in the states.

[kovrov]

even if we accept that the right became "righter" it says nothing about the position of the median.

Maybe not the median, but the median in particular matters little in a highly divided, polarized (i.e. bi- or multi-modal) body politic. As for the mainstream less precisely construed, I wouldn't go so far as to say that the fringe positions have "nothing" to do with that, though you are right that the relationship is not necessarily straightforward. An interesting theory on this very issue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

"Proto-fascist reactionary hysteria" sounds more like a bit of propaganda, i don't really know what you mean.When you are right you are right, but that's a stylistic blunder on my part, because in fact this is my personal assessment, which I am more than happy to unpack it

[mr_k_bx]

well, as i am neither right or left (http://mr-k-bx.livejournal.com/306427.html), I find myself completely unable to argue or discuss this topic at this level of partisanship. I find you explanations as just fortification of one label (or cliche or metaphor) with others.

I have a different attitude toward the wide range of opinions held by my fellow compatriots. I really only care about the system being democratic and to make sure the actual majority wins. That's really the best we can do, considering how different we all are.

Please don't take this negatively, i appreciate people with strong opinions, I hold many of my own only not on this topic. I am not oblivious, I just don't think that either side is right. As for the extremists, I think there are plenty on both sides so they pretty much cancel each other out.

---------------------

As for the topic of my post, "Overton Window" is a quite applicable concept here. Thank you.

[stargeizer]

About the second paragraph, I did misread your "scientists' sake" as "science's sake" -- my bad. Nevertheless, I was addressing your perception of my arguments: that I was presenting scientists as some kind of special interest lobby. Science for science's sake is and should be done, while "science for scientists' sake" is just plain nonsense. In the present situation, it's not (just) the scientists who suffer (although I do find your callous lack of sympathy here appalling), it's science. As a scientist myself, of course I care about my livelihood, but I also care about science as such, above and beyond that. In fact, it's just about the only abstract notion I'm emotionally invested in. If the current trend continues unabated, very soon only impact-based (as opposed to curiosity-based) research will be funded, and that will be the death of science, and with it -- the Western civilization. All that while China is investing vigorously in science and education, and is already beginning to gain an upper hand. So I'll keep ring the alarm

[mr_k_bx]

is this the post that was lost

[stargeizer]

So you've dug the stupid thing up, and for what -- to have your intelligence insulted on multiple levels! ))) I told you it was a stroke of luck it got lost -- should have stayed gone... Anyhow, I vote for not escalating this.

Just to set the record straight -- believe it or not, I was actually honest about the misread, didn't see it until you pointed it out (this ascribing of ulterior motives -- what do I possibly stand to gain from being coy?). It wasn't your views I was arguing against there: you said something like "when the public perceives science being done for science's (sic!) sake, it cuts the funding". My response was, well, the public is just plain wrong, and needs to have this explained to it. And btw, the mistake wasn't that fatal: after all, there can't be science without scientists