Sorry to take so long to respond; I was out for the week with the Troop at summer camp. An interesting week and worthy of some discussion as to the interaction among the kids (some of whom were away from home the first time, some old hands, one kid promoted to honorary adult, etc., etc.). But it was a bit of an anxious week for me. I’ve been having health problems with unexplained abdominal pains. I had an abdominal/pelvic CAT scan a few days beforehand and for the first time in 21 seasons I was afraid I’d miss camp. The doctor cleared me just the day before camp. It seems that the scant food and heavy physical activity actually did me some good; the pains were reduced and I actually did the mile swim. The doctor and I think that at least part of this is mental stress, and he may be right. I got back yesterday.

So now this question; what’s the deal with Maggie Thatcher and the miner’s strike? I am not familiar with this part of British history. I gather from the context of the discussion that there was a miners’ strike and I imagine that she must have broken their union or something to the detriment of the miners’ economic situation, but I don’t actually know what you all are talking about.

I’ll reserve the right not to include Margaret Thatcher in that category. She can be Myca’s dog shit filled burrito.

I seriously want to start a new meme here. From now on, Margaret Thatcher needs to be referred to as ‘Crap Burrito”.

Yeah, it probably won’t catch on, but imagine if it does!

Although I have no problem with pointing out that I am motivated by self-interest. I want to live in the other world I believe is possible. I want to live in a world without rape, I want to live in a world without capitalism - these would make my life better. I think my self-interest is tied up with the self-interest of the powerless anywhere - that’s at the heart of your politcs.

I may have compassion for the evil, but my compassion for their victims may outweigh it such that I believe it honorable to wish the death of someone evil.

“Man, I really like burritos.”
“Really? What about this dog crap rolled up in a tortilla?”
“I . . . no . . . that’s disgusting.”
“Ah! Ah-HA! Filthy liar! You said you liked burritos, and if you like burritos, you must like every individual burrito, even the dog-crap ones!”

Repeat for everything else in the known universe.

To put it another way, I do not believe in claims of loving humanity in the abstract. If you love humanity, you must love humans; all of us, in all our error and glory. No exceptions.

You’re setting up a false choice logical fallacy.

——-
Either Maia Loves Humanity or her politics are utterly self interested and not at all motivated by some beautiful ideal.

Loving Humanity is so unattainable as to be near-impossible, so Maia clearly does not Love Humanity.

Therefore Maia’s politics are utterly self interested and not at all motivated by some beautiful ideal.
——-

They’re called logical fallacies for a reason. It’s because they’re false.

I dispute your definition of what it takes to love humanity, furthermore, since I believe it is possible (not only possible but incredibly common) to love humanity as a whole (to literally love humanity) without feeling love and compassion for each individual member of humanity. It’s the same way I can make a statement about the ‘class men’ without making a statement about ‘Robert’.

—Myca

Yes and yes.

Not many people actually love humanity. Loving humanity is pretty damn hard, because so very many of us are unlovable - even aggressively unlovable, as were Herr Hitler and Unka Joe.

To put it another way, I do not believe in claims of loving humanity in the abstract. If you love humanity, you must love humans; all of us, in all our error and glory. No exceptions.

You can be relieved that Hitler is dead, or glad that the Soviet advance was stopped with Russian casualties instead of American ones - but you must know in your mind that Hitler and the Russians were men, same as you, and feel for them.

If, that is, you want to claim to love humanity. Myself, I can’t reach that bar, though I do recognize it as a worthy one.

(I should hasten to state that as far as I know, Maia has made no claim to loving humanity. I’m not accusing her of anything; just noting that her words are indicative that her politics flow from the usual self-interested wells, not some beautiful ideal.)

But it does reveal that the notion of those specific people’s politics (again, of whatever stripe) being motivated by love and harmony and compassion, is rubbish. We now know that Maia is not a socialist because she loves humanity; people who love humanity don’t dance on graves.

How is this even remotely true?

It seems to me that there is no conflict between 1) loving humanity and wanting the best things to happen for the greatest number of people and 2) feeling schadenfreude for those who you feel have been actively working to damage humanity.

If I rejoice at the death of Stalin, does that mean I don’t love humanity? How about Hitler?

And yes, yes, I know, “Margaret Thatcher is no Josef Stalin and no Adolf Hitler.” That’s not the point. I’m asking a structural question.

—Myca

But it does reveal that the notion of those specific people’s politics (again, of whatever stripe) being motivated by love and harmony and compassion, is rubbish. We now know that Maia is not a socialist because she loves humanity; people who love humanity don’t dance on graves. So we can presume that she’s a socialist for the same reasons that motivate most politically active people: self-interest and/or intellectual attachment to the ideas of the movement.

I have a life-long ambition to dance on the grave of every man who voted for NZ’s abortion law (everyone who voted for it was a man).

While there probably are some gendered criticisms of Margaret Thatcher, I don’t think that’s the reason there’s such a level of hatred against her. I think if anything it’s differences between the way political leaders are treated in different countries. There is a much higher level of respect for elected leaders in America than there is in Britain

Why are people still fantasizing about Thatcher’s death now, when she’s an insignificant octogenarian woman who has been out of politics for over 15 years? Which other politicians from the 80s are still even mentioned by name in today’s political rhetoric?

By the way, Amp, it’s miners, not minors. Thatcher may have done some bad things, but exploiting child labour wasn’t one of them!

Surely the difference is in how evil you consider Thatcher to be; it’s reasonable to celebrate that a ruler will someday die, if you consider them horrible enough. Given the situation the characters were in, I think that being glad Thatcher won’t live forever is understandable.

Would I make the same argument, myself? Probably not, but I’m not a striking minor facing hideous difficulties at Thatcher’s (metaphorical) hands.

Nothing Thatcher did was worth hoping for her death

That’s where we disagree. But I think I’ll write a longer response.

This must be the famously compassionate left we hear so much about.

Oh, god, sarcastic derisive comments about left-wingers. Boooorrrring.

It seems almost as if it is too much to bear that a woman can be powerful in her own right if she doesn’t toe the line in other feminist respects. And in the 1980s of all times!

Cliched “ah-ha! I’ve turned the table on you stupid feminists!” argument. Boring and shallow.

“Toe the line” is a term that, translated from right-wing cliche into English, means “favors policies that feminists favor.” It seems to me that judging politicians by their policies, which you sneer at, is actually the optimum approach to deciding to support or oppose politicians. What alternative approach to making such decisions do you favor, Sebastian?

Far better to support a woman swept into power by her husband’s success, right?

Assuming that because we’re leftists and feminists, we must support Clinton. Again, excruciatingly boring, Sebastian. And also wrong.

Please start providing more interesting right-wing arguments, Sebastian. I like intelligent opposition; tedious opposition is subject to banning. This is your first warning; we thank you for your cooperation.

Why did you bring up Margaret Thatcher’s sex and imply that those who opposed her were hypocrites because of it?

“You hate Idi Amin? But I thought you opposed racism.”
and
“You hate Jeffrey Dahmer? But I thought you supported gay rights.”

Although I’ll admit that as far as I know, Margaret Thatcher never engaged in cannibalism. Not in the literal sense, anyhow.

—Myca

It seems almost as if it is too much to bear that a woman can be powerful in her own right if she doesn’t toe the line in other feminist respects. And in the 1980s of all times!

Far better to support a woman swept into power by her husband’s success, right?

Why do you bring up Margaret Thatcher’s sex here?

1) I seriously doubt the opposition of anyone here is based on that, 2) feminism isn’t about blindly supporting any woman, anywhere, regardless of the damage she’s doing to the world and feminism, so 3) your comment is just the kind of ‘gotcha’ non sequitur that has become notorious for being made by people who don’t understand much of feminism but want to score points.

—Myca