|
Nintendo Kid posted:It's not being elitist to expect people to understand a) why the Confederation failed b) why the Confederate States would have been broken even if they managed to not start/not lose the civil war.  See: Nintendo Kid posted:It'd be great if you lost interest in this topic because your interest is completely misfounded, to be quite frank It's actually annoying that people are actually calling some of the assholes out in this thread because I don't want to just pick up stakes and go when at least some of my issues with the discourse here is shared. This thread isn't about my OP anymore but maybe this new topic is worthy of discussion itself.
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 00:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 11:30 |
|
|
Locke Dunnegan posted:It's actually annoying that people are actually calling some of the assholes out in this thread because I don't want to just pick up stakes and go when at least some of my issues with the discourse here is shared. This thread isn't about my OP anymore but maybe this new topic is worthy of discussion itself. It's not. Tone argument threads never go anywhere good.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 00:48
|
|
|
Locke Dunnegan posted:That's not the point you're being elitist about I'm not being elitist about anything, kid. Stop making tone arguments, start making actual arguments. People have actually discussed the consequences of various forms of your loose thesis but you barely have.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 00:50
|
|
|
Locke Dunnegan posted:
What's the new topic, exactly?
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 00:50
|
|
|
I agree with fishmech (god help my soul). It's easier to get people to react positively to you if you actually heed their advice and read comprehensive and reputable texts (be they books, articles, or research papers) when they are suggested to you instead of saying "I don't have time for that". If I did that every time a professor, colleague, or PI had suggested to me to read a book I'm pretty sure I would have gone nowhere in life. You cannot expect people to spend their day hand holding you through your discovery of new knowledge.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 00:53
|
|
|
Locke Dunnegan posted:That's not the point you're being elitist about So just to give you an example of something the federal government does better than state governments, it's the issue of externalities. An externality would be something like pollution, it's a cost or benefit which comes as a result of a transaction between two parties, but affects more people than just the two parties in question. So something like me buying electricity from the power plant, only for the coal burned by the power plant to generate acid rain in a neighbouring state is an example of an externality. Because there is a side effect to the transaction which isn't taken into account in the pricing of the good by either side, nor is the third party affected being compensated. Environmental externalities are likely to be one of the biggest issues of the 21st century, and it's not handled very well by smaller government entities. By its very nature, larger entities are better at internalizing externalities (the federal government would for example regulate the power plant above whereas a state of Virginia wouldn't care all that much about causing acid rain in Montana or w/e). This even more significant when it comes to the issue of climate change which probably need transnational governance or legislation to resolve. There's also the issue of the collective actions problem which is less of an issue for the federal government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_action#Collective_action_problem). Environmentalism is something which is handled much better at the federal level than local state level.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 00:58
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I was civil to him and his response to me is pretty much the same. ------ Saying that I am using a tone argument as an attempt to derail discussion is true, I guess, but while it is clean in a vacuum to state that a tone argument doesn't do anything about discussing the original topic, it's still important to realize WHY someone might feel like they need to bring up tone as a reason why the discussion isn't working. There's a reason why there are good diplomats, teachers, and public speakers, and part of that is that they can inform others while not explicitly or implicitly calling them retards.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 01:00
|
|
|
Hey, dude, it doesn't matter why you want to make a tone argument, it simply never is going to work out for you. Ever. Much like the principles of the Articles of Confederation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 01:02
|
|
|
Typo posted:So just to give you an example of something the federal government does better than state governments, it's the issue of externalities. Except the opposite was true during the Reagan years, where the Federal government was the one trying to deregulate and remove environmental protections, and the states were fighting them. This repeated again with the "California Waiver" under George W. Bush, where Bush pressured the EPA to deny California the right to create stricter standards for climate change-related emissions. The structure of the federal vs. state definitely means that states have less incentive to address environmental effects that pass-down, but you have to take into account a lot of other things too, like politics and who is in control at the federal and state level. In effect, federalism can act as a brake, and while it may retard progress, it also retards backsliding. One of the many things covered in-depth, with more than just a few sentences, in the excellent series "Give Me Liberty".
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 01:03
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Hey, dude, it doesn't matter why you want to make a tone argument, it simply never is going to work out for you. Ever. Nah, it probably won't in this case, at least. You seem pretty against the ideas of humility or respect when guarded by anonymity.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 01:04
|
|
|
Locke Dunnegan posted:There's a reason why there are good diplomats, teachers, and public speakers, and part of that is that they can inform others while not explicitly or implicitly calling them retards. Smash your ego. You will never know poo poo about poo poo to somebody somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 01:05
|
|
|
Locke Dunnegan posted:Going back and only reading your posts, yes, I was out of line. To be fair, you didn't really give much information on the book you were pimping beyond "hey read this" and "it costs $.01" which isn't very convincing of a quality resource and primer for complex discussion on American politics. Your later information on the book interests me more now, so I thank you for your efforts on getting me interested in this stuff. You could have also spent 5 seconds researching the book and finding out it's a quality book written by a well-reputed historian. I'm still not sure why you wouldn't do that. What is this new topic you want to address?
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 01:05
|
|
|
Locke Dunnegan posted:Nah, it probably won't in this case, at least. You seem pretty against the ideas of humility or respect when guarded by anonymity. Half this forum knows my in real life name and face, kid. You're one to talk about anonymity. Tone arguments don't work, period.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 01:12
|
|
|
Locke Dunnegan posted:Saying that I am using a tone argument as an attempt to derail discussion is true, I guess, but while it is clean in a vacuum to state that a tone argument doesn't do anything about discussing the original topic, it's still important to realize WHY someone might feel like they need to bring up tone as a reason why the discussion isn't working. There's a reason why there are good diplomats, teachers, and public speakers, and part of that is that they can inform others while not explicitly or implicitly calling them retards. just want to remind everyone that the person who made this incredibly whiny statement spent eight pages engaging in tone arguments on something awful and actually even posts on something awful to begin with
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 01:21
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Except the opposite was true during the Reagan years, where the Federal government was the one trying to deregulate and remove environmental protections, and the states were fighting them. This repeated again with the "California Waiver" under George W. Bush, where Bush pressured the EPA to deny California the right to create stricter standards for climate change-related emissions. The structure of the federal vs. state definitely means that states have less incentive to address environmental effects that pass-down, but you have to take into account a lot of other things too, like politics and who is in control at the federal and state level. In effect, federalism can act as a brake, and while it may retard progress, it also retards backsliding. I actually have the 3rd edition of the book, looking it up I don't see this one being mentioned anywhere in it. The book doesn't seem to touch on the environmentalism much at all. I mean, I think you are right about the facts, I just don't see them in the book.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 01:24
|
|
|
Typo posted:I actually have the 3rd edition of the book, looking it up I don't see this one being mentioned anywhere in it. The book doesn't seem to touch on the environmentalism much at all. Do you have volume 2? It is possible that I'm misremembering and it's not there. If not there, it's covered at length in Environmental Politics and Policy by Rosenbaum, and Environmental Policy: New Directions for the 21st century by Vig and Kraft. Anyway, the main point is that the federal government doesn't always work to provide the better and/or broader environmental policy: it depends whose running the federal government, and who is running the state governments. Structure is only part of the equation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 01:29
|
|
|
Locke Dunnegan posted:At the ripe old age of 27, I have become a bit disillusioned with the American political system. Fuckin 
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 01:35
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:Fuckin Thanks! I figured that was a good opener for this crowd. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 01:52
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Immediate questions for you, you're 27. Have you ever participated in the Democratic process? Voluntered to walk turf and phonebank for your local electeds? Contributed to a Federal level campaign? I became very disillusioned and I was a paid campaigner for multiple cycles/candidates. I've worked over a dozen campaigns for everything from Board of Education to the presidency. I see most of my city council at least once a month now and still do political advocacy work. Maybe you live in a place where politics favor grass roots work and you're not used to losing or not being able to affect change, but I don't connect political volunteerism to confidence in the system.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 01:52
|
|
|
Locke Dunnegan posted:Is that seen as a good start by a lot of people? There didn't seem to be anyone else supporting his choice in literature so it came across as a random dude pimping an old textbook and then sitting there tapping his foot until I did what he wanted. When the level is discourse is as lovely as it has been anyone not in the in crowd knows who to trust to not be an elaborate troll. Trolling is useless and fucks things up for people on all sides of debate which is why I'm not excited about continuing discussion. Just trying to get my view across as best I can. I mean, if books are too long, I also gave you a couple of wikipedia links to descriptions of federal court cases that stopped states from doing even more egregious gerrymandering (giving whole cities of millions of people a single state representative, while every cowtown of 10,000 people gets one too, or just straight-up refusing to redestrict at all to keep population shifts from tilting power away from rural landowners), but you don't really seem interested in discussion or debate tbh
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 01:53
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I mean, if books are too long, I also gave you a couple of wikipedia links to descriptions of federal court cases that stopped states from doing even more egregious gerrymandering (giving whole cities of millions of people a single state representative, while every cowtown of 10,000 people gets one too, or just straight-up refusing to redestrict at all to keep population shifts from tilting power away from rural landowners), but you don't really seem interested in discussion or debate tbh I specifically said that I now understand some potential problems with giving states authority to give the finger to federal legislation. The entire point of my post was to gain information and/or leads to find information through discussion on what could happen if the government of the USA was set up differently, and that goal was met. I apologized for being ignorant, and expressed interest in reading more on the subject. I also took issue with the way much of the discussion was conducted, but I separated those two points when posting so as to reduce confusion. This side discussion turned out to be important to me to see first-hand how I can or should conduct myself here if I wanted to participate more, but it was definitely a derailment on my part and for that too I apologize.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 02:04
|
|
|
Holy loving poo poo. Stop talking about yourself.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 02:11
|
|
|
Locke Dunnegan posted:I specifically said that I now understand some potential problems with giving states authority to give the finger to federal legislation. The entire point of my post was to gain information and/or leads to find information through discussion on what could happen if the government of the USA was set up differently, and that goal was met. I apologized for being ignorant, and expressed interest in reading more on the subject. Okay, that's fair. As a side point, it's actually interesting/depressing how effectively the neo-Confederates have been able to disillusion people with the federal government by exploiting all of the checks and balances in the constitution to make it dysfunctional when they're out of power, and by doing such horrific poo poo while they're in power that to the average American, the federal government bounces between impotent and evil.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 02:14
|
|
|
So what can we do to shift the balance towards good? How do we paint the government in a positive light?
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 02:18
|
|
|
Hitlers Gay Secret posted:So what can we do to shift the balance towards good? How do we paint the government in a positive light? Teach critical thinking skills and encourage people to watch less television?
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 02:23
|
|
|
Hitlers Gay Secret posted:So what can we do to shift the balance towards good? How do we paint the government in a positive light? Continue to remind people that national parks and food inspectors are a thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 02:24
|
|
|
Educate me! But I literally require consensus in order to accept a book recommendation. I can only be communicated with by means of Greek chorus. If multiple people aren't saying something to me, I can't listen to it. If a single person says something to me I just do this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJBKyTfCjCc until a second person says it. Then I can think.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 02:26
|
|
|
mugrim posted:I became very disillusioned and I was a paid campaigner for multiple cycles/candidates. I've worked over a dozen campaigns for everything from Board of Education to the presidency. I see most of my city council at least once a month now and still do political advocacy work. Don't get me wrong, I empathize with you whole-heartedly. The pay is poo poo, the hours long, the bonuses too small, the bosses quite verbally abusive, the parties too few and far inbetween. My point was, you have to earn the right to feel dissillusioned through participation in the democratic process, you aren't entitled to feel like you understand the true nature of American politics without first paying your dues. Hitlers Gay Secret posted:So what can we do to shift the balance towards good? How do we paint the government in a positive light? Pay me to implement methodologies which do so.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 03:01
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:
Is this a good time to remind you that your schtick is dumb and you look like an idiot a lot?
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 03:03
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Is this a good time to remind you that your schtick is dumb and you look like an idiot a lot? Is this a good time to remind you that the solution to America's problems, and the quickest way to feeling as if you live a rich and fulfilling life, is to make a contribution to your local Democratic party?
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 03:05
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Is this a good time to remind you that your schtick is dumb and you look like an idiot a lot? My Imaginary GF posted:Is this a good time to remind you that the solution to America's problems, and the quickest way to feeling as if you live a rich and fulfilling life, is to make a contribution to your local Democratic party? you are both morons
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 03:20
|
|
|
Locke Dungeon, reading through this thread when it was just one page I thought I should say "tone arguments are really way more trouble than they're worth, just ignore the sarcasm in a post and try to get what they're getting at, or ignore the post entirely. This is still a comedy forum, and D&D can have some humor in its rebuttals." But then I saw other people say it more succinctly and you say "Oh okay, my bad." Then I check back 7 pages later, and you're still doing tone arguments, people are still saying to ignore the tone, and you're still saying "Okay, I understand now." Please just ignore the tone of a post, there's no requirement that people be nice. No need to respond to me, just take the advice and continue the discussion!
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 03:52
|
|
|
Ok... ok.... Let's say the US breaks up. What regions get exactly what and what regions can actually stand on their own without any outside imports? If the entire world decided to shut off all imports to America, it would really really suck and destroy everyone's present standard of living but wouldn't entirely doom the country. We can grow our own food, fish for our own food, and generate/mine resources for our own power (to an extent). Can the People's Republic of Montana survive on its own? How about Hawaii? Wyoming? Nevada? Rhode Island? Yea, probably not. California's going to own everyone and turn the entire western boarder of Nevada into a Maginot Line of minefields and anti aircraft missile silos (assuming someone doesn't shut off the water first) while charging the rest of the nation $10/gallon for milk. If a confederation was to come about, you can sure as poo poo be certain that the regions that dominate with food harvesting/production and natural resources are going to extort the ever living gently caress out of other regions since there is no one to stop them from doing so. And that's how wars happen and lots of people die.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 06:04
|
|
|
Avalanche posted:And that's how wars happen and lots of people die. Considering there's about 7 Billion people on this planet at the moment, this is a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 06:07
|
|
|
Avalanche posted:Ok... ok.... the south will rise again
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 06:10
|
|
|
Avalanche posted:If a confederation was to come about, you can sure as poo poo be certain that the regions that dominate with food harvesting/production and natural resources are going to extort the ever living gently caress out of other regions since there is no one to stop them from doing so. And that's how wars happen and lots of people die. Well no, the ones that already have huge militaries will seize the farming states and jealously guard their conquests.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 06:14
|
|
|
Hitlers Gay Secret posted:Considering there's about 7 Billion people on this planet at the moment, this is a good thing. OK, you go first though
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 06:16
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:OK, you go first though Only if we do it together. :bigtran:
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 06:23
|
|
|
Hitlers Gay Secret posted:Considering there's about 7 Billion people on this planet at the moment, this is a good thing. We can readily support twice that many people once we implement Communism, friend.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 06:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 11:30 |
|
|
PupsOfWar posted:We can readily support twice that many people once we implement Communism, friend. I was looking forward to communism because of the gulags and mass killings, this isn't what I asked for.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 06:27
|
|