|
readingatwork posted:
Suddenly? Is something that happened 40+ years ago really "sudden" enough to justify still voting to gently caress themselves over? Because remember, voting for Republicans only makes conditions worse for you if you're poor.
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 18:19 |
|
|
fishmech posted:Suddenly? Is something that happened 40+ years ago really "sudden" enough to justify still voting to gently caress themselves over? No see that's why I'm voting Johnson because I hate free trade and I'm an idiot!
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:You make a speech stating that you're changing your position and then explain why as best you can. A lot of people have actually done just that on the LGBT issue and I respect the hell out of them for it. But seriously, though, how can you trust that they mean it? How do you know they're not just pandering - lying to you?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:Is it really so hard to get? People don't like that they suddenly have to compete for their jobs with third world sweatshops. Plus, when factories close down the towns that have sprung up around them suddenly die and turn into festering hellholes of poverty. It's kind of a big deal. Protectionism is only a short term band-aid. Eventually, automation is going to be cheaper than sweat shops, and those 'lost' manufacturing jobs will simply evaporate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:Protectionism is only a short term band-aid. Eventually, automation is going to be cheaper than sweat shops, and those 'lost' manufacturing jobs will simply evaporate. It's already cheaper, it's been cheaper for a long time. The typical Chinese factory making whatever item you care to name that used to be built in the US? They use fewer employees than the US factory used for the same job, because they're already taking advantage of as much automation as possible. And if we brought all those factories back to the US, they would similarly be using less workers than the old time American factories did.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
fishmech posted:It's already cheaper, it's been cheaper for a long time. The typical Chinese factory making whatever item you care to name that used to be built in the US? They use fewer employees than the US factory used for the same job, because they're already taking advantage of as much automation as possible. And if we brought all those factories back to the US, they would similarly be using less workers than the old time American factories did. Does that hold true for literal-slave-labor sweat shops down in Indochina/Indonesia though?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:Does that hold true for literal-slave-labor sweat shops down in Indochina/Indonesia though? Yes. Just because you have slaves doesn't mean you don't want to have to use as few slaves as possible! Even for things as simple as garment/textile manufacture, modern machinery reduces workers needed, just through being more reliable and thus allowing you to get more stuff produced per worker.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
Petr posted:You're making some kind of distinction between "admitting you were wrong" and "changing with the political winds." As far as I can tell, the only distinguishing factor between these is "does readingatwork agree with the change?" Not really. I don't see why I can't respect someone for believing something sincerely while still disagreeing with their worldview. For example back during the Bush years there were several conservative talk-show hosts that I kind of liked despite disagreeing with them on 95% of their views. Yeah their ideas were awful but at the same time they weren't afraid to call out W on his constant bullshit so I found myself becoming a regular listener anyways (probably not my healthiest life choice I admit). Sean Hannity, on the other hand, I will always despise because he's a transparently disingenuous whore for the political establishment who has literally never had an opinion that wasn't handed to him. Seriously, gently caress that guy. quote:The toxicity in American politics is entirely the result of the kind of bizarre Jacobin moralizing you're doing here. In your ideal America, everyone is a Tortilla Coaster. No thanks. No it's the result of too much money in politics making it impossible to have a decent political platform because anytime you try to do something that matters one of the Exons of the world will come down and rain money and advertising on your political opponent. This forces good people out of political life leaving only the craziest and most cynical people to lead. Also WTF is a Tortilla Coaster!? Nessus posted:Serious question: Why? Because what you were saying is, people shouldn't change their principles, now you're saying that people can change their principles as long as they follow a particular routine. I have a feeling that whatever this routine and system is, it is so constructed that Hillary Clinton JUST HAPPENS to have not met it, even if this creates other logical absurdities. It's not about following a protocol. It's about trust and whether or not I believe someone when they say things. Which is very difficult even under the best of circumstances, I'll admit. For the most part I just assume everyone is a lying dickbag until I see concrete evidence to the contrary. If it makes you feel better I think Trump is far, far more disingenuous then Hillary.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:Not really. I don't see why I can't respect someone for believing something sincerely while still disagreeing with their worldview. For example back during the Bush years there were several conservative talk-show hosts that I kind of liked despite disagreeing with them on 95% of their views. Yeah their ideas were awful but at the same time they weren't afraid to call out W on his constant bullshit so I found myself becoming a regular listener anyways (probably not my healthiest life choice I admit). Sean Hannity, on the other hand, I will always despise because he's a transparently disingenuous whore for the political establishment who has literally never had an opinion that wasn't handed to him. Seriously, gently caress that guy. Great, but none of this is relevant to the point I'm making, which is that your weird opposition to politicians changing their minds falls apart when you think "they're realizing they were wrong," whatever that means. If It's Hillary Clinton doing it, it's awful unscrupulous flip-flopping! Never mind that you actually haven't brought up a single specific issue she's changed on that you would like to debate, it's just a feeeeeling! Like there's something different about her compared to most other politicians. I wonder what it is! quote:No it's the result of too much money in politics making it impossible to have a decent political platform because anytime you try to do something that matters one of the Exons of the world will come down and rain money and advertising on your political opponent. This forces good people out of political life leaving only the craziest and most cynical people to lead. You might as well rail against the tide. quote:Also WTF is a Tortilla Coaster!? A set of very principled politicians that the US needs more of, by your rubric.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 22:00
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:Not really. I don't see why I can't respect someone for believing something sincerely while still disagreeing with their worldview. For example back during the Bush years there were several conservative talk-show hosts that I kind of liked despite disagreeing with them on 95% of their views. Yeah their ideas were awful but at the same time they weren't afraid to call out W on his constant bullshit so I found myself becoming a regular listener anyways (probably not my healthiest life choice I admit). Sean Hannity, on the other hand, I will always despise because he's a transparently disingenuous whore for the political establishment who has literally never had an opinion that wasn't handed to him. Seriously, gently caress that guy. Seriously, what is the problem of globalization? What you're describing sounds like the issues that rise from the accumulation of capital in fewer and fewer hands. Sure globalization has a part in that, but the driving force is the nature of capitalism's modes of production. If you're trying to make a Marxist critique you're doing a really obtuse job of it (and that critique is pretty played out at this point)
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:Not really. I don't see why I can't respect someone for believing something sincerely while still disagreeing with their worldview. For example back during the Bush years there were several conservative talk-show hosts that I kind of liked despite disagreeing with them on 95% of their views. Yeah their ideas were awful but at the same time they weren't afraid to call out W on his constant bullshit so I found myself becoming a regular listener anyways (probably not my healthiest life choice I admit). Sean Hannity, on the other hand, I will always despise because he's a transparently disingenuous whore for the political establishment who has literally never had an opinion that wasn't handed to him. Seriously, gently caress that guy. I found out why you have an irrational hatred of Hillary Clinton!
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
Sometimes I feel like when Trump or the republicans aren't making GBS threads on the floor and rolling in it the left eats itself alive over trivialities at worst and trips over its own dick and best.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
Ice Phisherman posted:Sometimes I feel like when Trump or the republicans aren't making GBS threads on the floor and rolling in it the left eats itself alive over trivialities at worst and trips over its own dick and best. Hey, that doesn't happen! Anymore. As much.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
happyhippy posted:https://twitter.com/ShaneGoldmacher/status/772091438549139456 lol there's a CRT hanging from the ceiling.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:Seriously, what is the problem of globalization? What you're describing sounds like the issues that rise from the accumulation of capital in fewer and fewer hands. Sure globalization has a part in that, but the driving force is the nature of capitalism's modes of production. If you're trying to make a Marxist critique you're doing a really obtuse job of it (and that critique is pretty played out at this point) Well let's be honest: a lot of people forget that most of those "good factory jobs" America supposedly had were terrible. And they were the equivalent of working for like Wal-Mart is these days, in terms of benefits, relative pay, and treatment from the bosses - especially if you weren't white, or even if you weren't the "right" kind of white. They just hear Uncle Jim reminisce on how great his job in a factory was in 1964 and assume it really was good. Sure, there were more unionized jobs back then, but even at its peak union jobs were only 35% of the workforce - and a large chunk of those were government workers, so not people in the fabled factory that went away because of free trade.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:Protectionism is only a short term band-aid. Eventually, automation is going to be cheaper than sweat shops, and those 'lost' manufacturing jobs will simply evaporate. True, and I don't have a good long-term solution to that problem. That said forcing open the floodgates on trade is only accelerating things. ImpAtom posted:Not a big enough deal they'll vote for policies that actually help over loving over transgender teens or guns. You have to remember that most people don't understand how economics, banking, or foreign trade works. As a result when people feel threatened they tend to attack targets that are more immediate and visible. Declining religious values (which is pretty much the only community many people have) and the risk of loosing their guns (their last source of empowerment) are easy targets for this tendency. A big flaming stink posted:Seriously, what is the problem of globalization? What you're describing sounds like the issues that rise from the accumulation of capital in fewer and fewer hands. Sure globalization has a part in that, but the driving force is the nature of capitalism's modes of production. If you're trying to make a Marxist critique you're doing a really obtuse job of it (and that critique is pretty played out at this point) Globalization upsets the balance between capital and labor by giving capital all the power. This is not a bug but a feature and the exact reason it's so popular among the political class. The reason I get so angry about it over other topics is because unlike most other regressive economic policies this one is popular on both the right AND the left. And yes capitalism and income inequality are also huge issues. I'm pretty mad about those too. Petr posted:You might as well rail against the tide. Please explain why I'm a crazy hippie asking for ponies and rainbows just for wanting a political system that doesn't rely on a vast amounts of legalized bribery to get people in power.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Well let's be honest: a lot of people forget that most of those "good factory jobs" America supposedly had were terrible. And they were the equivalent of working for like Wal-Mart is these days, in terms of benefits, relative pay, and treatment from the bosses - especially if you weren't white, or even if you weren't the "right" kind of white. They just hear Uncle Jim reminisce on how great his job in a factory was in 1964 and assume it really was good. Are you just talking out of your rear end? I've worked in factories in the past few years that started at ~$14 an hour, and got into the 20's. Sure, it isn't the best pay, but if both parents work that is a strong middle-class income. Considering that wages have stagnated over the past few decades, it is definitely reasonable to assume that the jobs used to be better TeenageArchipelago fucked around with this message at 22:27 on Sep 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 22:25
|
|
|
It's not so much the literal factory work, it's what we had in the 60's/70's with unions and pensions and whatnot. Plenty of people would be happy to work at wal-mart instead of attaching doors to cars if they could get a living wage and company pension with support from a union. And it doesn't matter how many people *had* those jobs back in the day, people know there was something good before Reagan and they don't know why it left. They worked their whole lives for it and are angry. Unfortunately, the right has convinced people to blame immigrants instead of the corporations that destroyed their cities and benefits.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 22:25
|
|
|
Has this video been posted? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbIGBCcfKZg Cause if you haven't seen it, it is GLORIOUS.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
the text was posted earlier.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Yes. Just because you have slaves doesn't mean you don't want to have to use as few slaves as possible! Even for things as simple as garment/textile manufacture, modern machinery reduces workers needed, just through being more reliable and thus allowing you to get more stuff produced per worker. I have worked at multiple manufacturing companies that had facilities in both China/SE Asia and the US. The Asian facilities invariably used far more workers to accomplish the same production output as the US facilities, because it is cheaper for them to hire more workers to check parts for example, than to buy a machine vision system like the US facility for automatic sorting. Automation is cost effective in the US because of labor costs, in Asia its not always cost effective because a lack of technical expertise make manual labor comparatively more effective.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:Please explain why I'm a crazy hippie asking for ponies and rainbows just for wanting a political system that doesn't rely on a vast amounts of legalized bribery to get people in power. Legal bribery sucks and is bad but I have no idea how you'd get rid of it. It's telling that your solution apparently means politicians just aren't allowed to change their minds about anything in case it's from a bribe.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
Yinlock posted:Hey, that doesn't happen! Chet Edwards died for our sins.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:Please explain why I'm a crazy hippie asking for ponies and rainbows just for wanting a political system that doesn't rely on a vast amounts of legalized bribery to get people in power. Because you don't want that political system to come at the hands of Hillary for no other reason than you feel that Hillary Bad. EDIT: I mean I'm not going to suggest that she will solve the US's problems overnight with her powerful sorcery, but that there's a few people who would rather throw out everything than have the most progress in a long time be at the hands of Lyin' Hillary.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:the text was posted earlier. The video is way better. Words do not do it justice.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:It's not so much the literal factory work, it's what we had in the 60's/70's with unions and pensions and whatnot. Plenty of people would be happy to work at wal-mart instead of attaching doors to cars if they could get a living wage and company pension with support from a union. We think things are crazy now, but the 70's were absolute mayhem. There were political scandals bigger than what we have today (and before people were desensitized to them), domestic terror groups setting off bombs left and right, the economy was in the shitter, the clothes... I don't know how anyone could miss the 70's.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 22:35
|
|
|
Smeef posted:I don't know how anyone could miss the 70's. You could buy a house before you were 35 and on one salary.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 22:41
|
|
|
happyhippy posted:You could buy a house before you were 35 and on one salary. *for certain values of "you"
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:
...Well. I think you're falling prey to a sort of end-of-history narrative if you think it was globalization of all things that upset the balance of power between labor and capital. Sure, I'm not going to deny that free movement of capital exacerbates the situation, but capital has always been grossly more powerful than labor. I feel pretty comfortable saying that the robber barons of the Gilded Age were way, way loving worse than what we have today, and protectionism did nothing to alleviate the discrepancy of power. It's sort of awkward. Yes its pretty lovely that capital has gotten more and more entrenched as time goes by, but I think there is a tendency among leftist sorts to deny that the effects of capitalism can lead to any sort of benefit (I myself have fallen prey to this mindset) For all of globalization's evils, more people have been lifted out of crushing poverty now than at any other time in history.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
Smeef posted:I don't know how anyone could miss the 70's. The pill had been invented but AIDS wasn't a thing yet.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
TeenageArchipelago posted:Are you just talking out of your rear end? I've worked in factories in the past few years that started at ~$14 an hour, and got into the 20's. Sure, it isn't the best pay, but if both parents work that is a strong middle-class income. Considering that wages have stagnated over the past few decades, it is definitely reasonable to assume that the jobs used to be better Are you really trying to claim that because you got a decent wage at a factory now, the jobs back then all had to be good? Because that's pretty crazy dude. Tons of factory jobs back in the 50s-70s were just barely above or straight up at the minimum wage of the time. poo poo, plenty of people in factory jobs in this country today barely make over minimum wage. OctaMurk posted:I have worked at multiple manufacturing companies that had facilities in both China/SE Asia and the US. The Asian facilities invariably used far more workers to accomplish the same production output as the US facilities, because it is cheaper for them to hire more workers to check parts for example, than to buy a machine vision system like the US facility for automatic sorting. Automation is cost effective in the US because of labor costs, in Asia its not always cost effective because a lack of technical expertise make manual labor comparatively more effective. And that "far more workers" is still going to be less than producing the same thing in the US back in 1955 was going to be. Automation isn't just high tech stuff like machine vision. Sir Tonk posted:It's not so much the literal factory work, it's what we had in the 60's/70's with unions and pensions and whatnot. "We" didn't have that. A certain subset of white workers had that, the rest had jobs about the same as they do now, particularly non-whites. Again: at the absolute peak of union membership in the country, only 35% of people were in unions. Pensions that existed were also often very small in comparison to a social security check, and of course you didn't actually get them until you retired, so if you were working in the 60s/70s you might have never received them due to cuts that occurred later.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 22:44
|
|
|
Yinlock posted:Because you don't want that political system to come at the hands of Hillary for no other reason than you feel that Hillary Bad. By no means do I really like Hillary, but if you participate in US politics you're never going to get who you want. If you get exactly what you want you've probably bought into the rhetoric in which case you're going to be disappointed by reality or are a single issue voter in which case the rest of reality doesn't matter. Really all you can do is participate in a metagame which moves more of your political goals forward than you lose, and further that metagame moves slowly towards your goal if at all, or if it arrives quickly you spend years defending it until another generation or two comes by that sees it as normal. You don't get full communism now tomorrow just because your candidate promised it. All I expect from Hillary is that she'll be competent and effective. Full stop. Not that she'll be principled, not that she'll be charismatic, not that she'll keep her campaign promises, none of that. However I don't expect competent or effective from Trump or any of the rest and really I can never really see myself voting R until they dump white supremacy and stop only being a river of prosperity only to the rich. And I don't think I'll see that for at least another decade or two.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 22:44
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:...Well. Protectionism was a cornerstone of their power, since it meant they could keep the prices of their industrial products up and keep the market from getting flooded by cheaper sources (and instead they flooded European markets with cheaper American goods).
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 22:45
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:It's sort of awkward. Yes its pretty lovely that capital has gotten more and more entrenched as time goes by, but I think there is a tendency among leftist sorts to deny that the effects of capitalism can lead to any sort of benefit (I myself have fallen prey to this mindset)
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 22:48
|
|
|
Petr posted:Legal bribery sucks and is bad but I have no idea how you'd get rid of it. It's telling that your solution apparently means politicians just aren't allowed to change their minds about anything in case it's from a bribe. Well for starters we get a sane replacement for Scalia so that we can overturn CU. After that we pass laws making all other forms of campaign contributions illegal. It doesn't seem that complicated to me. Difficult, but not impossible. Also I very clearly said people are allowed to change their minds. I just have very little faith in the sincerity of your average American politician. Yinlock posted:Because you don't want that political system to come at the hands of Hillary for no other reason than you feel that Hillary Bad. Actually I'll be voting for Hillary in November. I'm just really, really unhappy about the next 4-8 years of constant triangulation to the right.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 22:48
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:It's not about following a protocol. It's about trust and whether or not I believe someone when they say things. Which is very difficult even under the best of circumstances, I'll admit. quote:For the most part I just assume everyone is a lying dickbag until I see concrete evidence to the contrary.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
Ice Phisherman posted:
Also not an expert, but my impression is that a lot of evangelicals read the bible cover to cover but retain or understand only some portions of it. That was certainly what I gathered from the group (Cincinnati Baptists) I'm most familiar with.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 22:50
|
|
|
Ice Phisherman posted:Effort post. Trump beat Cruz among evangelicals in the Republican primary, who is as much of a true believer as they come. Sure, it was the Republican primary and doesn't include evangelical Democrats and independents, but it implies that a large portion evangelical voters either don't have the ability to detect obvious falsehood, or simply don't care.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 22:50
|
|
|
I wonder how many people actually think Clinton is lying about her stance on CU. Anyone in this thread brave enough to admit to that view?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 22:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 18:19 |
|
|
readingatwork posted:Actually I'll be voting for Hillary in November. I'm just really, really unhappy about the next 4-8 years of constant triangulation to the right. She's running on one of the most left-leaning platforms in forever and has been totally consistent about it, you have absolutely no reason to think that she'll initiate "triangulation to the right" besides the fact that you personally do not like her. EDIT: I was on the "Hillary is suspicious and shady because reasons" train for a while too until I actually bothered to learn something about her.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 22:52
|
|