The democrats are a waste

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The democrats are a waste

Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed.
B	77	25.50%
K	160	52.98%
M	65	21.52%
Total:	229 votes

[Edit Poll (moderators only)]

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

People don't have to be caustic to each other all the time.

# ? Aug 10, 2017 21:48

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 8, 2024 20:10

NewForumSoftware: Oct 8, 2016; by Lowtax

steinrokkan posted:

People don't have to be caustic to each other all the time.

I agree, but if you're going to do it don't whine when people punch back.

You want to adopt the rhetoric of painting people who agree with you as nazis, sociopaths and reactionaries and then be offended when someone calls you a reformed bad dem... it's just... something else

# ? Aug 10, 2017 21:49

Willie Tomg: Feb 2, 2006

steinrokkan posted:

People don't have to be caustic to each other all the time.

bad dem poo poo stupid fucker cocksucking rear end in a top hat idiot bitch, and now here's some chapo memes

# ? Aug 10, 2017 21:50

Motto: Aug 3, 2013

Ohio State BOOniversity posted:

The DNC, part 3185. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/10/the-democratic-partys-looming-fundraising-crisis-215474

From the author's twitter:
https://twitter.com/michaelwhitney/status/895620006964150272

# ? Aug 10, 2017 21:52

ded redd: Aug 1, 2010; by Fluffdaddy

Willie Tomg posted:

bad dem poo poo stupid fucker cocksucking rear end in a top hat idiot bitch

Looks like somebody said the ~magic words~

quote:

Where We Stand

Democrats have many electoral assets. Voters trust the party more on important issues like health care, education and environmental protection, civil rights and standing up for the middle class. We should build on these strengths, but bringing new voters into our coalition also requires facing and fixing some basic electoral liabilities.

New Democracy will focus on four strategic imperatives for rebuilding progressive majorities:

Bridge America�s cultural divide
Reclaim economic hope and progress
Restore trust in government
Close the security gap

Bridge the cultural divide

Our society has fractured along fault lines of race, education and place. The economic fortunes of the best- and least-educated Americans have diverged sharply as we�ve moved into an economy that puts a premium on knowledge and cognitive skills. Citizens in rural areas and small towns increasingly seem to inhabit a different moral universe than city dwellers. Republicans are the worst offenders, but both parties have indulged in a civically corrosive form of identity politics.

To enlarge their appeal, Democrats must work harder to transcend these class and cultural divisions. For many working class and rural voters, the party�s message seems freighted with elite condescension for traditional values (especially faith) and lifestyles. What�s more, these families hear little in the national party�s economic message that seems aimed at their aspirations and struggles. That�s why Democrats should embrace a big national push to drive innovation and jobs to the people and places left behind by economic change.

It�s a mistake, however, to assume that we can reach these voters with economics alone, no matter how much we crank up the populist volume. We also have to avoid vilifying people whose social views aren�t as �progressive� as we think they should be. Listening, reasoning, empathizing and searching for common ground is integral to a new politics of persuasion.

So is putting more emphasis on the �unam� of our national motto, celebrating the shared ideals that unite Americans and help us turn our differences into strengths. On immigration, for example, Democrats should stick to their guns in supporting a humane path to legalization. But we also should take seriously public concerns about the breakdown of public order, the impact of low-skill immigrants on native workers� jobs and pay, and what many fear is a dilution of our national identity.

Most important, we need to engage voters where they live and refrain from writing any off. Even in the toughest places, rural communities and small towns, Democrats should show up and make our case. Practically speaking, we don�t need to convert GOP-leaning voters en masse, just win enough on the margins to tip elections our way.

Reclaim economic hope and progress

Rather than compete with Trump in telling working people how miserable they are, Democrats need a more hopeful story about the new economy we want to build. That story would go something like this: We are well into an historic transformation from an industrial to a knowledge economy. Shaped largely by American ingenuity and technological prowess, the knowledge economy holds the promise of better, more interesting jobs for ourselves and our children. But as we also know, automation will make many existing jobs obsolete, and it�s clear that a knowledge economy requires higher levels and skills to get and hold middle class jobs.

Trump promises to slow or block economic change and try to �bring back� yesterday�s factory jobs. Our answer should be to spur more economic innovation to create new jobs and to raise productivity and wages so that working families can share in a new era of American prosperity. This will require big changes in public policy: pro-growth tax reform; lowering regulatory obstacles to innovation and entrepreneurship; fiscal policies that favor investment over consumption; balanced energy policies that deliver high employment and lower carbon emissions; an open and globally connected economy; and, a robust new system for upskilling workers that does not require four-year college degrees.

Democrats should seize the high ground of economic aspiration and upward mobility. Rather than centering on economic victimhood and business-bashing, our narrative should inspire confidence in power of a free people to innovate, reinvent their economy and adopt progressive policies to equip everyone to get ahead in the knowledge age.

Restore trust in government

Only one-fifth of Americans have confidence in the federal government�s ability to help them solve their problems, down from 80% in the 1960s. The implications for Democrats are huge: Even when voters approve of our policy goals, they are deeply skeptical of the means by which we propose to achieve them.

It�s hard to say they are wrong. Washington is mired in bureaucratic bloat as well as political dysfunction. Unfortunately, the Obama years were a missed opportunity to use new technologies to modernize the vast federal apparatus and move it toward higher performance.

As polarization has nearly paralyzed our national government, and as ponderous federal bureaucracies fail to deal with the quickened pace of life in the digital age, Americans increasingly are looking to local governments to get things done.

Thanks to the genius of American federalism, metro America has become the nation�s epicenter of economic dynamism and public sector innovation. Mayors and metro coalitions are spurring investment in new jobs and businesses; pioneering public-private partnerships to build modern infrastructure; investing in clean energy, and laying the foundations for driverless vehicles; using technology to cut through bureaucratic barriers and empower low-income people directly; and, by ushering in a new, 21st Century model for public schools.

This suggests an exciting opportunity for Democrats to �go local.� After a century of concentrating power in Washington, Democrats can surprise voters by launching a systematic effort to push decisions and resources to local leaders. With a new vision of �progressive federalism,� we can align our ideas for solving problems with the level of government where democracy still seems to work and where citizens trust their elected representatives.

Close the security gap

On questions of personal and national security, Republicans have long held the advantage. The public sees Republicans as better able to protect us from terrorism, and also gives the GOP the edge on keeping our military strong, patriotism and law and order. Democrats lead on �foreign policy,� but voters doubt our resolve should diplomacy fail.

It�s time for our party to confront and close this security confidence gap. That means putting security first in thought and deed. During our 2016 national convention, not one speaker mentioned national security on the first day. The issue is also conspicuously absent from Congressional leaders new �Better Deal� agenda. If we don�t talk about security, we can hardly be surprised if voters don�t think it�s a top priority.

Fortunately, President Trump�s half-baked �America First� nationalism creates big openings for our party. The administration has gratuitously alienated and alarmed our allies by questioning the value of the Atlantic Alliance. The president himself has shown a weird affinity for Russia�s Vladimir Putin and other thuggish autocrats. He has railed ignorantly against one of the greatest achievements of America�s international leadership: the construction of a rules-based trade system that has underpinned an unprecedented surge in global prosperity.

All this presents Democrats with ripe targets of opportunity. We should affirm not only the strategic value of our alliances, but also the animating principle of liberal internationalism � that a freer world is a safer world for America. Our party should stand resolutely against the tide of illiberal nationalism that is sweeping and destabilizing the world. We should give no quarter to Islamist terrorists who threaten our citizens and those of other civilized countries. And Democrats should lose no opportunity to demonstrate our resolve to keep our armed forces strong and qualitatively superior to those of potential adversaries.

Read through the whole site and see how many times you can count 'pragmatic' with the other bitch-rear end buzzwords.

# ? Aug 10, 2017 21:57

Lightning Knight: Feb 24, 2012; Pray for Answer

quote:

It�s a mistake, however, to assume that we can reach these voters with economics alone, no matter how much we crank up the populist volume. We also have to avoid vilifying people whose social views aren�t as �progressive� as we think they should be. Listening, reasoning, empathizing and searching for common ground is integral to a new politics of persuasion.

So is putting more emphasis on the �unam� of our national motto, celebrating the shared ideals that unite Americans and help us turn our differences into strengths. On immigration, for example, Democrats should stick to their guns in supporting a humane path to legalization. But we also should take seriously public concerns about the breakdown of public order, the impact of low-skill immigrants on native workers� jobs and pay, and what many fear is a dilution of our national identity.

https://twitter.com/randygdub/status/796229362643152896?lang=en

# ? Aug 10, 2017 22:01

Reik: Mar 8, 2004

steinrokkan posted:

People don't have to be caustic to each other all the time.

Equated me to a volunteer SS member during Nazi Germany not 10 pages ago.

# ? Aug 10, 2017 22:01

Calibanibal: Aug 25, 2015

steinrokkan posted:

People don't have to be caustic to each other all the time.

literally mailed me an acid bomb

# ? Aug 10, 2017 22:02

WampaLord: Jan 14, 2010

Reik posted:

Equated me to a volunteer SS member during Nazi Germany not 10 pages ago.

I went out of my way over and over to be like "Look man, no one here hates you just because you have a job, we're just tired of hearing you white knight the health insurance companies" and yet you kept doubling down. You can't blame people for getting frustrated after a point.

You could have just stopped defending them at any point, but you made it this weird battle of pride that wasn't a good look at all.

# ? Aug 10, 2017 22:03

C. Everett Koop: Aug 18, 2008

steinrokkan posted:

Christ, don't subject posters to the stigma of permanent sin. Majorian has been consistently one of the most productive posters itt, and just because you don't agree with one of his points of view, you don't have to slander him as a traitor and a right wing reactionary plant.

"Well you know, me and Bob here sure are able to agree on just about everything here, except that Bob wants to gently caress children and I think that's repulsive. But other than that little thing we're right as rain!"

Purity tests are good and necessary, to keep out those who will let us down by not being fully devoted to the cause. The more purity tests the better.

# ? Aug 10, 2017 22:06

Reik: Mar 8, 2004

WampaLord posted:

I went out of my way over and over to be like "Look man, no one here hates you just because you have a job, we're just tired of hearing you white knight the health insurance companies" and yet you kept doubling down. You can't blame people for getting frustrated after a point.

You could have just stopped defending them at any point, but you made it this weird battle of pride that wasn't a good look at all.

I think there's a difference between white knight-ing insurance companies and saying things that are objectively true. You do you, though.

# ? Aug 10, 2017 22:07

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

Reik posted:

Equated me to a volunteer SS member during Nazi Germany not 10 pages ago.

Only because you were, and still are, completely unwilling to accept the social consequences of the industry where you work. Reducing your role ad absurdum can be an efficient technique without actually calling for you to be treated as a criminal.

# ? Aug 10, 2017 22:07

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

C. Everett Koop posted:

"Well you know, me and Bob here sure are able to agree on just about everything here, except that Bob wants to gently caress children and I think that's repulsive. But other than that little thing we're right as rain!"

Purity tests are good and necessary, to keep out those who will let us down by not being fully devoted to the cause. The more purity tests the better.

Well, ok, if you catch somebody in here defending children loving, I'll be on your side!

# ? Aug 10, 2017 22:08

Sneakster: Jul 13, 2017; by R. Guyovich

Lightning Knight posted:

This is asinine, at no point did I say we shouldn't help the domestic poor. I strongly object to what you're doing, which is framing it as a zero-sum game where only one group of working people can win it. I think that's disingenuous and dangerous, and further still I think that mixing nationalism with leftism is exceedingly stupid.

Edit: also, an article about the erasing of identities of black and female left-wing activists in the age of Bernie.

When you support mechanisms of wage suppression for the working poor in favor of people that look like you while saying one day we'll get around to reforms of capitalism in a more convenient timetable, it's very difficult to believe you aren't endorsing ethnic nationalism and capitalism.

If capitalism can't be reformed, than neither can tribalism. Identity politics are counter-revolutionary bourgeois self-indulgence providing an emotional narrative to hawk neo-liberal economics to suppress wages because there's always going to be someone more desperate to exploit.

The purpose of the nation state as we know it is to facilitate the interests of capital, social liberalism in inescapably entwined with market liberalism that will always work to suppress wages to support capital. Your sympathy for people that presumably share some ethnic heritage transcends your solidarity with the interests of the working class of the nation state you reside in. Resources aren't infinite, at some point the lines of membership for your tribe have to be drawn. I draw that line within the legal boundary of the nation state I reside in that supports its citizenry and its interests. Yours is ethnic nationalism that transcends the nation state you reside in, and contradicts the interests of the working class of our nation state.

You're siding with capitalists because you see it as within the interests of your ethnic-nationalism, I'm siding against capitalists because I consider it within the interests of my class. I'm not going to pretend one is more moral than the other, it doesn't make me necessarily more rational or humane for drawing that line differently than you, but its dishonest for you to pretend you've found an objectively more humane way to do so because you're disregarding costs you aren't paying.

We may both agree that dismantling capitalism and the nation state as we know it are a good thing, but I don't think that your suggestion of starting that endeavor with concessions to capital for the sake of ethnic nationalism are going to work towards that goal.

Sneakster fucked around with this message at 22:13 on Aug 10, 2017

# ? Aug 10, 2017 22:08

C. Everett Koop: Aug 18, 2008

Reik posted:

Equated me to a volunteer SS member during Nazi Germany not 10 pages ago.

I agree that's an unfair assessment; you get paid blood money to kill people.

# ? Aug 10, 2017 22:09

ded redd: Aug 1, 2010; by Fluffdaddy

quote:

and what many fear is a dilution of our national identity.

Hm, yes, this is what you should see in the platform of opposition to the fascist party.

# ? Aug 10, 2017 22:12

Reik: Mar 8, 2004

steinrokkan posted:

Only because you were, and still are, completely unwilling to accept the social consequences of the industry where you work. Reducing your role ad absurdum can be an efficient technique without actually calling for you to be treated as a criminal.

Do you think there's a non-zero chance that I am actually not a morally bankrupt person, and we just haven't been able to effectively communicate and understand each other?

# ? Aug 10, 2017 22:16

Sneakster: Jul 13, 2017; by R. Guyovich

Reik posted:

Do you think there's a non-zero chance that I am actually not a morally bankrupt person, and we just haven't been able to effectively communicate and understand each other?

Dude, your job is to maximize ROI for blood money. I might end up working as thief or a murderer. Its ok to admit you're part of a problem. We all are.

Happiness, material comfort and integrity: pick two.

# ? Aug 10, 2017 22:19

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

Reik posted:

Do you think there's a non-zero chance that I am actually not a morally bankrupt person, and we just haven't been able to effectively communicate and understand each other?

I've been trying to push you to accept that the reasoning behind your employer's business is flawed. Is all. The fact you took it as an attack against yourself speaks more of your internalization of the commercial insurance industry mantras than of my posts...

# ? Aug 10, 2017 22:19

Kokoro Wish: Jul 23, 2007; Post? What post? Oh wow.
I had nothing to do with THAT.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhUO2WNDWHI

# ? Aug 10, 2017 22:23

WampaLord: Jan 14, 2010

Reik posted:

Do you think there's a non-zero chance that I am actually not a morally bankrupt person, and we just haven't been able to effectively communicate and understand each other?

Do you realize if you had stopped after your first, I dunno, 10 posts or so, your thread reputation would be "That actuary guy who dropped some cool knowledge about the insurance industry" but through your constant defending and doubling down, your thread reputation is now "dude who really really really wants to defend his industry at all costs."

Again, it's not a good look and you can stop at literally any time. Just stop! Stop defending this terrible loving industry!

# ? Aug 10, 2017 22:23

Yeowch!!! My Balls!!!: May 31, 2006

Reik posted:

Do you think there's a non-zero chance that I am actually not a morally bankrupt person, and we just haven't been able to effectively communicate and understand each other?

i do not believe you're morally bankrupt, for what it's worth

what's the financial status of a 54-year-old who has $100,000 in assets and doesn't know he has pancreatic cancer yet, actuary boy

# ? Aug 10, 2017 22:30

Reik: Mar 8, 2004

steinrokkan posted:

I've been trying to push you to accept that the reasoning behind your employer's business is flawed. Is all. The fact you took it as an attack against yourself speaks more of your internalization of the commercial insurance industry mantras than of my posts...

I definitely internalized you comparing working in health insurance with volunteering to join the SS as a personal attack. I'm sorry for attributing malice to your statement that wasn't there.

I don't expect ethics from any corporation, no matter what it is. I expect corporations to act within industry regulations and according to law. Outside of that, I expect nothing else from them. If a health insurer is acting within the legal system and acting according to health insurance regulations, I don't consider them any more or less ethical than any other corporation also acting within the legal system and following industry regulations.

I think regulations and laws need to be changed when it comes to healthcare, and those changes will drastically change how health insurers operate if they even do still exist afterwards.

# ? Aug 10, 2017 22:30

NewForumSoftware: Oct 8, 2016; by Lowtax

legal =/= ethical

# ? Aug 10, 2017 22:31

Willie Tomg: Feb 2, 2006

NFS you're not a reactionary because you return people's jabs sometimes. you're a reactionary because your entire persona is reacting to some percieved slight or other, and you're seemingly always at the center of whatever this godawful thread's shitfit-of-the-moment happens to be on the decreasing number of days i can bear to read it.

NewForumSoftware posted:

It's hilarious that you get calls for decorum the second someone who's viewed as "one of the good ones" comes out and says some dumb poo poo. Call Me Charlie?

Call Majoram a bad dem apologist bad thinker?

Woah son, you're not worthy of the socialist label!

meanwhile you'll all come running in on horses to go NFS really is a reactionary

like, what actual idea are you advancing here beyond "no gently caress YOOOUUUUUUU". You don't seem to care about putting forward your actual ideas or experiences in order to build a better idea than you could alone, you just like shouting from the safety of a monitor--and that's okay in small doses, I'd be a massive hypocrite to imply I haven't done that too, but I also make other kinds of posts, sometimes! You don't seem to and I really looked, at least until page 12 where I couldn't stomach it anymore.

This is the actual damage JeffersonClay and NevvyZ and despera and fulchrum and joy reid and peter daou inflict besides making bad posts: it is so satisfying to tear into their weak, plainly disingenuous and limply articulated bleatings that otherwise reasonable people can mistake savaging them in sympathetic company as a kind of community. That in yelling at someone you are somehow accomplishing work. You are not. They are gadfly, all of them, and they do not exist outside of social media. They cannot exist in a world of material relations, thats how they got so broken in the first place.

majorian isn't one of the good ones, he's one of the ones, just like you and me. He's just a person trying his best, and if you think your understanding of your politics is settled 100% then you're crap at politics. My gauzy memories of yesteryear's posting include him in some particularly vicious disagreements about the discrepancies between the ACA's stated goals, and how it effectively turned the demand curve for a bad product into a vertical line straight up. and nobody loving cares anymore or should. That was a bunch of stuff that happened in the past. I don't really care about historical posting beef, I care about what's happening right now. What's happening now is the post WW2 and potentially Westphalian order is coming the gently caress apart in our lifetimes and we can either yell and feel good for a second or we can see someone taking steps to forge a personal politics based on material relationships and not theoretical understandings from academia. Neither of us is prepared to live in a world where folks can't dust themselves off and do it better this time.

And the thing that busts me up about you is that its really apparent that you've had none of the IRL experiences that would tell you in so many words to chill the hell out. It's a little galling to see someone so flagrantly inexperienced in the IRL application of this thread--and to be clear, I'm an inconsistent amateur in my local chapter who mostly volunteers a warm body when things work out--attempt to lay down the law like you do, because that's not what organization is and if it were I wouldn't be a part of it.

For the first time in my life something really beautiful in politics is beginning to take shape at the grassroots level and the only tool in your box is savaging people with memes. That's tragic, because if you could let go of whatever compels you to be so angry all the time you could be a part of something wonderful.

# ? Aug 10, 2017 22:31

Reik: Mar 8, 2004

NewForumSoftware posted:

legal =/= ethical

Exactly. I don't think corporations are ethical entities, they're legal entities, and treating them as ethical entities has allowed them to gain power in our system that they shouldn't have.

# ? Aug 10, 2017 22:32

NewForumSoftware: Oct 8, 2016; by Lowtax

Willie Tomg posted:

NFS you're not a reactionary because you return people's jabs sometimes. you're a reactionary because your entire persona is reacting to some percieved slight or other, and you're seemingly always at the center of whatever this godawful thread's shitfit-of-the-moment happens to be on the decreasing number of days i can bear to read it.

Oh so you mean reactionary in a totally different meaning than this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactionary

Ignorance or stupidity, take your pick

quote:

For the first time in my life something really beautiful in politics is beginning to take shape at the grassroots level and the only tool in your box is savaging people with memes. That's tragic, because if you could let go of whatever compels you to be so angry all the time you could be a part of something wonderful.

yes, all I've posted are savage memes, reactionary politics and mean words

honestly the amount of words you just wasted on attempting to "elevate the discourse" is shocking

here's a loving barnburner of a thought, it doesn't matter if everyone in this thread agrees or is nice to each other if we all agree that political discourse in this country needs to move left, posteruing about who's the REAL socialist is pointless bullshit

Reik posted:

Exactly. I don't think corporations are ethical entities, they're legal entities, and treating them as ethical entities has allowed them to gain power in our system that they shouldn't have.

quote:

If a health insurer is acting within the legal system and acting according to health insurance regulations, I don't consider them any more or less ethical than any other corporation also acting within the legal system and following industry regulations.

You're saying right here "as long as they act within the legal system I don't consider them any more or less ethical than any other corporation also acting within the legal system". That's pretty clear cut "ethics for corporations means following the law" which is just a weak defense of corporate rights imo

# ? Aug 10, 2017 22:43

Willie Tomg: Feb 2, 2006

NewForumSoftware posted:

Oh so you mean reactionary in a totally different meaning than this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactionary

Ignorance or stupidity, take your pick

yes, all I've posted are savage memes, reactionary politics and mean words

honestly the amount of words you just wasted on attempting to "elevate the discourse" is shocking

here's a loving barnburner of a thought, it doesn't matter if everyone in this thread agrees or is nice to each other if we all agree that political discourse in this country needs to move left, posteruing about who's the REAL socialist is pointless bullshit

Cool.

# ? Aug 10, 2017 22:44

NewForumSoftware: Oct 8, 2016; by Lowtax

Oh I didn't mean you were a Conservative, I just meant you posted ideas which were conservative from time to time, much like Donald Trump and George Bush.

If I just heave virtirol your way don't be bothered, I'm just trying to build a more inclusive posting environment for my bad dem friends. I don't even know what the words I'm typing mean!

# ? Aug 10, 2017 22:46

Sneakster: Jul 13, 2017; by R. Guyovich

This is the point at which a white guy with dreads starts playing the drums.

# ? Aug 10, 2017 22:47

Willie Tomg: Feb 2, 2006

Sneakster posted:

This is the point at which a white guy with dreads starts playing the drums.

Yeah.

# ? Aug 10, 2017 22:48

Reik: Mar 8, 2004

NewForumSoftware posted:

Oh so you mean reactionary in a totally different meaning than this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactionary

Ignorance or stupidity, take your pick

yes, all I've posted are savage memes, reactionary politics and mean words

honestly the amount of words you just wasted on attempting to "elevate the discourse" is shocking

here's a loving barnburner of a thought, it doesn't matter if everyone in this thread agrees or is nice to each other if we all agree that political discourse in this country needs to move left, posteruing about who's the REAL socialist is pointless bullshit

You're saying right here "as long as they act within the legal system I don't consider them any more or less ethical than any other corporation also acting within the legal system". That's pretty clear cut "ethics for corporations means following the law" which is just a weak defense of corporate rights imo

I don't expect corporations to make good moral decisions. If I don't want corporations behaving in a certain way I want to have a law on the books preventing them from behaving that way. If we didn't have a law that made murder illegal I would still expect a fair amount of humans to not murder people because it's a bad thing to do however I would not expect a corporation to not murder someone if it meant profit.

# ? Aug 10, 2017 22:49

Calibanibal: Aug 25, 2015

hell, we could do worse for ourselves than a Shadowrun future

# ? Aug 10, 2017 22:50

Yeowch!!! My Balls!!!: May 31, 2006

Reik posted:

I don't expect corporations to make good moral decisions. If I don't want corporations behaving in a certain way I want to have a law on the books preventing them from behaving that way. If we didn't have a law that made murder illegal I would still expect a fair amount of humans to not murder people because it's a bad thing to do however I would not expect a corporation to not murder someone if it meant profit.

remember back when you were taking offense to the perception of being morally bankrupt

# ? Aug 10, 2017 22:51

NewForumSoftware: Oct 8, 2016; by Lowtax

Reik posted:

I don't expect corporations to make good moral decisions. If I don't want corporations behaving in a certain way I want to have a law on the books preventing them from behaving that way. If we didn't have a law that made murder illegal I would still expect a fair amount of humans to not murder people because it's a bad thing to do however I would not expect a corporation to not murder someone if it meant profit.

I don't expect corporations to act ethically but I believe we can view the actions of corporations as more or less ethical. Regardless of the legal realities, some corporations (not all corporations are publically owned) have leadership that do value making at least somewhat ethical choices. I'll agree it's somewhat of a throwing stones in glass houses situation but that doesn't change the fact that we can judge them.

# ? Aug 10, 2017 22:51

WampaLord: Jan 14, 2010

Reik posted:

I don't expect corporations to make good moral decisions. If I don't want corporations behaving in a certain way I want to have a law on the books preventing them from behaving that way. If we didn't have a law that made murder illegal I would still expect a fair amount of humans to not murder people because it's a bad thing to do however I would not expect a corporation to not murder someone if it meant profit.

This is essentially the corporate version of "All lives matter."

Yes, all corporations are bad, but some are much worse than others.

# ? Aug 10, 2017 22:53

Reik: Mar 8, 2004

WampaLord posted:

This is essentially the corporate version of "All lives matter."

Yes, all corporations are bad, but some are much worse than others.

Then the regulations surrounding those corporations need to be tightened or improved

# ? Aug 10, 2017 22:55

NewForumSoftware: Oct 8, 2016; by Lowtax

Reik posted:

Then the regulations surrounding those corporations need to be tightened or improved

So you see no ethical difference between say, Xe and Amnesty International? Maybe not the best example, but pick your favorite 5013c

# ? Aug 10, 2017 22:57

Reik: Mar 8, 2004

NewForumSoftware posted:

I don't expect corporations to act ethically but I believe we can view the actions of corporations as more or less ethical. Regardless of the legal realities, some corporations (not all corporations are publically owned) have leadership that do value making at least somewhat ethical choices. I'll agree it's somewhat of a throwing stones in glass houses situation but that doesn't change the fact that we can judge them.

I feel like this would be viewing the actions of a dog ethically. Yes dogs behave similar to humans in some ways, but you can't treat them as ethical actors. You have to keep them on a leash when you take em outside.

# ? Aug 10, 2017 22:59

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 8, 2024 20:10

WampaLord: Jan 14, 2010

Reik posted:

Then the regulations surrounding those corporations need to be tightened or improved

And that's what we were trying to discuss and you went all "But my jooooooooooooooooooob!"

We want to regulate insurance out of existence for the average person. Insurance should be a premium thing, like Medicare Advantage, not a baseline requirement to access the health care system.

# ? Aug 10, 2017 22:59

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The democrats are a waste

«‹›483 »