|
Josef bugman posted:But the thing is it's not that people have had "enough" of experts, its the fact that experts have been so commonly surprised by things that they should have seen coming that all trust has been eroded in the idea of expertise. I mean look at banks and bankers, every time there is a run or a variety of things start going wrong it turns out the warning signs have been in place for years but the people whose job it was to pay attention didn't because they could get more money in the short term and because they are experts they will never see the inside of a prison cell. Sure and that's not always a good phenomenon: you could point out that maybe it's a good thing if the electorate no longer trust bankers or finance, but then you also have people using this exact same set of logic on doctors and turn to alternative medicine.
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 18:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 11:30 |
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:This is a really selective telling of what actually happened. Don't Ask Don't Tell was repealed in 2010 and the DoJ declared DoMA unconstitutional in 2011. From early on, Obama's presidency was the most gay friendly presidency in the history of the United States. You're also ignoring that it was pretty much agreed upon that Obama was full of poo poo when he said he was against it in 2008. He had been in favor of gay marriage for over a decade at that point, and a lot of the word we heard after the fact was that he wanted to announce his support as POTUS even earlier. Also there is no way to argue that being in the 2000s before recognizing gay rights is anything but too slow, but democrats in the US legalized gay marriage before the majority of europe did. only 13 of 28 EU countries have full gay marriage now, only 14 of 28 let gay people adopt. Finland requires transgendered people get sterilized, the US has let people change their gender since the 60s. The democrats should have favored gay rights 50 years ago or in the 1700s, or from the start of time, but the US has generally been in the first 5 or 10 countries making progressive moves for LGBT rights. There is a lot of things the US is behind on, but it is case by case, there is lots of things democrats are right of the right wing parties of other first world countries on, but that isn't some absolute universal rule and the democrats are sometimes to the left of things going on in other first world countries. Women couldn't fully vote in all elections in switzerland till the 90s! Even most (but not all) republicans are the left of that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 19:37
|
|
|
Typo posted:Sure and that's not always a good phenomenon: you could point out that maybe it's a good thing if the electorate no longer trust bankers or finance, but then you also have people using this exact same set of logic on doctors and turn to alternative medicine. Except that that logic can be confronted by appealing to materialistic concerns (at least where I am from) by pointing out poo poo like the NHS. Having an accessibility of a service/system both reduces its mystique and increases it's power to push back against dangerous hogwash. The way to get people to trust systems is to have the system generally work in favour of all people. The way to get the system to be distrusted is to it appear to work for the benefit of a few people. C.F. How benefits are framed over here as it being for "scroungers" instead of people who are suffering. And I think the problem is more that when you position yourself as a moral exampler and the richest and best nation on the planet it is good to not have hundreds of your own citizens dying to despair and guns and poverty. You can claim to be improving or changing or what have you and people will be more considerate of your flaws, but when you posit "this is the greatest nation" you are going to get pushback from that hyperbole. Josef bugman fucked around with this message at 20:10 on Feb 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 20:03
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Except that that logic can be confronted by appealing to materialistic concerns (at least where I am from) by pointing out poo poo like the NHS. Having an accessibility of a service/system both reduces its mystique and increases it's power to push back against dangerous hogwash. The way to get people to trust systems is to have the system generally work in favour of all people. The way to get the system to be distrusted is to it appear to work for the benefit of a few people. C.F. How benefits are framed over here as it being for "scroungers" instead of people who are suffering. OTOH in 2008 alternative medicine was a 4.5 billion pound industry in the UK, an increase of 50% from 2003, and if the trend continued it's probably even greater today http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/alternative-medicine/3355120/Complementary-medicine-seeking-out-alternatives.html quote:And I think the problem is more that when you position yourself as a moral exampler and the richest and best nation on the planet it is good to not have hundreds of your own citizens dying to despair and guns and poverty. You can claim to be improving or changing or what have you and people will be more considerate of your flaws, but when you posit "this is the greatest nation" you are going to get pushback from that hyperbole.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 20:35
|
|
|
Typo posted:OTOH in 2008 alternative medicine was a 4.5 billion pound industry in the UK, an increase of 50% from 2003, and if the trend continued it's probably even greater today Yes, but we don't have poo poo like, for instance, not vaccinating our kids. I think it can be boiled down to the decline in a belief that systems actually work for the majority of the people. And if this is a common problem across various areas, perhaps it behoves us to try and combat it. And what I am saying in the second paragraph is more aimed at Owlfanciers comment about America being "top notch" on such things as Gay marriage, whilst a great many other nations have pipped it and still claiming that it is somehow a perfect victory.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 20:39
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:there is lots of things democrats are right of the right wing parties of other first world countries on, but that isn't some absolute universal rule and the democrats are sometimes to the left of things going on in other first world countries. Women couldn't fully vote in all elections in switzerland till the 90s! Even most (but not all) republicans are the left of that. If you want to have a really sad thought in this vein, the US is usually ranked relatively high in immigration freedom, ease of legal immigration and rights of illegal immigrants. Never ranked first, but in the top ten on a lot of metrics and in the top half for almost everything. Like that is another topic where there are even some republican policies are to the left of policies some other first world nations have. And absolutely I am sure someone now is going to quote this post and say "oh, so you are making excuses for how bad immigration is? if it's better than some other country that makes it okay!?! awful!" and that is not it at all, it's also important to identify places where the US is progressive and push on those too, not just the places it's regressive. If there are democratic or us policies that are worse than the rest of the world it's important to fix those, if there is places the democrats have better policies than most countries it's possible to push those advantages as well, not just incorrectly declare everything bad forever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 20:54
|
|
|
In the Insect Kingdom it was Election Time. Now, insect politics being what they were, the poor voters of the Insect Kingdom only wound up with two choices of greedy pests. One was huge, fat, corpulent and unbounded in its greed, and acrimonious in its hatred for other types of insects.The other was slightly smaller and occasionally tossed platitudes to the less fortunate insects as a cover for its greed. The larger one promised, if elected, that it would devour all the flour and wheat in the kingdom, and even despite this, its supporters still rallied to it with fanatical devotion. The smaller one promised that it would devour merely most of the flour and promised to improve rights for the other insects. Thankfully, the insect kingdom made its choice rationally, and when it came to election day, it was no surprise that the constituents opted for the lesser of two weevils. Thank you. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 21:27
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The thing that first really soured me on the Democratic Party as a whole was their total inaction on gay rights during 2009-2010. They completely stonewalled gay activists for two whole years, doing everything they could to stall even on no-brainer issues...and then after they lost the election, they easily rushed DADT repeal through in just a week or two. It was almost like they'd been purposely sitting on it for some reason. And then of course Obama just so happened to "evolve" on gay marriage right in the middle of his reelection campaign. It certainly lent itself to a cynical view of the Dems' commitment to gay issues, that's for sure. Stuff like this is why I wonder if a lot of the people who argue against the left in these discussions aren't pretty young (or otherwise only recently started paying attention to politics). I can understand being confused and irritated with peoples' cynicism/pessimism if you haven't already lived to see how the Democrats usually behave. It probably seems like people are just arbitrarily assuming the worst for someone in that position. Owlofcreamcheese posted:I don't dislike the radical left, I dislike people that hate democrats more than they hate republicans or try to put on any sort of show of not being able to distinguish the two. Anyone who tries to pull any "I'm so far left I won't vote or help either of them" is not nearly as leftist as they tell themselves. A better leftist party is not going to come out of you supporting the republican party. A better leftist party is not going to come out of you retweeting the latest republican talking point about hillary clinton. Virtually everyone who posts here (and I'm saying "virtually" just on the off-chance there's some random exception, even though I can't think of one) knows the Republicans are worse than the Democrats. But the Democrats are the only realistic vector towards any sort of good future, so them being lovely is a very big problem. Liberals talking about how bad Republicans are accomplishes literally nothing at all. Republicans do not care what liberals think about them. This is why, even from a sheer pragmatic perspective, it makes more sense for people on the left to focus on the Democratic Party (at least within the constrains of our political system, where only two parties are viable). Also the majority of people arguing with you in these threads vote Democratic. This thread is specifically about the topic of lesser of two evils voting, so it's going to attract a somewhat disproportionate percent of people who prefer not to vote (though I think most people here vote themselves and are against lesser-evilism as a strategy). This whole "why focus on group X instead of group Y" logic can also be turned right back at you. Why in the world would someone focus on the radical left instead of the mainstream Democrats? The latter actually hold power and are considerably more dominant than the former. There are actual reasons why someone on the left would choose to focus more on Democrats than Republicans, but I can't think of a single one for focusing on the radical left more than the mainstream center-left. The fact that you can't actually pinpoint a single policy or ideological position expressed by the left that you disagree with should set of warning alarms in your head regarding how rational your feels about this issue are. The same isn't true for the inverse; the radical left has a long list of specific things they want the the Democratic Party either isn't accomplishing or doesn't even support in the first place. Owlofcreamcheese posted:Like, this is what an actual criticism of a democratic policy looks like. It has specific complaints, actionable issues. It lists out what is between the ACA and an actually good plan. It is something other than "I read single payer is the most left so because I'm most left that is the only thing I could ever support despite other countries having a variety of enviable models" This thread isn't a thread for discussing those specific issues, and people shouldn't feel a need to reiterate arguments that can easily be found in other threads (or elsewhere) constantly. And if your issue is a lack of knowledge about policy specifics, that applies at least as much to people who hold center-left/centrist ideology. But for some mysterious reason you only target the radical left. I wonder why that is! Instant Sunrise posted:The democrats were able to campaign on gay rights because groups like Code Pink held their feet to the fire on it. And in case you forgot, they were late as hell to the party on it. Obama didn't support gay marriage until 2012. In 2008 his campaign position was that marriage was between a man and a woman. In 2007 Barney Frank stabbed trans people in the back on ENDA and the democratic congress still wouldn't pass it when they had a majority. Yeah, this is the thing. I don't know how old Owlofcreamcheese is, and I could understand their perspective if they're ~18-22 and don't have much of a political memory, but positive change has never really occurred through being strongly supportive of the Democratic Party. It occurs because various groups pushed those issues themselves and expressed their dissatisfaction to the Democratic Party in various ways. Heck, we're even seeing this right now with the whole MfA issue. If everyone on the left were someone like Owlofcreamcheese, we would have never reached the point where some Democrats feel an obligation to at least vocally support MfA. Owlofcreamcheese posted:I literally said that is the good sort of criticism and the guy going single payer or nothing is the bad and dumb kind that hurts people. I don't think anyone really says this, at least not on these forums, and when/if they do it's because alternatives are usually brought up in a bad faith attempt to derail a more radical solution (see: that United States of Care thing). Single-payer is an easy to understand and relatively simple thing that would be a considerable improvement to the status quo. If you actually cared about these issues, instead of just wanting to use them as a bludgeon against the left, you would have responded to people with something like "yeah, single-payer is good, but something X might also work well." The only time it might be remotely consistent to take a negative tone against such a person is if we lived in a world where Democrats were actively supporting and promoting a good, non-single-payer solution. But they're not, so your actions do not make sense for a person who supposedly cares about the state of American healthcare. Ultimately, the vast majority of Americans are not particularly educated or informed about things like policy. Which, yet again, begs the question of why you get so irritated and upset with people on the left end of the spectrum who aren't much different from any other American in this regard (except with better ideology). I don't see this same attitude aimed at your average random mainstream liberal who also knows jack poo poo about anything beyond the latest Democratic talking points. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 02:34 on Feb 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 02:20
|
|
|
Even if you vote for the democrats you should be looking to beat the poo poo out of them at every other time other than when you vote for them, because literally the only reason to vote for them is because they are the least bad option and not voting does nothing, there's nothing about them that would actually make me want to vote for them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 02:32
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:A politician or ceo making a policy decision is literally the opposite of a technocrat. Honest answer - usually when people in discussions like this use technocrat as a pejorative, they're referring to people who try to talk about political issues as if they had empirically right/wrong answers and could be divorced from ideology (which obviously isn't true). Even for more specific areas, there's often a difficult balance between needing expertise while also wanting to avoid conflicts of interest. For an obvious example, many/most people with expertise in finance are likely to also have some sort of connection to to the finance industry and be potentially compromised as a result. This is a legitimately tough issue to navigate, and the best answer I can come up with is to institute rules that strongly limit the extent to which a person can be involved with (or benefit from) an industry after leaving the government. For example, someone who works in a finance-related position in the government could never work for the finance industry again (or otherwise benefit from the finance industry). I wouldn't mind paying a high life-long stipend or something in exchange for this, since I think it's a small cost to pay to avoid a big vector of potential corruption. (The situation with Obama's speeches is a good example of this. We don't have any evidence Obama was able to do those speeches (or receive as much money) due to his actions while in office, but if that was the case it would be virtually impossible to prove. As a result, I think it's best to not allow people in Obama's position to do that sort of thing in the first place, and I don't mind paying them $1M/year as a stipend if that's what's necessary. It's just a huge vector for indirect corruption that people can benefit from relevant industries after leaving office. Even if they don't receive the money/job in exchange for their actions, it still creates a strong perverse incentive for them to not upset the industry in question while in office.) Iron Twinkie posted:They are the types that love lists, power point presentations, and charts and file peoples lived experiences under a back page labeled "externalities". This is another aspect. People referred to as technocrats sometimes attempt to force data-based solutions for problems where either the data (or methodology) doesn't exist to give the solution needed or they lack the expertise to actually do the analysis correctly (which is something the vast majority of people won't be able to identify). In practice, many issues must be dealt with using "soft-skills," and overvaluing "data-based solutions" can result in bad decisions and bad policy. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 02:50 on Feb 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 02:43
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:This is another aspect. People referred to as technocrats sometimes attempt to force data-based solutions for problems where either the data (or methodology) doesn't exist to give the solution needed or they lack the expertise to actually do the analysis correctly (which is something the vast majority of people won't be able to identify). In practice, many issues must be dealt with using "soft-skills," and overvaluing "data-based solutions" can result in bad decisions and bad policy. Or outright buy data to support an ideological position and suppress anything that doesn't support it, to give the semblance of objective truth.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 02:52
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:The fact that you can't actually pinpoint a single policy or ideological position expressed by the left that you disagree with should set of warning alarms in your head regarding how rational your feels about this issue are. The same isn't true for the inverse; the radical left has a long list of specific things they want the the Democratic Party either isn't accomplishing or doesn't even support in the first place. I agree with the left because I am on the left. The people who are not on the left is anyone who does not vote democrat, who try to stop anyone else from voting democrat or seem to display even the slightly hesitation in being able to instantly name that the democratic version of any policy is almost without exception incalculably better than the republican policy. If you ask about voting for the lesser of two evils and come to any conclusion but "I'm gonna vote democratic, of course, DUH" you are not on the left. "which party do I vote for" should not be a question for anyone even slightly to the left.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 03:08
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I agree with the left because I am on the left. The people who are not on the left is anyone who does not vote democrat, who try to stop anyone else from voting democrat or seem to display even the slightly hesitation in being able to instantly name that the democratic version of any policy is almost without exception incalculably better than the republican policy. If you ask about voting for the lesser of two evils and come to any conclusion but "I'm gonna vote democratic, of course, DUH" you are not on the left. dude, you think uber is good for labor. i think it's a bit early to be saying you're on the left
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 03:10
|
|
|
I mean while I agree that it is better to vote for the lesser evil despite the argument that doing so stifles the kind of political change people actually need and is an unsustainable policy because change will only ever be brought through force and that includes within lovely "left" parties, by forcing loss on them; the American democratic party is probably the worst example I can think of to actually support that belief. It does still support it, I think, but barely. Their policies aren't "incalculably" better they're "tolerably" better. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 03:22 on Feb 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 03:19
|
|
|
Condiv posted:dude, you think uber is good for labor. I think that the driver getting 80% of the fare and the company getting 20% is much closer to an ideal system than a driver getting a wage. Nothing else in the US social system or labor laws supports that model very well so generally the gig economy is pretty awful (no one gives you insurance, there is no safety net if you don't make enough, ect). But the ideal company in utopia would run way more like uber than yellow cab.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 03:23
|
|
|
Alt take: unionized labor is good, preying on workers with predatory car loans to pay for a handful of approved cars is bad, job security is important
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 03:26
|
|
|
Are you sure you're not an ancap?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 03:26
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I think that the driver getting 80% of the fare and the company getting 20% is much closer to an ideal system than a driver getting a wage. no, a wage is better because then the driver isn't hurt if business is slow or the company hires too many drivers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 03:28
|
|
|
Yeah I really don't get how you get "leftist" from "I think it's better for individuals to absorb all the risk and take all the gains as free rugged individuals beholden to nothing and nobody" as opposed to "workers collectively hold employers to account via unionization and their collective work is used to guarantee the welfare of all members of the company as best as possible" The former is way more libertarian/ancap than anything I'd recognize as collectivist leftism.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 03:31
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I agree with the left because I am on the left. The people who are not on the left is anyone who does not vote democrat, who try to stop anyone else from voting democrat or seem to display even the slightly hesitation in being able to instantly name that the democratic version of any policy is almost without exception incalculably better than the republican policy. If you ask about voting for the lesser of two evils and come to any conclusion but "I'm gonna vote democratic, of course, DUH" you are not on the left. "which party do I vote for" should not be a question for anyone even slightly to the left. Ladies and Gentlemen, I propose to you the Owlofcreamcheese Pledge. I am a proud leftist. No matter who the Democrats deport, who they imprison, and whose human rights of myself or those I care about they offer up on the altar of bipartisanship and decorum, I will never agitate. Including one's right to their own body. So long as they are slightly better than an increasingly white nationalist alternative, I will never waiver. I am the captive electorate. Better things are not possible. I am now and forever, the Democratic party's vote gimp. Please shovel dicks into my mouth.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 03:42
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Yeah I really don't get how you get "leftist" from "I think it's better for individuals to absorb all the risk and take all the gains as free rugged individuals beholden to nothing and nobody" as opposed to "workers collectively hold employers to account via unionization and their collective work is used to guarantee the welfare of all members of the company as best as possible" I mean that is why I said "Nothing else in the US social system or labor laws supports that model very well so generally the gig economy is pretty awful". Without unions, socialized benefits and a bunch of safety nets a gig economy is worse than what we have. But if you aren't on your own, I'd rather 80% of the company profit goes to the worker than the company. (and then to taxes and dues, to pay for all that stuff).
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 03:51
|
|
|
Hey remember how the bipartisan immigration bill that T-Kaine offered up made it so that DREAMers couldn’t be too politically outspoken? And yet everybody ignored that poison pill because “decorum” and “bipartisanship.”
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 03:52
|
|
|
Iron Twinkie posted:So long as they are slightly better than an increasingly white nationalist alternative, I will never waiver I edited out all the parts you don't need.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 03:53
|
|
|
You are confusing profit with revenue. Car maintenance, insurance, liability and gas costs are all on the driver on Uber.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 03:53
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I mean that is why I said "Nothing else in the US social system or labor laws supports that model very well so generally the gig economy is pretty awful". Because the “gig economy” model is so loving atomized that individuals working have no collective bargaining power. Plus by 1099ing people, the company offloads all the overhead costs and the risk onto the workers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 03:55
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I mean that is why I said "Nothing else in the US social system or labor laws supports that model very well so generally the gig economy is pretty awful". But, the individual worker, though... As opposed to recognizing that the reason uber functions is because of the collective effort of the workforce, people wouldn't use it if it wasn't for that collective coverage provided by all its laborers working together, and thus all those workers should, really, have a share of the total income. Which would mean... *drumroll* that you give it to the company and it's paid out like a wage, so that if someone happens to have a good night, everyone shares it, and in turn when they have bad nights, they are supported, because that collective effort is what makes taxis viable. Even if you are envisaging some turbosocialist future, thinking the ideal model of work is the one that compensates people as individually as possible is really loving weird from an avowed "leftist". Like, the idea that we should have a social safety net but that encouraging individual wealth accumulation is good is, at best, middle of the road social democracy, and there's definitely ways to be on the left without being that. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 04:01 on Feb 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 03:56
|
|
|
Instant Sunrise posted:Because the “gig economy” model is so loving atomized that individuals working have no collective bargaining power. Yeah, you have convinced me: "Nothing else in the US social system or labor laws supports that model very well so generally the gig economy is pretty awful".
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 03:57
|
|
|
You do realise that by default Uber drivers make less than minimum wage accounting for depreciation of their personal vehicles, rigt?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 04:10
|
|
|
Inescapable Duck posted:You do realise that by default Uber drivers make less than minimum wage accounting for depreciation of their personal vehicles, rigt? yeah: "Nothing else in the US social system or labor laws supports that model very well so generally the gig economy is pretty awful".
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 04:11
|
|
|
I mean, like, it's pretty disingenuous to say that uber is good because, if you discount everything about it except for the fact that it pays via commission, it's actually giving more money to the worker. By that logic MLMs are good for the worker too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 04:12
|
|
|
Neoliberals really seem to desperately believe along with libertarians that apps and startups can somehow find the cheat codes to loophole their way out of the crushing inequality of end-stage capitalism instead of having to face up to its inherent flaws and look at alternatives.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 04:12
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I mean, like, it's pretty disingenuous to say that uber is good because, if you discount everything about it except for the fact that it pays via commission, it's actually giving more money to the worker. yeah "Nothing else in the US social system or labor laws supports that model very well so generally the gig economy is pretty awful".
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 04:13
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I edited out all the parts you don't need. 'I don't understand the
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 04:15
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:yeah "Nothing else in the US social system or labor laws supports that model very well so generally the gig economy is pretty awful". That's basically an admission that the claim is completely meaningless, though. "If society was completely different then the Uber model would be really cool!" does not translate to anything meaningful in reality. It's about as useful a statement as saying that if dragons were real it'd be awesome to start a taxi firm where you fly people around on them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 04:16
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I edited out all the parts you don't need. It's the only part that matters and why I can't support the lesser evil. The Democratic party as it exists instantly caves to Republicans now. What makes you think that will change when the white nationalists, literal Nazis, worming their way up the Republican party get in charge? They have a clear vision of how to deal with human rights and inequality. You change the definitions of human rights and who qualifies for them. If there is any hope of confronting that, there needs to be an equally clear vision of a better future to rally behind. If that means the Democratic party must be made to fear it's base more than it loves compromise then so be it. If it means they are out of national power for another 2, 4, or 8 years until they are something capable of confronting that, then so be it. We can't afford to support a party that only understands how to capitulate to the other side and sell out it's own base. Iron Twinkie fucked around with this message at 04:28 on Feb 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 04:24
|
|
|
Instant Sunrise posted:Hey remember how the bipartisan immigration bill that T-Kaine offered up made it so that DREAMers couldn’t be too politically outspoken? And yet everybody ignored that poison pill because “decorum” and “bipartisanship.” The other part that gets ignored is that the second that DREAMers became a category, it became the bipartisan consensus that "gently caress all the non-DREAMers"
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 04:26
|
|
|
Iron Twinkie posted:It's the only part that matters and why I can't support the lesser evil. The Democratic party as it exists instantly caves to Republicans now. What makes you think that will change when the white nationalists, literal Nazis, worming their way up the Republican party get in charge? They have a clear vision of how to deal with human rights and inequality. You change the definitions of human rights and who qualifies for them. If there is any hope of confronting that, there needs to be an equally clear vision of a better future to rally behind. If that means the Democratic party must be made to fear it's base more than it loves compromise then so be it. If it means they are out of national power for another 2, 4, or 8 years until they are something capable of confronting that, then so be it. We can't afford to support a party that only understands how to capitulate to the other side and sell out it's own base. This is true too, for all that I think it's better to vote for the lesser evil, you really are just perpetuating all the stuff they're complicit with, and it might turn out better that they were broken sooner, rather than far too late. It might be better now, but at some point without a drastic change, it's going to stop being so. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 04:32 on Feb 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 04:30
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:That's basically an admission that the claim is completely meaningless, though. Sure, I didn't bring up uber, someone brought it up at me. People can keep trying to convince me the gig economy is bad and I can keep copying and posting that I think the gig economy is bad. I think a company where most of the money that goes to the people that works there and only a small percentage goes to the company is really cool, but the reality of 2018 america make it actually very bad. The ability to now run companies with such thin overhead will probably do some cool things in countries that are better than the US or hopefully in a future US that is better than it is now. If you are looking for a taxi job in the next ten years don't go with uber unless you live in one of those cities where taxi drivers were already mistreated so extremely that even uber is better.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 05:12
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:This is true too, for all that I think it's better to vote for the lesser evil, you really are just perpetuating all the stuff they're complicit with, and it might turn out better that they were broken sooner, rather than far too late. Accelerationism is very dumb and you should vote for democrats in every election that they are even one centimeter better than the republicans. If you want them to be more than 1 centimeter there are primaries to vote in, there are candidates you can support or donate to, there are organizations you can work at, but when you go to vote if you ever think "maybe I should vote for the worse guy and hurt people to prove a point" it doesn't prove any point to anyone except that you are now a republican voter.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 05:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 11:30 |
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Accelerationism is very dumb and you should vote for democrats in every election that they are even one centimeter better than the republicans. If you want them to be more than 1 centimeter there are primaries to vote in, there are candidates you can support or donate to, there are organizations you can work at, but when you go to vote if you ever think "maybe I should vote for the worse guy and hurt people to prove a point" it doesn't prove any point to anyone except that you are now a republican voter. Undirected accelerationism is generally unconstructive and requires you to be able to switch off your sense of empathy, but the concept itself is not simply "dumb". You should know full well that the powerful do not hand out anything voluntarily or through charity or from any concern for the welfare of others, they are only brought to heel through violence of some sort, either direct, personal, and physical, or material and financial. The democratic party is an industry in America and its function is to generate power and profit for its investors, and refusing ever to consider voting for anything else is handing it a blank cheque to do whatever it wants as long as it isn't the republican party. At some point, you will have to hurt it, particularly the people who run it, and badly, to force it to become something worthwhile. And every moment that is delayed is more ground ceded to the republicans and more suffering inflicted on people the world over as a result of their policy. You might believe that it can be hurt other than by taking votes from it, and I would like to hope that too. But I would suggest that is more based on blind optimism on both our parts, and speaking personally, an unwillingness to switch off my sense of short term empathy, rather than evidence. Nothing is won but through force of some kind, or the threat of it, and the amount you can threaten a politician while still handing them power is limited, particularly in the American political scene. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 05:42 on Feb 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 05:38
|
|