|
Sarcastr0 posted:Ends don't justify the means. This is a fundamental aspect of moral systems, even bad ones. I respect this bold claim that Consequentialist moral systems simply don’t exist. Suck it, Jeremy Bentham.
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 10:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 21:43 |
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:My argument is that the US (and every government, really) falls far short of this, but that as the principle is something we should be striving to be closer to not moving further away from Okay, so given that we now agree that the US falls far short of rule of law, and laws are unequally applied, do you see why some posters would see the law being selectively applied to prevent good things from happening, while many bad things sail right through, and conclude that the following line of argument is bad? "Biden should ignore the court order" "Rule of law is important" Do you understand why defending a bad outcome with "rule of law" will seem very unconvincing to people who believe that "rule of law" is already being ignored when it is convenient to the wealthy and powerful? Can you make an argument for why this case merits special consideration and we should consider the rule of law to be a sufficient reason to allow new drilling, when the rule of law often does not apply when rich people want to do something? SurgicalOntologist posted:The fact that they won't even pretend to put up a fight is why they don't get any benefit of the doubt from the left, why the legal details don't really matter. If it wasn't this obstacle, it would be another. Yes, basically this. Biden can have basically unlimited air time if he wants, there's no reason he just has to shrug and take this ruling lying down. Esran fucked around with this message at 11:21 on Nov 14, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 11:11
|
|
|
The laws of the nation as they exist lead to bad outcomes. Whether that is bad guys getting off for crime, people being evicted/bankrupted/killed/etc., or government insisting its hands are tied from doing good things, those are all bad outcomes. That's all. The guy who pointed out I posted this from a computer I legally own is incredibly smart.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 11:15
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Yup, this. One-third or more of all eligible voters don’t vote. They’re disproportionately poor and POC. “What would the Dems have to offer to keep you from voting for Trump” is absolutely the wrong question to be asking. The right question is, “Why can’t the Dems turn out a huge chunk of voters that tend to lean in their direction?” It would be nice if the dems learned from Virginia and tried to run a midterm plan on good policies that could convince a lot of those non-voters that lean in their direction to vote for them, but I suspect that instead the main messaging for the midterms is gonna be yelling about Trump and 1/6. Messages that absolutely won't work on those non-voters.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 12:56
|
|
|
Liberals itt seem to have to be told over and over and over that the real question most would-be voters ask isn't 'Will I vote for Biden or Trump' but 'Should I even bother voting at all?' and it still doesn't seem to get through. I don't have high hopes for the actual party.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 13:15
|
|
|
I guess we're never going to Build Back Better, eh?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 13:39
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:Liberals itt seem to have to be told over and over and over that the real question most would-be voters ask isn't 'Will I vote for Biden or Trump' but 'Should I even bother voting at all?' and it still doesn't seem to get through. I don't have high hopes for the actual party. On the other hand, do you think adding another item or two here and half a trillion would significantly increase turnout? https://mobile.twitter.com/stewartforutah/status/1458465740168876037
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 13:55
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:What's the generationally bit here? Enough people die of old age... not to imply all younger people must be less conservative, but it does seem like there's a trend in that direction.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 13:58
|
|
|
Sarcastr0 posted:Ends don't justify the means. This is a fundamental aspect of moral systems, even bad ones. Nothing other than the ends ever can justify the means, unless you're caught in some kind of absolutist deontological extremism.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 15:17
|
|
|
christmas boots posted:I respect this bold claim that Consequentialist moral systems simply don’t exist. Suck it, Jeremy Bentham. Disnesquick posted:Nothing other than the ends ever can justify the means, unless you're caught in some kind of absolutist deontological extremism. I did not expect to get this much pushback on this philosophy 101 concept.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 15:25
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:On the other hand, do you think adding another item or two here and half a trillion would significantly increase turnout? This feels like 2016 all over again, where the Hillary campaign kept telling group after group to gently caress off: we aren't gonna do a living wage, we aren't gonna do single payer, we aren't gonna bring home the troops, we aren't gonna stop TPP because it's the gold standard, we aren't going to do free college And every time someone said "uhh I think she's loving up" we heard that this or that issue didn't matter, it's insignificant, maybe 1% of voters care about this, she's going to win by 20%. And we didn't notice that we said something like that 20 times and then she lost by 1% 2021 Virginia too. "It doesn't maaaatttterrrr we'll win by 9 points" Maybe a party that keeps barely losing with disastrous results should care about every single last percentage point of the electorate, but don't mind me I'm just some idiot who could never even understand how the Virginia Model was supposed to work VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 15:41 on Nov 14, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 15:38
|
|
|
Sarcastr0 posted:Even consequentialism pays attention to the consequences of method. Because you made an absolute and clearly incorrect statement that would get destroyed by your philosophy 101 TA. "All moral systems consider means, sometimes" is a considerable difference from what you said, which was "ends don't justify the means is a fundamental aspect of moral systems," which is roughly translated as "teleological ethics literally doesn't even exist."
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 15:45
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:On the other hand, do you think adding another item or two here and half a trillion would significantly increase turnout? Will any of this actually pass
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 16:12
|
|
|
Srice posted:It would be nice if the dems learned from Virginia and tried to run a midterm plan on good policies that could convince a lot of those non-voters that lean in their direction to vote for them, but I suspect that instead the main messaging for the midterms is gonna be yelling about Trump and 1/6. Messages that absolutely won't work on those non-voters. Meanwhile, Republicans are busy courting the white suburban voters that the Dems have spent years wooing, while the Dem response is to fall back on "TRUMP!": quote:Largely overlooked amid the party’s dismal suburban results in Virginia and New Jersey last week, Republicans regained ground in the vote-rich Philly suburbs after years of losses under Trump. The GOP flipped multiple row offices in populous Bucks County, carried a state Supreme Court race there, and even came close to winning seats on the county council in Delaware County, where Biden romped by nearly 30 points in 2020. At least it's finally mask-off for Dems, who are admitting that they lack an affirmative argument for voters to elect them. brugroffil posted:I guess we're never going to Build Back Better, eh? The Senate comes back from its week-long celebration of veterans day and only has a week of work before going on Thanksgiving break; just enough time to push through the military-spending bill while Pres. Parliamentarian passes judgment: quote:“Due to the House pushing back consideration of the [Build Back Better Act ] to the week of November 15th, it is likely that the Senate considers the NDAA this upcoming week as we await House passage of the BBBA,” Schumer told Democrats in a Dear Colleague letter on Sunday morning. After one week in session, Congress is scheduled for a Thanksgiving break next weekend.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 16:15
|
|
|
brugroffil posted:Will any of this actually pass Probably not. Democrats always do this, pass the half-assed thing first, robbing them of all leverage and never completing the project. Would be surprised if this time turns out different. Doesn't matter whether it's BBB or protecting dreamers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 16:15
|
|
|
Fame Douglas posted:Probably not. Democrats always do this, pass the half-assed thing first, robbing them of all leverage and never completing the project. Would be surprised if this time turns out different. Doesn't matter whether it's BBB or protecting dreamers. Dems: "Yeah, we promised you a steak dinner, but you're going to get this half of a stale Triscuit and be goddamn grateful for it because the Republicans wouldn't even get you that. Complaining that you're still starving is just purity testing."
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 16:18
|
|
|
Srice posted:It would be nice if the dems learned yeah
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 16:23
|
|
|
brugroffil posted:Will any of this actually pass I have my doubts any of it will pass. Manchin is whinging about debt and inflation, so he has all the excuses he needs to kill it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 16:26
|
|
|
I'm glad they're letting the childhood tax credit that put such a big dent in childhood poverty expire after 6 months. A real "yeah, see, we could easily help but we won't. gently caress you" to America. e: at least we get a lovely highway bill out of it. incrementalism! brugroffil fucked around with this message at 17:05 on Nov 14, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 17:02
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/TerryMoran/status/1459849916034002951?t=35f7XJT2QZO8aIxwAtKm6A&s=19 Big Yikes here. They only lost by like what, 7 points in 2010?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 17:06
|
|
|
rscott posted:https://twitter.com/TerryMoran/status/1459849916034002951?t=35f7XJT2QZO8aIxwAtKm6A&s=19
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 17:28
|
|
|
It doesn't help that voters want things but get mad when you spend the money https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1459920694532358144 And there's not much the executive can do about short term inflation, so we get to watch a slow motion train wreck between now and next November.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 17:30
|
|
|
rscott posted:https://twitter.com/TerryMoran/status/1459849916034002951?t=35f7XJT2QZO8aIxwAtKm6A&s=19 Big yikes is right. quote:Among the key factors is the economy. With inflation soaring, 70% say the economy is in bad shape, up from 58% last spring. While just half blame Biden directly for inflation -- its worst in 31 years -- his approval for handling the economy overall is down to 39%, off 6 points just since early September and 13 points from last spring. eta: FlamingLiberal posted:It's really not helping that the WH does not have a coherent Covid strategy at this point. They are trying to push the vaccine mandates but that's about it, and who knows if that will survive legal challenges thanks to crazy judges. Actually, Biden's polling has been fairly good on his handling of covid, both in this poll & most others. It's the economic stuff that's killing him. This certainly doesn't bode well for next year. Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 17:35 on Nov 14, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 17:30
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:It doesn't help that voters want things but get mad when you spend the money I think this is an issue where the question itself works to convince the respondent; I'm sure if you asked "do you believe the government is not doing enough to take care of the poor and ill?" you'd likely get a similarly positive response. I dont think it's very avoidable, and owes to the reactionary nature of the average independent.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 17:39
|
|
|
I think it's p.cool that our idiot populace thinks a government that basically does nothing unless you happen to fit into a narrow band they themselves decide is "too big".
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 17:46
|
|
|
I feel like 99% of thread conversations revolve around the obvious, no-brainer things that Democrats should do to win elections forever and make America a better country. And whether or not moderates can be trusted to do any of those things. I mean the entire blueprint is there, all the Social Democratic parties in Europe with few exceptions (mainly France) are practically built-in the demographics and political system of their respective nations. A century of, if not outright domination, at least the best electoral results Because yeah, when you guarantee worker rights, free healthcare, free education including university, etc. the generations benefiting from those tend to vote for you. Does anyone, anyone in the thread actually disagree on the actual end goals Democrats should do? The disagreements, to me, seem to be about realistic paths toward achieving those. And I feel like people don't exactly understand the insane path that those parties, with few minor exceptions, (mainly Scandinavia) had to go through to get to the point where they could institute those things: Complete party-controlled and tied labor movement leadership and organizing. More mass strikes than one could even count. Massive inter-party fights where the useless factions were ground down and the leftist ranks put to order. Agitation against enemies through centrally controlled and locally supported propaganda networks. Huge voter drives in every concievable way and at every concievable level. (Sometimes actual violence, sometimes civil wars) I don't think anyone here is under the impression that Democrats are an equivalent of an European Social Democratic party. But those parties did not end up there because leftists kept haranguing the liberals with their words, or forcing performative votes, or not voting in elections. Neither did they end up there because some people kept voting for the center because the right was more terrifying, though I don't think anyone here votes for anything but the most left candidate available. Is it just that there are too few actual leftists in the Democratic Party (and maybe United States) to do anything? Or that the actual leftists are too nice to do the cutthroat things that taking control of a party or agitating would require? I feel like if the party doesn't represent you AND the political system prevents other parties from forming, at least in a way that would threaten it, the only way forward that doesn't involve violence is a hostile takeover of that party utilizing all the available means. The puzzle I have is that the GOP's radical side managed to do this with the same means available, while the Dems' radical side is unwilling to even contemplate using the same means, aside from few individual commentators and scattered groups.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 17:48
|
|
|
Esran posted:I think mentioning methane when defending Democratic climate policy is really weird. This wasn't that long ago https://apnews.com/article/business-5dfbc1aa17701ae219239caad0bfefb2. It's weird because understanding energy is complex and counter-intuitive. Industrialized nations like the United States are reducing emissions through gains in efficiency, the eliminating coal along with renewables, etc. Many developing countries are still largely dependent on oil and gas and until they transition it's important all of that resource extraction is done carefully and highly regulated like ever other industry that's done in every other Country. Esran posted:Which part of the last 30 years would lead you to believe that this could be what the future looks like, let alone that the Democratic Party would be the vehicle to get us there? Democratic leaders have said, on camera, that they do not want a fair and equitable society. Honestly, I'm not sure but the idea that both parties are the equally the same on climate change simply isn't true which was the original OP. The difference is literally night and day.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 18:02
|
|
|
One need look no further than Obama's drone war body count or numerous Dem city govt responses to protests to see how much the party values "the rule of law". They wipe their rear end with it the moment it becomes convenient for them. Dems only care about the rule of law when it can be weaponized against marginalized groups or used as a shield to defend inaction while protecting capital from even the most modest reforms.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 18:07
|
|
|
rscott posted:https://twitter.com/TerryMoran/status/1459849916034002951?t=35f7XJT2QZO8aIxwAtKm6A&s=19 Whoever won the election would be facing high fuel prices and inflation. That is what is on everyone's mind during the holiday season. It's kind of silly to post polls suggesting the party in power would, at the moment of those issues are hitting households the clearest, face electoral blame even if they were not directly responsible for it. So what's the point? The elections aren't today, they are over a year from now. The real question is what would lowering fuel prices and diminishing inflation mean in the context of the 2022 elections? What would the same situation or worse do? Shammypants fucked around with this message at 18:18 on Nov 14, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 18:15
|
|
|
Shammypants posted:Whoever won the election would be facing high fuel prices and inflation. That is what is on everyone's mind during the holiday season. It's kind of silly to post polls suggesting the party in power would, at the moment of those issues are hitting households the clearest, face electoral blame even if they were not directly responsible for it. So what's the point? The elections aren't today, they are over a year from now. The real question is what would lowering fuel prices and diminishing inflation mean in the context of the 2022 elections? What would the same situation or worse do? There are things the Biden Administration could have done in the past months, and could still do, that would narrow this gap in how the parties poll. Those things have been discussed at length ITT. The fact that they refuse to do so is political malpractice. Majorian fucked around with this message at 18:29 on Nov 14, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 18:26
|
|
|
Majorian posted:There are things the Biden Administration could have done in the past months, and could still do, that would narrow this gap in how the parties poll. Those things have been discussed at length ITT. The fact that they refuse to do so is political malpractice. Yes, that's true, fuel and piped utility gas alone constitute major price increases that can be controlled. We are already seeing rental car prices return to normal in most places in the country, costs of renting rooms in hotels are declining. Used car prices and new car prices are expected to drop by April. A kick in the rear end to shipping across oceans and 4% inflation expected for Q2 can be a Q1 reality.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 18:32
|
|
|
Shammypants posted:Whoever won the election would be facing high fuel prices and inflation. That is what is on everyone's mind during the holiday season. It's kind of silly to post polls suggesting the party in power would, at the moment of those issues are hitting households the clearest, face electoral blame even if they were not directly responsible for it. So what's the point? The elections aren't today, they are over a year from now. The real question is what would lowering fuel prices and diminishing inflation mean in the context of the 2022 elections? What would the same situation or worse do? The point is that midterm elections are normally a wallop for the party that holds the presidency, and 2022 is shaping up to be one of historical proportions. I don't think the Biden admin needs to do any one specific thing, but they need to start doing *something* besides slowly rolling back small parts of Trump's executive agenda. Biden has the executive and he needs to start using it. Trump was garbage but at least his admin had the guile to throw a bunch of poo poo against the courts to see what sticks. The alternative is to stay the current course, lose 50+ house seats and 5+ senate seats, and end up with nothing but executive action anyway starting in 2023. Unfortunately it seems the Biden admin is either incompetent, or is competent and is purposefully defending the status quo on all fronts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 18:36
|
|
|
Esran posted:Do you understand why defending a bad outcome with "rule of law" will seem very unconvincing to people who believe that "rule of law" is already being ignored when it is convenient to the wealthy and powerful? Are there other court orders that are being ignored because they inconvenience the rich? You can make a good argument that laws are unequally enforced, but that's less extreme than simply ignoring a federal court ruling you don't like. Your starting premise is that the Biden administration could easily ignore this court order because they ignore others that rich people don't like is wrong. The rule of law *does* typically apply in this kind of situation. Esran posted:Yes, basically this. Biden can have basically unlimited air time if he wants, there's no reason he just has to shrug and take this ruling lying down. He isn't. It's being appealed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 18:51
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:It doesn't help that voters want things but get mad when you spend the money My gut reaction after looking at that polling is to go big. Pass the biggest, most expansive infrastructure bill you can possibly manage (pretend for a moment that ""moderates"" like Manchin and Sinema don't exist), don't give a single gently caress about "expanding government". The programs fall into place, people's lives get better. Suddenly, voters don't give so much of a poo poo about "expanding the role of the government" when it is demonstrated that - surprise, surprise! - the government can work for the people instead of against them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 18:52
|
|
|
Shammypants posted:Whoever won the election would be facing high fuel prices and inflation. That is what is on everyone's mind during the holiday season. It's kind of silly to post polls suggesting the party in power would, at the moment of those issues are hitting households the clearest, face electoral blame even if they were not directly responsible for it. So what's the point? The elections aren't today, they are over a year from now. The real question is what would lowering fuel prices and diminishing inflation mean in the context of the 2022 elections? What would the same situation or worse do? Once again: Polls are useful in spotting trends over time, especially across different polling outfits. The fact that Biden's approvals have dropped steeply, especially among independents, and especially on the issue of the economy, certainly does augur that the midterms a year from now will be brutal for Dems, especially because the party holding the presidency usually does lose congressional seats, and especially because it looks like Dems are losing white suburban voters (based on special elections in addition to polling) after courting them for several years. Even if inflation does switch gears, it'll probably just hold prices steady, instead of actually reducing them. Now, some Dem economists & writers think that 11 percent increases in hourly pay among service workers will offset those increases, but the polling is telling us that that's not the case; in fact, Biden's current strongest approval is among the wealthiest Americans, which should be a tipoff as to how Biden's economic policies as well as inflation are shaking out among the lowest-paid lucky duckies. eta: Shammypants posted:Yes, that's true, fuel and piped utility gas alone constitute major price increases that can be controlled. We are already seeing rental car prices return to normal in most places in the country, costs of renting rooms in hotels are declining. Used car prices and new car prices are expected to drop by April. A kick in the rear end to shipping across oceans and 4% inflation expected for Q2 can be a Q1 reality. Actually, both car-rental prices and hotel prices are back to being super-high for the holiday season. Do you want me to find the story on this that I read the other day? Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 19:06 on Nov 14, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 19:00
|
|
|
Sarcastr0 posted:Even consequentialism pays attention to the consequences of method. Teleological ethics are quite explicitly about how the morality of an action is justified by the ends.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 19:07
|
|
|
christmas boots posted:Teleological ethics are quite explicitly about how the morality of an action is justified by the ends.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 19:11
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:The fact that Biden's approvals have dropped steeply, especially among independents, and especially on the issue of the economy, certainly does augur that the midterms a year from now will be brutal for Dems, especially because the party holding the presidency usually does lose congressional seats, and especially because it looks like Dems are losing white suburban voters (based on special elections in addition to polling) after courting them for several years. Also, new district maps and more voter suppression measures making the Democratic disadvantage ever that much higher. Utah just flat out ignored the voter-approved independent redistricting commission. Fame Douglas fucked around with this message at 19:15 on Nov 14, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 19:12
|
|
|
F_Shit_Fitzgerald posted:My gut reaction after looking at that polling is to go big. Pass the biggest, most expansive infrastructure bill you can possibly manage (pretend for a moment that ""moderates"" like Manchin and Sinema don't exist), don't give a single gently caress about "expanding government". The programs fall into place, people's lives get better. Suddenly, voters don't give so much of a poo poo about "expanding the role of the government" when it is demonstrated that - surprise, surprise! - the government can work for the people instead of against them. This is the only play they have, and they are completely psychologically incapable of it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 19:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 21:43 |
|
|
fyi, shammypants:quote:People renting cars for holiday trips may be in for some sticker shock. https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-chicago-car-rental-high-prices-holidays-20211112-sow7q3wxrrghtdqxtqztnhgeuq-story.html Car-rental prices are only up 4 percent over last year, but fewer people were traveling last year bc of covid. And it's certainly not true that "We are already seeing rental car prices return to normal in most places in the country, [and] costs of renting rooms in hotels are declining." Then there's this: quote:Drivers will also shell out more to fill the tank. Gasoline prices were 49.6% higher in October than they were a year ago, according to the most recent Consumer Price Index report from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (same source) You seem to be pinning your political hopes & dreams on wishful thinking, more than anything else, while ignoring the hard data that's showing up in polling or for consumer prices, and this kind of goes back to what I've said about politics being a religion to some people. Maybe this is another echo-chamber effect, but it's weird to keep saying that all the evidence with which you're being presented itt is faulty and oh, and look over here, here's another thing you believe to not be true, because your heart tells it just can't be that way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 19:23
|
|