I would agree that the implementation of globalization has been done in a way that benefits the rich even more, and I'd like to change that. But the answer isn't to end globalization, it's to do it better.
Almost everyone outside of party politics agrees that Fair Trade is better then Free Trade, so this is an easy issue to win votes with.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
For all the "made the textile industry boom", there was an awful lot of human misery that went along with the Industrial Revolution. It took centuries to develop new political means of handling those changes and create the modern developed world's middle class. Now we're dealing with both globalization and automation simultaneously - pushing the cost of labor down and reducing the need for it.
That is kind of my entire point.
"It took centuries to develop new political means of handling those changes and create the modern developed world's middle class.We figured this stuff out a long time ago. Abraham Lincoln Was a big proponent of tariffs. We figured out child labor, eight hour work day, overtime, etc. It was awful, and took the most ill shit to wake people up, but we did it. We even created Labor Day, so we wouldn't forget all this stuff. It was all there in my middle school history text book, spelled out for little kids.
But since I was a kid I recall Reagan pushing a neoliberal agenda. I remember George HW Bush and Bill Clinton in total agreement on NAFTA. Clinton giving favored nation status to China a few years after the Tiananmen Square massacre. Also see link in post above. Bush Dubya did it and Obama did it.
The American people may not know the details of all this labor and trade stuff, but they live the direct effects everyday, and get the basic idea. In their parents (and grandparents) day, a worker could support a wife and two kids, buy a house, cars, a nice fishing boat, college, healthcare and retirement on a blue color job salary.
So what changed?
Do people not work hard anymore? That's not it.
Are workers productivity going down? Nope.
Education. Hun? Nah.
Health, working life, etc? Nope.
What changed is the political class has backtracked on decades of hard earned protections, allowing consolidated big business to run wild like we haven't seen in decades. Huge gains are being made, but they are going almost completely to ultra rich. The burden of funding the government has been shifted drastically to the working classes like never before.
All it took was for an a@*&!%@ like Donald Trump to acknowledge this, and he kicked the crap out of like a dozen or more republicans. Then he turned around and kicked the ass of the Democrat. A guy with an almost 60% disapproval rate kicked the ass of every political opponent in the United States.
All the Democrats need to do to win virtually every office is to get their heads out of their asses on these issues, and get some credibility. Bernie had it through a decent record, and getting lots of small donations. The democrats have a few good options like Warren, Ellison, (Dean is probably too tainted), and fresh faces like Tammy Duckworth. If they get their voting records and funding straight, (and lets be honest, the voting isn't going to really happen until the the Wall Street money is cut) they can win. But while credibility can be gained, it can be even more quickly be lost.
If they stick with Schumer types, the best thing that can happen for the country is a quick flush of the political bowl, so a relevant party can join the Two Party System party.
Almost everyone outside of party politics agrees that Fair Trade is better then Free Trade, so this is an easy issue to win votes with.
I would agree that the implementation of globalization has been done in a way that benefits the rich even more, and I'd like to change that. But the answer isn't to end globalization, it's to do it better.Is it? Do you actually have evidence for this?
I mean, I think so, but I'm a liberal elitist. A lot of people don't act on it, if they do think so. Cheap wins out and I'm far from convinced that it wouldn't in talking about trade deals either.
I don't think I have ever met anyone who actually believes in pure free trade or totally free market principles. Not many people would tolerate their children getting killed poisoned by tainted milk for example.
There is a pretty easy test, just ask people if their employer should be allowed to replace them with a worker who gets paid a dollar an hour and has no rights. Outside of a few Type-A personality jerks, and economics majors, the universal answer is no.
Owners love Free Trade. Workers love Fair Trade. Basically no one, anywhere, ever, even suggests no trade.
Then they'll go to Walmart and buy the cheap clothes from bangladesh (or where ever they're being made these days).
Of course they do. Because that is a system where you are asking the poor and middle class to individually take on the economic burden while someone who does not, has a distinct economic advantage over them. Most of the people who shop at Wal-Mart, and ALL the people who work there, are the people LEAST able to shoulder the burden of global trade inequity. That would also be fighting a government and powerful wealth elite who are doing everything they can to further that inequity. Why should they be asked to shoulder that burden alone when their rent is due, the kids need food, and you just moved their job to Bangladesh?
The basic premise of government in a civilized society is to do what the individual can not be asked to do individually. We don't ask every single citizen to arrest criminals, fight fires, and care for the sick individually, so why should we ask them to take on the burden of trade, and labor and environment rights, individually.
It brings to mind a discussion on these boards about Paizo's policy on printing their material. The basic take-away was that they attempted to print in the USA, and preferred to, but it wasn't realistic to compete in a market where others did not, and therefor under cut them by large margins.
We have basically figured out that there should be minimum standards for trade, and changes that erode those policies are NEVER popular. One corporations should not be allowed to ignore those basics and still compete without consequence. I honestly don't know anyone who would disagree (economists excluded).
3. How did it compare to other polls?EVERY MAJOR POLL had Clinton ahead by AT LEAST 5 points. It wasn't just one poll. It was the average, it was the trend.Are you claiming there were two polls in Oregon?
Edit: even still, you're not actually comparing a poll to another poll. I'm calling you out on your lack of specifics. In that line, you still have no specifics.
You're making a claim to being right as you talk in vague generalities with implications of data, but no actual data. You're arriving at conclusions based on what you think is true, without actually looking at facts.
See, I'm arriving at conclusions based on observation. I observed what appeared to be a serious bias in favor of one candidate and then predicted a continuation of that trend into the future.
To be plain, there is a wood chipper. On the wood chipper is a sign that reads, "Safe to put your hand in."
Now I've seen signs before. Generally I am open to signage as a good conveyer of information. But I watch anyway. I observe people putting there hands into the wood chippper. I observe the result. It doesn't appear to be safe after all.
Now, to reach the opinion that the sign is wrong and it is in fact dangerous to put your hand in, I didn't have to look into who produced the sign, the model of wood chipper, the mechanics of wood chipper, or other wood chipper signs. I can still predict that people continuing to put their hands in the wood chipper will not be safe.
Essentially, I don't have to know why it is unsafe to know that it is unsafe.
If my observation isn't convincing then go ahead and put your hand in the wood chipper.
Or, Democrats, go ahead and keep trusting polls that tell you what you want to hear.
The main leftist argument in support of free trade is as a diplomatic tool—kinda like how Trump wants to tolerate Assad as a diplomatic tool to beat Daesh. The "necessary evil" argument. I don't agree with it, but it's important to recognize.History shows us, engagement is more effective than non-engagement. Refusing to interact with a country has essentially zero effect. I'm willing to hear arguments for a better strategy, but I want to see evidence.
Successes: Germany, Japan, Poland, China, Russia, South Africa
Failures: North Korea, Iran, CubaWe've successfully made North Korea and Cuba poor, but it hasn't changed their government or culture for the better. There are aspects of Cuba that are good, but they'd have been even better off if allowed to trade with the US and most likely the government would have become less extreme.
Compare that to South Africa. Yes, there was a call for boycotts, but evidence shows they weren't effective at all. It was engagement and pressure that got the government to change. Being part of the world community put pressure on them to change.
No, sorry, you misunderstand me. I don't claim that free trade isn't an important tool. The point of my disagreement is mainly with priorities. Trade is important, but I don't think it's worth the damage we do with free trade zones. We need to pull back and regulate it more closely. Until we effect that major change, we're just the North keeping the South "managed" by leaving slavery legal.
Edit: Or to put it more simply: You said "Almost everyone outside of party politics agrees that Fair Trade is better then Free Trade, so this is an easy issue to win votes with. "
I asked if you had evidence of that and you replied with arguments why they should, but not that they did. I'm wary of that.
Fair enough. I offer only my own, anecdotal experiences. I have talked with thousands of people about these issues, and only about 1% fall into the free trade category.
What ratio of people that you talk to believe in completely unrestricted free trade? For example - should their bacon be legally allowed to contain unlimited amounts of feces? What percentage agree that the free market should be allowed to decide that kind of thing?EDIT:
Here is the slick salesmanship angle for ya.
Ok, that one is pretty silly.
Here is a good one from public citizen
EDIT:
"An NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll in 2010 Only 17 percent in 2010 believed that FTAs [Free Trade Agreements] have benefited the United States. "
Despite a push from both political parties and a from free trade loving corporate media, only 17% think they are benefiting the US. I'm guessing en even lower percentage think they are benefiting the average US worker!
There's a long distance between that and "Fair Trade", if I understand the terms correctly. Even the "Free Trade" agreements aren't actually that kind of completely unrestricted.
That is a good point! They usually include various corporate give aways like exemptions from laws and liability.
Have you ever met anyone who supports NAFTA? I don't think I have meet a NAFTA supporter since the 1990's?
I don't wish to mis-characterize your statement.
Did you mean to say that people with/that spend the money get to dictate what speech is allowed or acceptable?
What speech is acceptable to be given a platform at the institution they are funding, yes. Not overall.
All speech is allowed, within boundaries established by law, but there is no obligation for an institution to provide a stage for speech. If you doubt that, demand to speak on the floor of Congress.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Zero-sum thinking won't make the dialog any better. In fact, it makes it less likely for useful dialog to occur.Just as soon as they are tuition free, you'll have a point. Until then I think those who are paying ten thousand or more dollars per year should have a say.The protests merely ask that the speaker not be provided a stage by the institution, and with it the apparent approval of the institution for the speaker's words.Universities, at least the public ones, ought to be required to give the stage to anyone. The format ought to be a moderated debate though. I think bad ideas should be heard. Plainly.
And just as plainly, and at the same event in short order, ought to be handily refuted for the nonsense they are by a speaker with another POV.
The golden mean fallacy is part of the reason we're where we are today. Legitimizing patently ridiculous ideas, and giving them a fair hearing led to devaluation of science and education, while contributing to the "alternative facts" perspective we now see reigning.
You advocate here for moderated debate. By all means, observe some attempts at such. YouTube is plentiful with taped debates. If you watch enough, you'll notice certain patterns. Often the purveyor of bad ideas will know they cannot win a direct debate, so they'll talk around the debate in order to use the debate for self-promotion. An excellent example of this is Ray Comfort, who does well in ambush style interviews, but can't handle a prepared opponent.
Debating a bad idea doesn't make it go away, it gives it only serves to elevate it, give it publicity, and spreads it to a wider audience. Especially in today's "choose your own reality" culture, this is not a good thing.
Almost everyone outside of party politics agrees that Fair Trade is better then Free Trade, so this is an easy issue to win votes with.
I would agree that the implementation of globalization has been done in a way that benefits the rich even more, and I'd like to change that. But the answer isn't to end globalization, it's to do it better.Is it? Do you actually have evidence for this?
I mean, I think so, but I'm a liberal elitist. A lot of people don't act on it, if they do think so. Cheap wins out and I'm far from convinced that it wouldn't in talking about trade deals either.I don't think I have ever met anyone who actually believes in pure free trade or totally free market principles. Not many people would tolerate their children getting killed poisoned by tainted milk for example.
There is a pretty easy test, just ask people if their employer should be allowed to replace them with a worker who gets paid a dollar an hour and has no rights. Outside of a few Type-A personality jerks, and economics majors, the universal answer is no.
Owners love Free Trade. Workers love Fair Trade. Basically no one, anywhere, ever, even suggests no trade.
That's what's known as a loaded question. Of course the answers will skew a certain way, because the question is worded to encourage that response.
Try this one "Do you think it's right that the government crushes small businesses under heavy regulations?" That's the opposing loaded question that will get you responses showing massive support for free market policies.
If you want an unbiased response, you need to ask in an unbiased way. Or, better yet, ask the same question a few times in different ways. A good survey instrument checks for consistency of opinion by asking a question from different angles and seeing how well the results correlate. Try a five point Likert with "Wage, health, and safety standards are needed to protect workers" and "Businesses face too many government regulations", and I suspect you'll find the support you think exists isn't as clear cut as you believe.
There are plenty of NAFTA supporters. Many claim it was beneficial (that was Clinton's fairly steadfast argument), while others doubt it really did anything at all—good or bad. It opened up trade with Mexico, which they say has been very helpful in some ways.
And if you just used slaves, you could skip paying any salary.
You can't. You still need to keep the slaves fed and housed , or they die. or worse, sabotage your factory and burn it to the ground.
The same morality that allows you to use Chines sweatshops is the same morality that would allow slaves.
Its better. Not by nearly as much as i would like though.
More seriously, why have labor and environmental laws at all if you are just going to allow people to skirt them by manufacturing outside the country and then sell their products in the US with no consequence?
Because then your back yard has clean air, water, and happy peasants. Not unbreathable air, polluted water, and an angry army of peasants waiting to go galt on your golden toilet sitting keister.
Also, not to get all socialist, but if robots make the products, who buys them? Henry Ford figured that he could make more money if workers could afford products. A buyer is a key aspect of manufacturing in the first place...
Tradgedy of the commons. Every manufacturer needs someone who can afford to buy their stuff but no manufacturer wants to be the one paying it, because it doesn't make them individually as much money.
I think one thing that needs to be said is you guys need to remember your talking to people. unless your talking to convince yourself you don't turn heads or change minds by being a jerk to everyone. all it does is make you disliked. people won't care about your points they will just ignore you or ignore your points and argue with you neither one ever getting anywhere. need to learn how to talk to each other like we're people not random argument generating robots.
Even when you, you who are one of the least pointed commentators here (except when you're being silly), give a compliment it is instead a qualified compliment. AKA a backhanded compliment.
...what? It's not a compliment at all. With all due respect to Kirth, that was just a callout of the person he was arguing with. And I have no idea what point you're trying to make.
Debating a bad idea doesn't make it go away, it gives it only serves to elevate it, give it publicity, and spreads it to a wider audience. Especially in today's "choose your own reality" culture, this is not a good thing.Like banning the speaker from a university doesn't "serve to elevate it, give it publicity, and spread it to a wider audience"?
C'mon.
It gives it publicity. That's pretty much all it does. Treating conspiracy theories and hatred like they're normal and debatable gives them dignity as well. It is unwise and dangerous.
When fascism rises, we have few good options. The ideas will likely spread regardless of what we do, but at the very least, we must remind our society: This is not normal.
That reminder is meaningless, though, if we treat it as if it were.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Debating a bad idea doesn't make it go away, it gives it only serves to elevate it, give it publicity, and spreads it to a wider audience. Especially in today's "choose your own reality" culture, this is not a good thing.Like banning the speaker from a university doesn't "serve to elevate it, give it publicity, and spread it to a wider audience"?
C'mon.
One flaw with that: The flap over a speaker canceling or being cancelled is raising discourse about free speech, not the speaker's ideas. Unless you've looked into it yourself, all you'd know about the speaker's ideas are that some people find them highly objectionable.
This isn't the Barbara Streisand effect.
Debating a bad idea doesn't make it go away, it gives it only serves to elevate it, give it publicity, and spreads it to a wider audience. Especially in today's "choose your own reality" culture, this is not a good thing.Like banning the speaker from a university doesn't "serve to elevate it, give it publicity, and spread it to a wider audience"?
C'mon.
One flaw with that: The flap over a speaker canceling or being cancelled is raising discourse about free speech, not the speaker's ideas. Unless you've looked into it yourself, all you'd know about the speaker's ideas are that some people find them highly objectionable.
This isn't the Barbara Streisand effect.
I generally agree, though it can lead to less support for the protesters positions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Debating a bad idea doesn't make it go away, it gives it only serves to elevate it, give it publicity, and spreads it to a wider audience. Especially in today's "choose your own reality" culture, this is not a good thing.Like banning the speaker from a university doesn't "serve to elevate it, give it publicity, and spread it to a wider audience"?
C'mon.
One flaw with that: The flap over a speaker canceling or being cancelled is raising discourse about free speech, not the speaker's ideas. Unless you've looked into it yourself, all you'd know about the speaker's ideas are that some people find them highly objectionable.
This isn't the Barbara Streisand effect.
Except no, he WAS going to speak to maybe 100 college kids and now he's all over cable news talking to millions about how young progressives hate free speech this and 100k in damages that.
3. How did it compare to other polls?EVERY MAJOR POLL had Clinton ahead by AT LEAST 5 points. It wasn't just one poll. It was the average, it was the trend.Are you claiming there were two polls in Oregon?
Edit: even still, you're not actually comparing a poll to another poll. I'm calling you out on your lack of specifics. In that line, you still have no specifics.
You're making a claim to being right as you talk in vague generalities with implications of data, but no actual data. You're arriving at conclusions based on what you think is true, without actually looking at facts.
See, I'm arriving at conclusions based on observation. I observed what appeared to be a serious bias in favor of one candidate and then predicted a continuation of that trend into the future.
To be plain, there is a wood chipper. On the wood chipper is a sign that reads, "Safe to put your hand in."
Now I've seen signs before. Generally I am open to signage as a good conveyer of information. But I watch anyway. I observe people putting there hands into the wood chippper. I observe the result. It doesn't appear to be safe after all.
Now, to reach the opinion that the sign is wrong and it is in fact dangerous to put your hand in, I didn't have to look into who produced the sign, the model of wood chipper, the mechanics of wood chipper, or other wood chipper signs. I can still predict that people continuing to put their hands in the wood chipper will not be safe.
Essentially, I don't have to know why it is unsafe to know that it is unsafe.
If my observation isn't convincing then go ahead and put your hand in the wood chipper.
Or, Democrats, go ahead and keep trusting polls that tell you what you want to hear.
I bolded the relevant portion of your post.
It's an unconvincing argument.
3. How did it compare to other polls?EVERY MAJOR POLL had Clinton ahead by AT LEAST 5 points. It wasn't just one poll. It was the average, it was the trend.Are you claiming there were two polls in Oregon?
Edit: even still, you're not actually comparing a poll to another poll. I'm calling you out on your lack of specifics. In that line, you still have no specifics.
You're making a claim to being right as you talk in vague generalities with implications of data, but no actual data. You're arriving at conclusions based on what you think is true, without actually looking at facts.
See, I'm arriving at conclusions based on observation. I observed what appeared to be a serious bias in favor of one candidate and then predicted a continuation of that trend into the future.
To be plain, there is a wood chipper. On the wood chipper is a sign that reads, "Safe to put your hand in."
Now I've seen signs before. Generally I am open to signage as a good conveyer of information. But I watch anyway. I observe people putting there hands into the wood chippper. I observe the result. It doesn't appear to be safe after all.
Now, to reach the opinion that the sign is wrong and it is in fact dangerous to put your hand in, I didn't have to look into who produced the sign, the model of wood chipper, the mechanics of wood chipper, or other wood chipper signs. I can still predict that people continuing to put their hands in the wood chipper will not be safe.
Essentially, I don't have to know why it is unsafe to know that it is unsafe.
If my observation isn't convincing then go ahead and put your hand in the wood chipper.
Or, Democrats, go ahead and keep trusting polls that tell you what you want to hear.
I bolded the relevant portion of your post.
It's an unconvincing argument.
Be unconvinced, stick your hand in the wood chipper.
Or on a more interesting front; present some evidence that I am wrong. If observation isn't substantial enough, then make your case.
I think you have overlooked a very important aspect of this conversation. I haven't offered a solution. That is why I don't need to know why. If I had told you how I propose to fix the bias then I would need to know intricate information about the bias. I have only asserted that there was a bias.
To give a common (real, non-wood-chipper) example: Gregor Mendel didn't have to understand why heritable traits transferred from one generation of pea plant to the next in order to observe it, predict it, or manipulate it. Knowing why something is is simply not a prerequisite to knowing that something is.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Debating a bad idea doesn't make it go away, it gives it only serves to elevate it, give it publicity, and spreads it to a wider audience. Especially in today's "choose your own reality" culture, this is not a good thing.
So you don't debate "bad ideas". And I gather that bad ideas are a subset of ideas you disagree with.
So there are some ideas that you strongly disagree with and that you refuse to debate. I'd wager that you refuse to debate ideas that seem to you to be absurd, ludicrous and/or repugnant at face value.
What message does that convey to those who hold to those same ideas that you find so repulsive ? Something like : "Those ideas that you hold dear are absurd, ludicrous and repugnant at face value."
Now, what is your goal ?
Are you hoping to convince, by rational discourse, those people taken by those ideas you find abhorrent ?
You won't, because you do not have a rational discourse with regard to those ideas. You just refuse to debate them. You have a position of moral or intellectual superiority. Which feels good, but does nothing to convince rational and opiniated people.
Are you hoping to convince, by rational discourse, those people on the fence about those ideas you find abhorrent ?
You may do it - but if you refuse to engage the very people proposing those abhorrent ideas, you refuse yo engage the strongest arguments in favor of those ideas.
An impartial, or neutral, or undecided, or even hostile bystander won't help but notice that. That won't endear him to your ideas.
The conclusion is that, if you only want to convince people already sympathetic to or convinced of your ideas while feeling intellectually and morally superior, then by all means refuse to ever engage your staunchest adversaries in debate.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Regarding universities:
those institutions harken to the Middle Ages, when theologians and other learned persons engaged in regular debates called "disputatios", which pitted two speakers against one another, with all the rigour of logic and the sophistication of rethorics, with the goal of enlightening a broad audience about the subject matter at hand.
Students who refuse today to have strong debates held in their alma matter are, to my opinion, disrespecting and antagonizing the heart and soul of the institution which they are part of.
To refuse to be challenged about one's ideas, in a safe and learned environment, makes one weak and pusillanimous in his life at large. How sad.
You have to know your enemies if you want to defeat them. (Disclaimer in a intellectual field of course don't go attacking people with weapons.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Regarding universities:
those institutions harken to the Middle Ages, when theologians and other learned persons engaged in regular debates called "disputatios", which pitted two speakers against one another, with all the rigour of logic and the sophistication of rethorics, with the goal of enlightening a broad audience about the subject matter at hand.
Students who refuse today to have strong debates held in their alma matter are, to my opinion, disrespecting and antagonizing the heart and soul of the institution which they are part of.
To refuse to be challenged about one's ideas, in a safe and learned environment, makes one weak and pusillanimous in his life at large. How sad.
This presupposes that both sides will conduct themselves in an intellectually / academically honest manner. Currently in the United States this presupposition is complete farce. In an alternative facts / facts-don't-matter context having such a debate can only serve two purposes. (1) Normalizing an irrational (read: bigoted) position by treating it as a rational one, and (2) giving a pulpit to propagandists.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But see now your reacting to it out of fear. fear that bigoted message will get out. We could trust that our college students are smart enough not to be swayed but stupid opinions. if one speaker come up and converts a room full of students then we probably aren't doing a good job teaching them in the first place.
I remember sitting through a speaker tell his religious story. at the question section I remember someone asking him what does he feel about what X religion has to say about that and he said he doesn't study any other religions and avoids them completely. I can't help but think how stupid that is if you have so little faith in your religion that hearing anyone else opinion could instantly make you change your mind.
If your faith can't be tested then is it really faith?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To refuse to be challenged about one's ideas, in a safe and learned environment, makes one weak and pusillanimous in his life at large. How sad.
This presupposes that both sides will conduct themselves in an intellectually / academically honest manner. Currently in the United States this presupposition is complete farce.
I disagree. It presupposes only that the audience is sophisticated enough to discriminate what is said, and to be able to evaluate the soundness of the speakers. I'm talking here about universities, and not about TV talk shows.
But I agree that if one wants to spread one's ideas, one of the best things to do is to find venues where those ideas can be discussed earnestly. I'm sure there are currently in the USA places (on the web, surely) where one can find intellectually honest Republicans or intellectually honest Democrats, or similarly honest independents, to debate controversial ideas.
If you posit a priori that there's no intellectual honesty to be found anywhere in the opposite party, you're creating the very same divisiveness which is currently tearing your country apart.
To an outside observer, the similarities between two irreconcilable enemies are often striking.
You have to know your enemies if you want to defeat them. (Disclaimer in a intellectual field of course don't go attacking people with weapons.)
I think the problem is presupposing that people are rational and can be rationally shown why something is mind numbingly stupid.
That doesn't seem to be how people opperate en masse. You need emotion to push something or it's very unlikely to happen.
(although in 20 years of online debates, i think i've had one person struggling with their sexuality thank me for my smackdown of the idea of natual law- that's about it.)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
To refuse to be challenged about one's ideas, in a safe and learned environment, makes one weak and pusillanimous in his life at large. How sad.This presupposes that both sides will conduct themselves in an intellectually / academically honest manner. Currently in the United States this presupposition is complete farce.I disagree. It presupposes only that the audience is sophisticated enough to discriminate what is said, and to be able to evaluate the soundness of the speakers. I'm talking here about universities, and not about TV talk shows.
But I agree that if one wants to spread one's ideas, one of the best things to do is to find venues where those ideas can be discussed earnestly. I'm sure there are currently in the USA places (on the web, surely) where one can find intellectually honest Republicans or intellectually honest Democrats, or similarly honest independents, to debate controversial ideas.
If you posit a priori that there's no intellectual honesty to be found anywhere in the opposite party, you're creating the very same divisiveness which is currently tearing your country apart.
To an outside observer, the similarities between two irreconcilable enemies are often striking.
I wouldn't (nor didn't) suggest that no intellectual honesty can be found in the party who opposes my views. However, There are several topics that I can discern very quickly about the intellectual honesty of the other side.
For example:
Doxxing, good or bad?
Rape Culture or Boys will be Boys?
Homosexuality, an aberrant lifestyle guaranteed to bring unhappiness. Yes or No?
Treating those discussions as reasonable to have in a public forum is normalizing vileness.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You have to know your enemies if you want to defeat them. (Disclaimer in a intellectual field of course don't go attacking people with weapons.)I think the problem is presupposing that people are rational and can be rationally shown why something is mind numbingly stupid.
That doesn't seem to be how people opperate en masse. You need emotion to push something or it's very unlikely to happen.
(although in 20 years of online debates, i think i've had one person struggling with their sexuality thank me for my smackdown of the idea of natual law- that's about it.)
So the sword and axe alternative then?
I personally believe all societal problems could be fixed with a significantly improved education system but I guess that is unlikely to arrive anytime soon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that we are largely governed by our emotions.
Strangely (?) enough, if we recognize it as truth, we are IMO freer to exercise our sound rationality.
3. How did it compare to other polls?EVERY MAJOR POLL had Clinton ahead by AT LEAST 5 points. It wasn't just one poll. It was the average, it was the trend.Are you claiming there were two polls in Oregon?
Edit: even still, you're not actually comparing a poll to another poll. I'm calling you out on your lack of specifics. In that line, you still have no specifics.
You're making a claim to being right as you talk in vague generalities with implications of data, but no actual data. You're arriving at conclusions based on what you think is true, without actually looking at facts.
See, I'm arriving at conclusions based on observation. I observed what appeared to be a serious bias in favor of one candidate and then predicted a continuation of that trend into the future.
To be plain, there is a wood chipper. On the wood chipper is a sign that reads, "Safe to put your hand in."
Now I've seen signs before. Generally I am open to signage as a good conveyer of information. But I watch anyway. I observe people putting there hands into the wood chippper. I observe the result. It doesn't appear to be safe after all.
Now, to reach the opinion that the sign is wrong and it is in fact dangerous to put your hand in, I didn't have to look into who produced the sign, the model of wood chipper, the mechanics of wood chipper, or other wood chipper signs. I can still predict that people continuing to put their hands in the wood chipper will not be safe.
Essentially, I don't have to know why it is unsafe to know that it is unsafe.
If my observation isn't convincing then go ahead and put your hand in the wood chipper.
Or, Democrats, go ahead and keep trusting polls that tell you what you want to hear.
considering how well it works for Republicans, I would argue turnabout is fair play.
Running Subtheme: Communist Witches
Spent a good part of yesterday watching videos from Broadly, the Vice News imprint by and for women. Most of them were about witches or witchy-type stuff (although one was about a Romani bride market in Bulgaria and another was about an escort service in Vancouver that caters to people with disabilities like cerebral palsy) but the one I liked the best (and featured communism) was
Casting Curses and Love Spells with the Most Powerful Witches in Romania
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Guys...perhaps it would be best to move the "limits of freedom of speech" to another thread?
Also, for those just tuning into this thread, note that the Mods have asked us not to actually talk about some of the people involved in the most recent generator for this discussion See the already closed down berkeley thread for more information.
Also...if you don't think someone is arguing in good faith...ignore them. engaging them will just cause the thread to spiral down into being closed.
It kind of amuses me to have the discussion here keep switching back and forth between "It's the corporatism" and "It's the political correctness", with both those groups basically arguing with the same people and ignoring each other.
Corporatism drives out the far left and political corectness draws out the right of the party/middle of the country.
More Communist Witches
...And I just saw the young woman who leads the (NH) Seacoast Young Socialists on Facebook offering to do Tarot readings...
Corporatism drives out the far left and political corectness draws out the right of the party/middle of the country.
It kind of amuses me to have the discussion here keep switching back and forth between "It's the corporatism" and "It's the political correctness", with both those groups basically arguing with the same people and ignoring each other.That's probably a fair assessment. Obviously Democrats should ditch both.
Become a labor/socialist party that never ever talks about racism or sexism or any kind of prejudice. That'll guarantee they sweep every state.
Add in some pacifism too, because everyone knows the US only uses the military for corporate ends. That'll get more votes.
Non sequitur much?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
On War, by U.S General Smedley Butler (1933)
I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.
I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.
I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.
During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.
---
Plus ça change...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the Democrats think Fair Economics and Civil Rights are an either/or proposition, the best thing would be for them to collapse ASAP.
Same with foreign policy. If the choice is corporate wars and Free Trade, or total isolation, the party needs to die a quick, unmourned death.