Author Topic: The Dave Manchester problem  (Read 1660 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 25663
  • Bad Craziness
The Dave Manchester problem
« on: February 27, 2020, 11:32:49 AM »
So this isn't about Dave or any problem inherent to him. This is a philosophical question, and Dave's a perfect example to illustrate my point. In a nutshell, he's a guy that graduated from college and immediately moved to a country more aligned to his values. A country as fundamentally different to his upbringing as Japan would be to me, or Sudan to Bosk. I find this pretty fucking admirable, because I admire people who can do productive things that I cannot. Personally, I'd dig living in a country that reflects my values. Even though Switzerland or Austria are a helluva lot more akin to Texas than Russia, uprooting my life like that is just not how I'm wired to function. Like most people I live where I grew up because I'm comfortable, and the idea of packing up and moving to someplace alien is on par with deciding to cut one of my arms off. (I'm also incapable of learning a second language, so that doesn't help.) I suspect that if I were to make this a poll, most people here would be temperamentally incapable of doing what he did. Kidney Girl is similar to Dave. She studied art in Mexico for a couple of years. She taught English in Japan for a couple of more. She moved to a couple of different states before settling down in Phili. Again, I'm mystified.

A mid-ground would be Stadler. He's lived and worked in numerous states, as the opportunities presented themselves. Plenty more people in that hypothetical poll would be able to do this, but still not all. Again, as humans we have an innate interest in comfort and familiarity. We can make do when necessity requires it, but we tend to want to stick with what we know. Continuing along, I know plenty of people who are not only rooted to their familiar stomping grounds, but have no interest at all in seeing, exploring, or experiencing new surroundings. I work with a woman who can't fathom why I'd want to go to New Hampshire, Mexico City, or Kandersteg Switzerland. To her there's nothing to be gained by seeing something unrelated to you. I love to travel and explore, so this is as absolutely baffling to me as my being rooted to my nearby surroundings would be to Stadler, and Stadler's expanded, but still limited, comfort zone is to Dave.

I bring this up because as individuals we are all unique, with unique skills and capabilities. These we posses through no choice or fault of our own. It's simply the random convergence of brain structure and chemistry. Or hell, throwing a bone to Bosk, maybe it's the specific construction of our individual minds as hand crafted by the Goddess. In either case, we're never really capable of understanding how another is prone to act, or their innate capabilities, as they will necessarily be different than our own. And more importantly, we're certainly ill-equipped to judge others based on our own standards of functionality. We have no objective reference point. Yet, that's something we're always keen to do.

This has come up in my mind plenty of times as we discuss practical matters here. A while back we were discussing the lack of affordable housing, and [I believe] Cool Chris chimed in that the onus is on you to move to more affordable housing when yours becomes too expensive. Stadler would certainly agree.  Well, alright, but can we consider that there are plenty who aren't inherently wired to up and uproot themselves? Because it seems painfully obvious to one doesn't mean that it's even realistic to another. Stadler recently pointed out that his strategy is to avoid the governmental teat at all costs. I wish him all the success in the world. Hell, I might even endorse that mentality for all. Yet I can't assume that's a viable strategy for anybody, and it's really not for myself. I'm reliant on Medicare for my survival, and failing that the public option that has so many others genuinely upset. Many people are capable of doing the math and figuring out if a loan is reasonable, or if they're going to be walking with a limp two years from now. Plenty of other aren't. This goes on and on. We try and craft solutions based on what people can do, with really no understanding of what a person can do.

How can we do this, which seems to me necessary to maintaining a functional society? Do we just go with the averages? Most people have these capabilities, so we disregard the outliers? This is how we've set up a lot of our society. Most people won't shoot somebody dead without a really, really good reason, so we roll with that. Lock up the exceptions. Most people as of their 18th birthday should be able to decide if they want to borrow $200k to go to get a doctoral degree, so we don't really question the people lending them the money. Those who bungled it are, again, the outliers. Fuck'em. Well, the outliers inevitably come back to bite us all on the ass. Homelessness. Babies born in the bathroom at Arbys. People massively in debt with absolutely no clue what to do with their lives. These are problems for us all, and while it might sound good to simply blame it on the outliers for being losers, how are we really capable of doing that?

Or, do we try and create solutions that fit everybody? You run into problems there, too. We're seeing a great deal of this right now. As Stadler would put it, inconveniencing 150 million to help 15 million get medical care. Or taxing 1% to improve things for 99%. While I might have my preference for these two options, I certainly understand the philosophical concerns of both. Particularly since it's not really possible to sort out the reasons for people's inability to do certain things. I hate a freeloader as much as the next guy. That's a constant among most of us. Yet I try to recognize that it's simply not possible to walk the next guy's mile.

Interestingly, I started typing this up to pose a question. How can we conduct ourselves with an inherent inability to understand the nature of others, and judge them accordingly. By the time I finished I came to realize that at it's core this is really the nature of our basic conservative vs liberal dichotomy. Go figure. So rather than a discussion about how to work with these limitations, I suspect this is now just a long-winded rant about an alternative way of viewing things.  Maybe somebody will see some value in it. Or, better still, find a reason to tell me why I'm completely full of shit.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Online cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 27795
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: The Dave Manchester problem
« Reply #1 on: February 27, 2020, 12:44:46 PM »
Are you trying to lump all of P/R into one thread?  :biggrin: 

I'm not entirely sure what to respond with other than I am definitely one of those types who doesn't want to leave the area I grew up, yet I do enjoy traveling and experiencing the world around me, learn a thing or two, and overall create memories for a meaningful life.  Having said that, to each their own on how they choose to exist.

Online Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28143
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The Dave Manchester problem
« Reply #2 on: February 27, 2020, 01:01:27 PM »
I'll let others start the convo - I've written enough on some of this - but I have to say, I love the post, and I love the way you framed the dialectic (for lack of a better word).  I also would like to say that I deeply admire Dave for similar reasons.

EDIT:  F*** it, I literally cannot help myself.   :)   To the point of "moving"; it's not easy.  My mom lived a quarter mile from the house she was born in until she was in her 50's when she moved to Florida, and didn't leave the country (not counting Canada) until she was in her 70's.   I didn't fly until I was 22, and while I lived in Burbank for a year or so right out of college, I hustled my ass back home pretty quick; it wasn't a "relocation" in the strict sense of the word, but a work assignment.  I didn't leave the country (not counting Canada) until I was 30, and I didn't move out of state until I was 31.   
« Last Edit: February 27, 2020, 01:08:12 PM by Stadler »

Online Adami

  • Moderator of awesomeness
  • *
  • Posts: 32130
Re: The Dave Manchester problem
« Reply #3 on: February 27, 2020, 01:50:36 PM »
Well, you moved around a lot there in your post, so it's hard to address all of it. But I'll touch on two points I saw.

1) The idea of Dave moving to Russia. I can understand that totally. The hardest part for me is always language. I have not lived in the same place for more than 2-3 years since I was 21. I moved to Israel because I thought it would align more with who I am, and....yea. So I moved back to America and am now in New York because I feel like it better fits my personality. If there were realistic job opportunities for me and maybe some single Jewish gals, I'd very much consider moving to another country.

2) Your socialist stuff. I'm a similar page. I think....in the end.....large countries like America cannot function as healthy democracies. I think you either have to go the way of Russia or China or you stay a smaller country. I think if America broke up into maybe 8 or more smaller countries, many might function better. Granted I'm not taking natural resources into account, so who knows? But the point is, almost 400 million people who can't agree on whether or not why Eminem was at the Oscars can't possibly function very well as a country that satisfies even the majority's needs beyond the very basic.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline The Walrus

  • goo goo g'joob
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 17221
  • PSA: Stairway to Heaven is in 4/4
Re: The Dave Manchester problem
« Reply #4 on: February 27, 2020, 01:57:52 PM »
This is a fantastic post although I don't have much to contribute; it is just a whole lot of stuff to chew on.

For what it's worth, I'm of the non-traveling variety. I appreciate reading and looking at the sights of the world from the (fortunate) comfort of my couch because I live in a time where I can simply look up most anything I want to learn about. I prefer staying in my quiet little rural town, not bothering anybody, not dealing with cities or many people. Everybody else can have that business and stress of travel and moving, but I prefer avoiding all anxiety that comes with new territory and unfamiliar people and locations. Which is ironic considering I am so fascinated by the various cultures of humanity. But I'm an anxious hermit who prefers solitary living :)
From a Mega Man Legends island jamming power metal to a Walrus listening to black metal, I like your story arc.
"I don't worry about nothing, no, 'cause worrying's a waste of my time"

Offline Harmony

  • Posts: 1301
  • Gender: Female
Re: The Dave Manchester problem
« Reply #5 on: February 27, 2020, 02:09:51 PM »
Good post, EB.  It will be interesting to see where it evolves over time.  As I read it, to ME it boils down to the old saying, "Don't judge a man (or woman) until you walk a mile in their shoes." 

And yet we do.  We all do.  In countless ways every single day.  Because the only "norm" we have to measure others to is our own.  And that's not a great tool to measure anything by.  We are a collection of our genetics, our raising, our environment, our education system, our values, our relationships, our experiences.  The variables are countless.  So why would any of us expect others to feel and function the same way we do?  It's a losing proposition out of the gate.

That woman with the designer handbag and recently manicured acrylic nails who is using food stamps at the grocery store?

That man who opts to live in a tent on the street instead of getting a job and stable housing?

We see these people all the time and think we understand them based on what the second of time we observe them.  But spend an hour talking to them and undoubtedly you'd be surprised at how wrong your initial judgment of them was.

I try to remember this as I go about my day.  Sure, I judge just the same as anyone else.  But as I get older I judge less about people who find themselves falling on hard times and more about how people treat one another.

Except in traffic.  In traffic, all bets are off and I'm judging the shit out of you.   ;)

Since when is a military occupation considered small government?

Online Adami

  • Moderator of awesomeness
  • *
  • Posts: 32130
Re: The Dave Manchester problem
« Reply #6 on: February 27, 2020, 02:15:48 PM »
Personally? I don't judge anyone. We all have our own stuff and it's not my place to judge a single soul.

Except free loaders. And the homeless. Obviously drug users too. And liberals. Also socialists. Also really rich people. Also immigrants. Also Trump supporters. Can't forget Bernie supporters. Ugh, and Obama! And the god damn people in this world who want you to say happy holidays instead of Merry Christmas. AND THE BLOODY FRENCH!


But beyond that, judge not lest ye be judged. You know?
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline XeRocks81

  • Posts: 1020
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Dave Manchester problem
« Reply #7 on: February 27, 2020, 02:23:46 PM »
Personally? I don't judge anyone. We all have our own stuff and it's not my place to judge a single soul.

Except free loaders. And the homeless. Obviously drug users too. And liberals. Also socialists. Also really rich people. Also immigrants. Also Trump supporters. Can't forget Bernie supporters. Ugh, and Obama! And the god damn people in this world who want you to say happy holidays instead of Merry Christmas. AND THE BLOODY FRENCH!


But beyond that, judge not lest ye be judged. You know?

Belgians can go fuck themselves.  Waffles, what? Whatever

Online El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 25663
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The Dave Manchester problem
« Reply #8 on: February 27, 2020, 03:22:06 PM »
Are you trying to lump all of P/R into one thread?  :biggrin: 
Honestly, I was trying to not be political at all. We see how that went.  :lol  The problem is that I started to see that the philosophical idea I started with, how are we capable of judging one another, is actually at the root of the political stuff we're always discussing. Hence the meandering that Adami mentioned.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 10447
  • Gender: Male
  • Inglourious Basstard
Re: The Dave Manchester problem
« Reply #9 on: February 27, 2020, 08:58:40 PM »
Lots to think about here.

First off, all this time Dave I thought that was you in your avatar. I could totally see that guy posting what you write.

To touch on that subject wherein I was mentioned... I am faced with a constant barrage of WE NEED AFFORDABLE HOUSING and HOUSING IS A HUMAN RIGHT up here in the PPNW (the Progressive Pacific Northwest). Do people have the right to live where they want? Is it the state's job to ensure everyone who wants a house gets one where they want it? I can only speak regionally, but there is an annoying sense of entitlement of those who want to live in Seattle (when I say Seattle sometimes I mean the city, other times I mean the greater PPNW - even I get confused sometimes so I apologize for using "Seattle" loosely) but cannot afford to. It is not some form of gross injustice that you are priced out of a particular market.

On the topic of asking others to adhere to some moral code, that is an interesting thought I had not previously considered. I hear a lot of WIIT (we're in this together) but along with that I believe we have some societal factors we must ask our fellow citizens to follow. If you are a homeless junkie, you can't set up your tent in a public park. That isn't the community asking you to follow some arbitrary moral code. That is part of living in a society* that we have established. And if you need help, we will offer you services and a shelter for the night. And no, you don't get to refuse because you either 1) incapable of doing so due to drugs/mental health issues, or 2) just don't want to because you don't want to live by any set of rules other than your own. Are we judging you? Maybe. I don't have a problem with that. But it is for the communal good to not have you slowly killing yourself.

Housing, mental health, and drug abuse is the #1 topic here and I didn't mean to bleed that in to this thread. It is just at the forefront of the news and I thought it tied in to the topic, even if tangentially.

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhe3RlzgTiQ
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Offline Dave_Manchester

  • Posts: 1591
Re: The Dave Manchester problem
« Reply #10 on: February 28, 2020, 06:34:58 AM »
First off, all this time Dave I thought that was you in your avatar. I could totally see that guy posting what you write.

A lot of people have said that to me over the years and I'm honestly not sure how to take it. The guy was a manically-depressed junkie who offed himself while his girlfriend was in the crapper.
"As democracy is perfected, the office of President represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their hearts' desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron" - H.L.Mencken, 26th July 1920.

"China has total respect for Donald Trump and for Donald Trump's very very large brain" - American President Donald Trump, 26th September 2018.

Online Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28143
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The Dave Manchester problem
« Reply #11 on: February 28, 2020, 09:25:51 AM »
Got to say, I've thought about little else other than this post since yesterday. I thank you for that, El Barto, and my wife says "go fuck yourself!".  :)   

I have two immediate thoughts to add to this, though:

One, this all has a "direction" to it.  We're immediately talking about "judgment", and I don't necessarily think that's the case.  Granted, I might be doing my own sort of rationalizing here, but bear with the idea:  all this is from a point of view.  I get that people are wired differently (I've come to believe we're never going to solve, for example, mass killings, because there will ALWAYS be a certain percentage of the population that just doesn't respect life like the rest of us claim to).  But it's easy to ask for compassion for when that means someone won't move for a nominally better salary.  But what about when that wiring means we're attracted to six year old boys?  Or our wiring is such that the only measure of our success is the number in our bank account?   Or our wiring is such that we don't give a rats ass about anyone's feelings - no, we can't even FEEL those feelings ourselves - and everything we do each day is "pretending" to understand others' only so we fit in?   

Two, some of this is "degrees".   I'm struggling to see how moving from Michigan to Tennessee (following the migration of the car manufacturers) is equivalent, say, to hopping on a 90 foot wooden ship with 101 other people and sailing to the horizon with nothing but the clothes on your back and a hope and a dream.  Or, more realistically, migrating from southern Poland around the turn of the last century with a gunny sack and the equivalent of a few dollars, and traveling to the "New World", again armed with little more than a hope and a dream.  I'm not suggesting one is better than another, or that either is better than those that stayed in England/Poland, but your note about the range I think is really important.

Three, regardless of where we think the line ought to be, isn't the big question, "society or the individual"?  Can we reasonably expect to accommodate 325 million individual points of view?  I think most of us would agree that part of our political issues is the notion that even TWO parties can cover the needs of 325 million people.   So, we've winnowed down the number to "between 2 and 325 million".  Not much help.  We implicitly value the Dave's of the world.  "Fortune favors the bold".   We glorify people like [insert rock star/actor] that hopped a bus and went to LA to make their fortune.  Think of the history of the developing world; do you know "Lewis And Clark"?  Quick:  give me five explorers, GO!   Now, quick, give me five bureaucrats from the House of Windsor, GO!   

None of this is argument, just thoughts and concepts that flew into my head while stewing on the base post. 

Online El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 25663
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The Dave Manchester problem
« Reply #12 on: February 28, 2020, 10:21:23 AM »
Well, to begin, much of this has come down to a matter of moral judgement. That wasn't really where I was going, but it's always a reasonable discussion to be had. For my part, morality is a man-made pile of bullshit. I'm a firm believer in ethics. Ethics are a personal thing. They apply to me and me only. I'd like to think that others share my sense of right and wrong, from my point of view they're rock solid and inviolable, but that's positively not the case. Morality is the attempt to force others to subscribe to your own ethical standards.

Where I was going was the inability to judge the capabilities, intellect, desires of others. Wanting people to fuck only who you think they should fuck is unreasonable. At the same time, expecting that somebody should be able to just pack up and relocate because their neighborhood was gentrified is similarly pointless. Stadler mentions people migrating out of Poland. Great example of my point. Consider when many of them were getting out while the getting was good in the late 1930s. Seems pretty obvious in retrospect.  How many of them stayed behind and got murdered? Is it because they were stupid? Naive? Procrastinators? Concerned about their family's land? I couldn't say and neither could you. It's easy to say they were boneheads, or that they got what they deserved, but we're not really capable of judging what they did because we're not capable of judging who and what they are. This isn't an ethical or moral judgement. Values don't factor in. This is a matter of capabilities, which I suggest are impossible to account for.

To touch on that subject wherein I was mentioned... I am faced with a constant barrage of WE NEED AFFORDABLE HOUSING and HOUSING IS A HUMAN RIGHT up here in the PPNW (the Progressive Pacific Northwest). Do people have the right to live where they want? Is it the state's job to ensure everyone who wants a house gets one where they want it? I can only speak regionally, but there is an annoying sense of entitlement of those who want to live in Seattle (when I say Seattle sometimes I mean the city, other times I mean the greater PPNW - even I get confused sometimes so I apologize for using "Seattle" loosely) but cannot afford to. It is not some form of gross injustice that you are priced out of a particular market.

On the topic of asking others to adhere to some moral code, that is an interesting thought I had not previously considered. I hear a lot of WIIT (we're in this together) but along with that I believe we have some societal factors we must ask our fellow citizens to follow. If you are a homeless junkie, you can't set up your tent in a public park. That isn't the community asking you to follow some arbitrary moral code. That is part of living in a society* that we have established. And if you need help, we will offer you services and a shelter for the night. And no, you don't get to refuse because you either 1) incapable of doing so due to drugs/mental health issues, or 2) just don't want to because you don't want to live by any set of rules other than your own. Are we judging you? Maybe. I don't have a problem with that. But it is for the communal good to not have you slowly killing yourself.
First off, just as an FYI, I wasn't looking to single you out or dump on your position. I think it's pretty understandable. I cited it because it's a very good example of my issue with judging the abilities of others, and thankfully you've now doubled down. I share your annoyance with homeless people sleeping in parks and whatnot. Yet I have to reckon that in many cases it might be the best solution for them based their problems. Part of what I'm trying to get at is that we try and invent solutions to the problems of others while being unable to understand how they process the situation they're stuck in. As easy as it is to say "we'll create shelters for them stay in if they need to," that doesn't mean that our idea of how to shelter them is a viable option based on their abilities and needs. Yet we're still keen to blame them when they don't avail themselves of the opportunities we conjure up.


I was a little buzzed when I got home last night, but I sure thought Dave had replied to this with something that I wanted to follow up on. Not there now, so I guess it got deleted. Now we have two Dave Manchester problems to contend with.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Online Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28143
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The Dave Manchester problem
« Reply #13 on: February 28, 2020, 10:27:03 AM »
For my part, morality is a man-made pile of bullshit. I'm a firm believer in ethics. Ethics are a personal thing. They apply to me and me only. I'd like to think that others share my sense of right and wrong, from my point of view they're rock solid and inviolable, but that's positively not the case. Morality is the attempt to force others to subscribe to your own ethical standards.

For the record, this is one of the things that you and I agree on unequivocally and without exception.  We might implement it slightly different, but this premise is where I come from in 99% of my posts in the P/R section. 

Online cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 27795
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: The Dave Manchester problem
« Reply #14 on: February 28, 2020, 10:35:49 AM »
I was a little buzzed when I got home last night, but I sure thought Dave had replied to this with something that I wanted to follow up on. Not there now, so I guess it got deleted. Now we have two Dave Manchester problems to contend with.

I was a bit buzzed myself, but pretty sure I read a Dave post before going to bed last night. 

Also, I should add.  I judge people.  I just do my best to not hold it against them, but I can't help myself sometimes.  When I see a huge pick up truck going 95 mph with just one person in the HOV lane, I judge that man to have a small penis.  He might not, and he might be a great guy, but I can't help myself. 

Online Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28143
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The Dave Manchester problem
« Reply #15 on: February 28, 2020, 10:55:55 AM »
Where I was going was the inability to judge the capabilities, intellect, desires of others. Wanting people to fuck only who you think they should fuck is unreasonable. At the same time, expecting that somebody should be able to just pack up and relocate because their neighborhood was gentrified is similarly pointless. Stadler mentions people migrating out of Poland. Great example of my point. Consider when many of them were getting out while the getting was good in the late 1930s. Seems pretty obvious in retrospect.  How many of them stayed behind and got murdered? Is it because they were stupid? Naive? Procrastinators? Concerned about their family's land? I couldn't say and neither could you. It's easy to say they were boneheads, or that they got what they deserved, but we're not really capable of judging what they did because we're not capable of judging who and what they are. This isn't an ethical or moral judgement. Values don't factor in. This is a matter of capabilities, which I suggest are impossible to account for.

While all of that is true, isn't there a difference when it gets taken to the next level, i.e. the entitlements that always seem to arise?   Extrapolating out, my great grandfather was one of those from Poland (1900's, around the time Hitler was likely sprouting pubes) and my grandfather came around the same time from Slovakia.  Undoubtedly, those that came over prospered at a level that those staying behind didn't.  I don't call them "stupid", but do we owe them anything?  Are they entitled to compensation for not being "capable" (not in quotes because I disagree with the word, but because it's being used loosely) of emigrating?   

To some degree, we are who we are.   We're really critical of judgment in this thread, and it's baffling to me, because if I came here and wrote "those homos, amirite?" there'd be a crap ton of judgment, and I don't think anyone would lose even a moment's sleep over it, so apparently it's fine there.   That tells me the judgment is rooted in your first paragraph re: morals.  I don't consider myself a homophobe - I'm not an advocate, I just DO NOT CARE who anyone sleeps with - but for those who are, isn't it less that they are morally inferior, but intellectual hypocrites? That's certainly not how most people look at it.  Am I morally inferior because to me, that doesn't afford anyone special treatment?   If you walked in and walked legal services from me, and I said "I don't represent people with beards", there's not a goddamn thing you can do to force me to represent you.  If I said "I don't represent people who are homosexual", I'm in for a whole lot of self-representation over the next couple years, aren't I?  Do MY capabilities factor in?

Offline Harmony

  • Posts: 1301
  • Gender: Female
Re: The Dave Manchester problem
« Reply #16 on: February 28, 2020, 01:12:11 PM »
I sure thought Dave had replied to this with something that I wanted to follow up on. Not there now, so I guess it got deleted. Now we have two Dave Manchester problems to contend with.

Yeah, I saw his post too and it was good.  The question is whether he deleted it or it got deleted by a moderator?

Am I morally inferior because to me, that doesn't afford anyone special treatment?   If you walked in and walked legal services from me, and I said "I don't represent people with beards", there's not a goddamn thing you can do to force me to represent you.  If I said "I don't represent people who are homosexual", I'm in for a whole lot of self-representation over the next couple years, aren't I?  Do MY capabilities factor in?

Sure they do.  As an attorney, one would hope you'd be both capable and familiar with the laws in your state.  Some states allow discrimination based on sexual orientation and some do not.  It would be prudent to follow those laws or expect to face the consequences.  Wouldn't it?
Since when is a military occupation considered small government?

Offline Dave_Manchester

  • Posts: 1591
Re: The Dave Manchester problem
« Reply #17 on: February 28, 2020, 01:31:14 PM »
I sure thought Dave had replied to this with something that I wanted to follow up on. Not there now, so I guess it got deleted. Now we have two Dave Manchester problems to contend with.
Yeah, I saw his post too and it was good.  The question is whether he deleted it or it got deleted by a moderator?

I deleted it, I decided all that stuff about my dad's death was a bit maudlin and unnecessary. I'll re-post a briefer version of the point I was making a bit later.
"As democracy is perfected, the office of President represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their hearts' desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron" - H.L.Mencken, 26th July 1920.

"China has total respect for Donald Trump and for Donald Trump's very very large brain" - American President Donald Trump, 26th September 2018.

Online El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 25663
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The Dave Manchester problem
« Reply #18 on: February 28, 2020, 02:06:46 PM »
Where I was going was the inability to judge the capabilities, intellect, desires of others. Wanting people to fuck only who you think they should fuck is unreasonable. At the same time, expecting that somebody should be able to just pack up and relocate because their neighborhood was gentrified is similarly pointless. Stadler mentions people migrating out of Poland. Great example of my point. Consider when many of them were getting out while the getting was good in the late 1930s. Seems pretty obvious in retrospect.  How many of them stayed behind and got murdered? Is it because they were stupid? Naive? Procrastinators? Concerned about their family's land? I couldn't say and neither could you. It's easy to say they were boneheads, or that they got what they deserved, but we're not really capable of judging what they did because we're not capable of judging who and what they are. This isn't an ethical or moral judgement. Values don't factor in. This is a matter of capabilities, which I suggest are impossible to account for.

While all of that is true, isn't there a difference when it gets taken to the next level, i.e. the entitlements that always seem to arise?   Extrapolating out, my great grandfather was one of those from Poland (1900's, around the time Hitler was likely sprouting pubes) and my grandfather came around the same time from Slovakia.  Undoubtedly, those that came over prospered at a level that those staying behind didn't.  I don't call them "stupid", but do we owe them anything?  Are they entitled to compensation for not being "capable" (not in quotes because I disagree with the word, but because it's being used loosely) of emigrating?   
Framing it as "owing them something" is part of the problem. Moreover, I think it's indicative of the the judgmental nature that we're on about. Do I owe somebody a place to live, or rescue from the Nazis? Of course not. Is it in my best interest to contribute to those two causes? You bet. Having to step over homeless people, or tell them to fuck off, makes me uncomfortable, like most people. Letting people get slaughtered when I can do something to prevent it is similarly upsetting to me. It's not a matter of whether or not I owe it to them, or they deserve it. It's a function making things better for myself. It's tending to my own garden, in a way.

Chris referred to the homeless as being obliged to the same rules of society as the rest of us. If I were to accept that as an axiom (I don't),  I'd say that if they're not capable of doing so, isn't it in my own best interest to find a way to make it all come together?  That's not me owing them a new house. It is me accepting that maybe building houses for the homeless helps me in the long run. Going a bit further, If I am to cite a social contract, don't I have some obligation towards the greater good? Isn't that the whole point? I haven't had to think about John Locke since the early 90's, but I don't recall any stories about him running naked down the street proudly waving a banner proclaiming "Every Man For Himself, Bitch!"


Quote
To some degree, we are who we are.   We're really critical of judgment in this thread, and it's baffling to me, because if I came here and wrote "those homos, amirite?" there'd be a crap ton of judgment, and I don't think anyone would lose even a moment's sleep over it, so apparently it's fine there.   That tells me the judgment is rooted in your first paragraph re: morals.  I don't consider myself a homophobe - I'm not an advocate, I just DO NOT CARE who anyone sleeps with - but for those who are, isn't it less that they are morally inferior, but intellectual hypocrites? That's certainly not how most people look at it.  Am I morally inferior because to me, that doesn't afford anyone special treatment?   If you walked in and walked legal services from me, and I said "I don't represent people with beards", there's not a goddamn thing you can do to force me to represent you.  If I said "I don't represent people who are homosexual", I'm in for a whole lot of self-representation over the next couple years, aren't I?  Do MY capabilities factor in?
As you know, I'm not one of those people. I'd probably call you an asshole, and a few more creative things as I walk out the door, but in the end I'm obliged to support your right to be an asshole.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Harmony

  • Posts: 1301
  • Gender: Female
Re: The Dave Manchester problem
« Reply #19 on: February 28, 2020, 02:18:14 PM »
I sure thought Dave had replied to this with something that I wanted to follow up on. Not there now, so I guess it got deleted. Now we have two Dave Manchester problems to contend with.
Yeah, I saw his post too and it was good.  The question is whether he deleted it or it got deleted by a moderator?

I deleted it, I decided all that stuff about my dad's death was a bit maudlin and unnecessary. I'll re-post a briefer version of the point I was making a bit later.

Your choice to delete, of course.  FWIW, the stuff about your dad really resonated with me in many ways.  I am toying with starting a thread about death and grief because of the feelings that got triggered reading your post.  This area of the board probably wouldn't be the place for it.  But the main board seems more of a draw to fun and sports with an occasionally foray into a serious topic.  So I don't know.  Maybe people don't want to talk about those things let alone think about them.   :-\

Since when is a military occupation considered small government?

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 10447
  • Gender: Male
  • Inglourious Basstard
Re: The Dave Manchester problem
« Reply #20 on: February 28, 2020, 05:57:33 PM »
Chris referred to the homeless as being obliged to the same rules of society as the rest of us. If I were to accept that as an axiom (I don't),  I'd say that if they're not capable of doing so, isn't it in my own best interest to find a way to make it all come together?  That's not me owing them a new house. It is me accepting that maybe building houses for the homeless helps me in the long run. Going a bit further, If I am to cite a social contract, don't I have some obligation towards the greater good?

I am glad you brought that up. We are straying a bit, but the progressives here always frame the narrative as 'Housing First!" Putting someone addicted to opiods or dealing with mental issues in a house doesn't solve anything. To your point, yes we do have an obligation to help them. Because that not only helps them, but it helps my community. We are all better if you are not shooting up on the streets and leaving your needles everywhere. Maybe where we differ is when they say "no thanks, I would rather camp out on this sidewalk" I would rather we say "Nope, that isn't acceptable. You are either incapable of making rational decisions to help yourself, or you are stubbornly refusing to abide by some simple rules our community has. Either way, your way isn't working, time to do it our way, because it is better for us all."
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Offline MoraWintersoul

  • Gloom Cookie
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 6438
  • Gender: Female
  • type :mora: for a surprise
Re: The Dave Manchester problem
« Reply #21 on: February 29, 2020, 02:04:43 PM »
It's an extremely interesting topic. You have probably heard of the Eastern European brain drain to EU countries. If a move across the continent can double your salary in certain occupations, you can drive or fly home often, and half your circle of friends already lives outside of your home country, why not? And so people move.

I lived in an area of Europe where this brain drain problem is even more insidious, because the barriers towards migration are larger, we aren't in the EU for the most part and so our passports are weaker. And yet people leave. People leave their life's work and get qualified to work in low level medical professions and just go. All across the world, not just convenient countries. In their forties, in their fifties. It's not just us young people anymore.

I suppose it's difficult to explain this to anyone who lives in a normal country. It just turns out that sometimes the nature of others is that they can't seem to form a functioning society at all. I'm sure proponents of negative American exceptionalism would say that every example I have to give "happens in first world countries too", and yet, it's demonstrably worse. It's so much worse, that we have an exodus of people. On levels of a dysfunctional society, you have war, then this. And when you have war, you have hope that things will improve as soon as there is peace; then you get peace and they tell you that things will get better in 20 years. That's what happened when I was a kid in elementary school. That's when people say "oh, I guess we can stay to rebuild and make things better". Well, I'm almost thirty now, and not only did things not progress within those 20 years, we have gone back in time in some aspects. And it's easy to say "well, all of these resourceful and motivated people should stay, because that would improve things in the long term!", but the long term means dooming yourself (and possibly your children) to an unstable, unpredictable life in relative poverty, all while people born in comparable countries of comparable sizes and structures and natural wealth get to live a life worthy of a dignified human being. And so people just vote with their feet, even those who don't have the Dave Manchester disposition.

How do we build a society that covers most people's needs and allows the highest number of people to get all their "nice-to-haves" too? Man, I wish I knew, if I knew I'd get back down there and build one. I'm a firm believer in democracy. The problem with democracy is that one story made up to defeat one opponent or justify one war or promote one policy can last in the mind of the populace for the next fifty years. The worms that are now eating the society I was born in were planted in the soil almost 40 years ago and they are still monchin'. They were incredibly successful, and when you say something that goes even slightly against them, the brains of almost half the population just shut off and they refuse to listen to you; and for some reason, the mistakes of the people who perpetuate that story get instantly forgotten. And what happens to proof that their way doesn't work? It gets excused or memory-holed. And can you get away with just parroting the story they like and then doing what you want? They see you as an imposter, remove you and keep the people who keep them in the mud, because the worms are brain parasites and they make you love those who keep you in the mud because "well it could always be worse, at least we are free and proud".

I guess you just have to tell the better story about thriving through innovation AND solidarity and hope it actually sticks. Oh and watch the nationalist-types, they're always cooking up an even better story.
« Last Edit: February 29, 2020, 02:30:10 PM by MoraWintersoul »

Quote
Don't try to BS her about Kevin Moore facts, she will obscure quote you in the face.
You consistently make so much sense, and express yourself so eloquently, that I've decided you're basically a female version of robwebster.

Online Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28143
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The Dave Manchester problem
« Reply #22 on: March 02, 2020, 01:18:06 PM »
Sure they do.  As an attorney, one would hope you'd be both capable and familiar with the laws in your state.  Some states allow discrimination based on sexual orientation and some do not.  It would be prudent to follow those laws or expect to face the consequences.  Wouldn't it?

Of course, but that's both beside the point and part of the point.  I wasn't speaking about my consequences for breaking the law, but - in the context of this conversation - more about why are there laws that provide for special treatment of homosexuals to begin with. 

Online Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28143
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The Dave Manchester problem
« Reply #23 on: March 02, 2020, 01:21:36 PM »
Where I was going was the inability to judge the capabilities, intellect, desires of others. Wanting people to fuck only who you think they should fuck is unreasonable. At the same time, expecting that somebody should be able to just pack up and relocate because their neighborhood was gentrified is similarly pointless. Stadler mentions people migrating out of Poland. Great example of my point. Consider when many of them were getting out while the getting was good in the late 1930s. Seems pretty obvious in retrospect.  How many of them stayed behind and got murdered? Is it because they were stupid? Naive? Procrastinators? Concerned about their family's land? I couldn't say and neither could you. It's easy to say they were boneheads, or that they got what they deserved, but we're not really capable of judging what they did because we're not capable of judging who and what they are. This isn't an ethical or moral judgement. Values don't factor in. This is a matter of capabilities, which I suggest are impossible to account for.

While all of that is true, isn't there a difference when it gets taken to the next level, i.e. the entitlements that always seem to arise?   Extrapolating out, my great grandfather was one of those from Poland (1900's, around the time Hitler was likely sprouting pubes) and my grandfather came around the same time from Slovakia.  Undoubtedly, those that came over prospered at a level that those staying behind didn't.  I don't call them "stupid", but do we owe them anything?  Are they entitled to compensation for not being "capable" (not in quotes because I disagree with the word, but because it's being used loosely) of emigrating?   
Framing it as "owing them something" is part of the problem. Moreover, I think it's indicative of the the judgmental nature that we're on about. Do I owe somebody a place to live, or rescue from the Nazis? Of course not. Is it in my best interest to contribute to those two causes? You bet. Having to step over homeless people, or tell them to fuck off, makes me uncomfortable, like most people. Letting people get slaughtered when I can do something to prevent it is similarly upsetting to me. It's not a matter of whether or not I owe it to them, or they deserve it. It's a function making things better for myself. It's tending to my own garden, in a way.

Chris referred to the homeless as being obliged to the same rules of society as the rest of us. If I were to accept that as an axiom (I don't),  I'd say that if they're not capable of doing so, isn't it in my own best interest to find a way to make it all come together?  That's not me owing them a new house. It is me accepting that maybe building houses for the homeless helps me in the long run. Going a bit further, If I am to cite a social contract, don't I have some obligation towards the greater good? Isn't that the whole point? I haven't had to think about John Locke since the early 90's, but I don't recall any stories about him running naked down the street proudly waving a banner proclaiming "Every Man For Himself, Bitch!"

I only deleted the other part because we've talked about that before.   

Isn't this, though, now verging on the notion of "individual" versus "collective", and the idea of morals as what we ASK of others (but cannot demand) and laws as what we can DEMAND (and need not ask) of others?   It might be in my best interest to help others, and therefore up to me when I do.  Laws, though, and I use "entitlements" in that context, are not that.

Offline Harmony

  • Posts: 1301
  • Gender: Female
Re: The Dave Manchester problem
« Reply #24 on: March 02, 2020, 04:57:32 PM »
why are there laws that provide for special treatment of homosexuals to begin with.

For the same reason we have laws that prevent people from discriminating against people of color.  Some states are further along in these laws than others.  The onus is on the person opening a business in the state to understand the laws of that state.
Since when is a military occupation considered small government?

Online Adami

  • Moderator of awesomeness
  • *
  • Posts: 32130
Re: The Dave Manchester problem
« Reply #25 on: March 02, 2020, 05:07:36 PM »
The laws, best o remember, donít specify lgbtq. It says orientation. So itís equally protective of straight folk.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline Harmony

  • Posts: 1301
  • Gender: Female
Since when is a military occupation considered small government?

Online Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28143
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The Dave Manchester problem
« Reply #27 on: March 02, 2020, 07:06:40 PM »
We're veering far off tangent here, but I respectfully say the point is being missed.   I realize it's fait accompli that these laws are just and proper and there's no debate at this point.  Katt bless his soul is going to have a cow, because I haven't brought her up in ages, but Altressa Cox-Blackwell.   Please don't argue that these laws are without flaw.  In an age post-Columbine, post-Sandy Hook - in the same friggin' STATE as Sandy Hook, mind you - she finds ammunition on the school bus, DOES NOT REPORT IT (as the law requires), is fired, and argues it's because she's alternately African American/female/of age (I guess it's whatever resonates, right?). 

Quick trivia: guess who literally handed my step daughter her diploma on graduation day a couple years ago (AFTER the incident)?

That's not protecting against discrimination at that point.  That's creating a separate class with a different standard of measure for job performance.   Sure it's anecdotal evidence, and also not specifically a court holding, but nonetheless...

Online Adami

  • Moderator of awesomeness
  • *
  • Posts: 32130
Re: The Dave Manchester problem
« Reply #28 on: March 02, 2020, 09:04:53 PM »
But that isn't relevant and misses your own point.

You're giving an example of how a law fails. That sucks, but it applies to most laws. Many many many good laws have been twisted to achieve injustice. If a guy is arrested for murder and confesses to murder but the cop forgot to read him his Miranda rights, he gets off (I say this with like 50% confidence). Does that mean the law is bad? No. It means it, like all laws, are imperfect and have their drawbacks.

Your example is just that. A sad example of things gone bad. Does not, in any possible way, speak to the legitimacy of the law or whether or not it's a good thing.

And again, since we've (for some reason) moved from sexual orientation discrimination to race based discrimination, it applies to ALL races, not just black folk. It protects white folk too. The reason you and no one else consider that? White folk ain't in trouble. Straight folk ain't in trouble. Straight white folk are in no danger in the slightest bit of the same things minorities are. But again, the laws protect everyone, not just one group of people, as you're framing it. Just like Miranda rights protect everyone, and not just guilty people.


Edit: Reading up what little I can on the person you referenced....I'm not seeing it. She was punished for her actions. She brought in a legal defense to fight it and apparently it didn't work? Then she agreed to drop the suit in exchange for a different job? I admit you might know more than I just read but I don't see what that has to do with discrimination laws other than her attempt to use them to get her way and not have it succeed in a court of law (that I could see). How is that different from any other frivolous law suit that people use to get what they want?
« Last Edit: March 02, 2020, 09:16:32 PM by Adami »
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Online Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28143
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The Dave Manchester problem
« Reply #29 on: March 03, 2020, 06:44:00 AM »
Look, it's pretty simple; I followed the line of discussion, but the main point was very basic:  Bart asked a fair question about people, their capabilities, and the judgment that seems to ensue.  And my point was only that it's less about the capabilities - that, I think, gets handled well enough on the individual level - but starts to break down in my view when the discussion on capabilities turns into a discussion on what I see as entitlement.  We can quibble about the "justness" of laws, but when they turn into a de facto entitlement program, I think it's only fair that people be able to question them.  All the other stuff is example; if you're going to just dismiss every example as this or that, that's fine, but the general idea still remains.   If people don't want to move that's their objective decision or it's a manifestation of their genetic profile.  Fair enough; but does that entitle them to any different than those whose choices/genetics allow them to move to - in theory - increase their odds of a successful pursuit of happiness. 


Offline emtee

  • Posts: 1766
Re: The Dave Manchester problem
« Reply #30 on: August 20, 2020, 08:34:54 AM »
If Dave were still here, I'd ask him his thoughts on how/why, another Putin critic ends up being poisoned.

Online Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28143
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The Dave Manchester problem
« Reply #31 on: August 20, 2020, 11:55:19 AM »
If Dave were still here, I'd ask him his thoughts on how/why, another Putin critic ends up being poisoned.

Hillary was poisoned?   

Online Adami

  • Moderator of awesomeness
  • *
  • Posts: 32130
Re: The Dave Manchester problem
« Reply #32 on: August 20, 2020, 11:59:10 AM »
If Dave were still here, I'd ask him his thoughts on how/why, another Putin critic ends up being poisoned.

Hillary was poisoned?


OH SNAP!!
fanticide.bandcamp.com