Author Topic: The Biden Presidency v.2021  (Read 9540 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jaffa

  • Just Jaffa
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 4866
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #70 on: January 22, 2021, 12:52:36 PM »
The current discussion is an interesting one for me; it's a topic I've been mentally wrestling with for a long time.

I do question the value of marginalization and alienation.  It seems to me that when we alienate someone for holding problematic beliefs and ideologies, what we're effectively doing is restricting their access to sources that might challenge those beliefs and ideologies.  And in that way, we push them toward forming groups with each other, building echo chambers, and getting louder.  This can be especially dangerous when you're talking about multiple sets of problematic beliefs - if we alienate homophobes in the same way that we alienate racists, then we've given racists and homophobes new common ground to bond over, and we a risk a net increase in both racism and homophobia.  Stadler already touched on this with his point about integration. 

At the same time, though, I'm conscious that integration of people with problematic beliefs can be harmful, too.  First of all, there's the basic pain that can be caused by expecting people to coexist with people who hate them on principle.  This is something that I think is often glossed over in discussions about common ground.  It's one thing for me to try to befriend homophobes, but it's another for me to expect my gay friends to make that effort.  Secondly, there's the fact that ideas spread.  There's a lot of impressionable people in the world, and there's a lot of people with dangerous ideas.  When we ask those two groups to find common ground, we run the risk that the dangerous ideas will be the common ground they build together. 

It's become increasingly difficult for me to find a balance. 

(Just to be clear, my uncertainty there only applies to a limited extent.  Neo-nazis who openly advocate for violence are one thing, and marginalization [through prison sentence] is a valid approach there.  I have no qualms about that.  But I've been in enough mosh pits with enough skinheads that I've probably fist-bumped someone who recently joined a white supremacist Facebook group out of curiosity and is now heading down a dark path.  I'm not sure how we as a society should approach this theoretical person.)
Sincerely,
Jaffa

Online Ben_Jamin

  • Posts: 12335
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm just a man, thrown into existence by the gods
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #71 on: January 22, 2021, 01:08:26 PM »
Again: neo-nazism is a movement that requires violent action.
Christianity is a movement that requires compassion and basic human decency. How's that working out? Not everybody understands or cares enough about their beliefs to actually act on them.

People don't live their beliefs. Which is acting upon those beliefs.
I don't know how they can be so proud of winning with them odds. - Little Big Man

"We can't rewrite history. We can learn our own history, and share it with other people. While, we learn, from them, their history." -Me,Myself,I

Offline XJDenton

  • What a shame
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5303
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #72 on: January 23, 2021, 06:59:57 AM »
Then we're talking past each other.

We seem to do that a lot unfortunately. I'm not sure whose fault that is but I'm going to do better to try and elaborate on my points more cogently. I have a habit of posting short, pointed questions simply because I don't have so much time to post nowadays, but I acknowledge that is probably not conductive to good quality discussion. In any case, I aim to do better.

Quote
I can't speak for El Barto, though I suspect I know where he's parked here, but while I don't actually agree with you (you can be a neo-Nazi without actually committing violence) I'm not condoning or rationalizing violent behavior.

I suspect the disconnect here may be how we define violence. For me, threatening speech (such as vocally advocating for white supremacy or suppression/eradication of persons or ethnic groups) which I view as fundamental to being a neo-nazi, as opposed to any other kind of racist, IS a form of violence, or at the very least contributes to the manifestation of violent acts. I imagine that is a contentious issue for some, but there are plenty of ways that speech can incite violence in ways that are deliberate and statistically predictable, and ways speech itself can cause real harm to persons through stress, terror and the like. This is the entire model that Stochastic terrorism and the idea of the "lone wolf". Nazi's love lone wolfs as it furthers their goals of terror while giving them plausible deniability.

Quote
We have laws for that (which don't have anything to do with neo-Nazism, but address the human and civil rights transgression of violence against person).  I'm talking about the ideas that may or may not lead up to that and I'm responding to the many many many many people here in the States that couldn't give a rats ass about the distinction.

We also have laws that cover hate crimes because the state (however reluctantly) has at least partially acknowledged that threatening speech and violence can have different effects based on the power dynamics of that group. If the leader of the Najavo nation were to suddenly stand up and advocates for white genocide, that would have much less effect than the president of the United States standing up and calling White Nationalists "very fine people" and signaling (intentionally or not) to every white nationalist out there that "we see you views on race, and that's okay". That's how I see things at least.

The point I was initially trying to make by bringing up the point about Neo-nazis (which while extreme are at least relevant at this point in history) is that compromise is fine, but in order to compromise you have to have a common moral or ethical foundation between the two parties. If you want to discuss the best way to deliver healthcare to everyone and find a compromise solution between socialized healthcare and a market solution? Fine, lets have that conversation. But you can't have a compromise with people whose foundation is either ambivalent or even actively opposed to the idea that poor people or migrants should have access to it. When it comes to the rights of individuals, I will happily discuss and compromise with people who have opinions on how best to ensure every person, regardless of ethnicity, gender identity has full and equal rights, but I'm not going to compromise on that foundation. And neo-nazis stated aim is to destroy that foundation. Burn it to the ground. 

But what if a society is forced to follow another society, against their will?

I'd class that as genocide. Which I am also against.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

Offline ReaperKK

  • Sweeter After Difficulty
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 13814
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #73 on: January 23, 2021, 07:46:37 AM »
Looking forward to 100 more pages of this.  :)

I'm catching up on page 1 right now ...

Offline Phoenix87x

  • From the ashes
  • Posts: 7591
  • The Phoenix shall rise
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #74 on: January 23, 2021, 08:22:04 AM »
Looking forward to 100 more pages of this.  :)

I'm catching up on page 1 right now ...

Me too, and we are only a few days in  :lol

Offline Podaar

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8696
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #75 on: January 23, 2021, 08:22:49 AM »
Well it looks like the Biden presidency will be over soon.

Law Suit charging "Gondor has no King"

Hey, Stadler. I didn't know you were a member of the Texas state bar.  :biggrin:
I have always found it quaint, and rather touching, that there is a movement in the U.S. that thinks Americans are not yet selfish enough. Christopher Hitchens

Offline Elite

  • The 'other' Rich
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 15699
  • Gender: Male
  • also, a tin teardrop
    • Overhaul
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #76 on: January 23, 2021, 10:28:19 AM »
Why are people insane?
Hey dude slow the fuck down so we can finish together at the same time.  :biggrin:
Squ
scRa are the resultaten of sound nog bring propey

Online Ben_Jamin

  • Posts: 12335
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm just a man, thrown into existence by the gods
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #77 on: January 23, 2021, 10:59:56 AM »

The point I was initially trying to make by bringing up the point about Neo-nazis (which while extreme are at least relevant at this point in history) is that compromise is fine, but in order to compromise you have to have a common moral or ethical foundation between the two parties. If you want to discuss the best way to deliver healthcare to everyone and find a compromise solution between socialized healthcare and a market solution? Fine, lets have that conversation. But you can't have a compromise with people whose foundation is either ambivalent or even actively opposed to the idea that poor people or migrants should have access to it. When it comes to the rights of individuals, I will happily discuss and compromise with people who have opinions on how best to ensure every person, regardless of ethnicity, gender identity has full and equal rights, but I'm not going to compromise on that foundation. And neo-nazis stated aim is to destroy that foundation. Burn it to the ground. 

But what if a society is forced to follow another society, against their will?

I'd class that as genocide. Which I am also against.

Has anyone actually asked them why they think migrants and poor people don't deserve healthcare, other than their skin color, religion, and being poor?

For the Migrants, it's the point of the Taxpayers (whom think since they pay taxes, they have a say where their money goes. And that is just downright an illusion. Once you hand out your money, it's not yours anymore. That's the veil they placed to make Taxes seem like a good thing). They feel their going to be paying higher taxes now as we accumulate for the large amount of migrants whom most likely will not bother becoming a citizen and doing their part for our economy and country. Also, some want their money being spent on whomever they feel is deserving, and they feel Migrants are not deserving, until they assimilate into the American Lifestyle. Not really, but just more relinquishing their rights to their country of origin to become as US citizen. That's one issue Americans don't even think about. Those Migrants and any Immigrant, has to relinquish their rights to their Country of Origin, in order to become a US citizen. Some, Countries require you to do that in order to be accepted in that country as a citizen. Same as an American who now wants to live in another country. Their "rules" say, you can't really be benefitting from both as that's considered Double Dipping. Has nothing to do with being a Neo-Nazi, Neo-Nazi's just see this as an opportunity to present their views because it's against people of color.

Now are those Migrants from the cities or are they from the Tribal Areas? Because a lot of these migrants are in fact, Native Americans, whom have become Reliant on the other, and need those handouts to basically survive, it's why they are coming here because they know they can get these handouts here in the US. Why do you think they started coming here when they knew Biden was Chosen by the people. Those migrants are in fact, our relatives and ancestors, because during Slavery, they would send many of us either Down South, to work in those mines, or out east. There are actually people that may know, where they originally come from, but I'm thinking that's rare. It's why some of us Natives here in New Mexico, look the same as the Mexican, or even Pacific Islander, because those Filipinos Natives where also taken and brought here as slaves, and most Mexicans are in fact Native themselves.

That's why I feel, what needs to be done, especially for my people, is for us to become Self-Reliant again, and not be relying on "The Other" for handouts, and for us not to rely on them for survival. That is to me is a big point of being Sovereign.

But then in the end....You still have to wonder...Why do they hate these people so much that they want them to become extinct? I am guessing, that Belief and Faith, is a major factor in that hatred.




We also have laws that cover hate crimes because the state (however reluctantly) has at least partially acknowledged that threatening speech and violence can have different effects based on the power dynamics of that group. If the leader of the Najavo nation were to suddenly stand up and advocates for white genocide, that would have much less effect than the president of the United States standing up and calling White Nationalists "very fine people" and signaling (intentionally or not) to every white nationalist out there that "we see you views on race, and that's okay". That's how I see things at least.


I get what you're saying. But why would that Navajo President say that, if he did, he'd be out of that office, and guarantee some would forcefully remove him. Could even start a mutiny.

A good example is BLM, and how some of them, really have it in for Whitey, and they want Whitey to suffer. To me, That isn't the right way to fix things. Because you are now becoming the same as that Neo-Nazi wanting Non-White people to suffer. That's why I don't get the point of critical race theory. The class should be about respect, of others cultures, and compassion. Not, Look at what you people did, now repeat it back to me "I whitey am a piece of shit, and a horrible human being, and am sorry my ancestors raped and destroyed your people" and that begins in educating the children about the many cultures that are in America, or have been in America. It's why I feel, we natives, need to speak up more and educate Americans about us, there are books that have these things, and these could easily be read in a High School class, even a Middle School class. Some, Black people don't even know they are Native themselves. Because there are natives here whom are a darker complexion like the African people, they were Indigo colored. Even people you think are Pacific Islander, could be in fact Native. I know one of my friends, whom went to New Zealand, and her boyfriend fit right in, the people of New Zealand thought they were actually Maori themselves, and started speaking to them in their language.

America is a big melting pot. And I feel, not many Americans realize just how big that melting pot is, and just how many different ingredients are being stirred within the pot.



Why are people insane?

"Belief is a hell of a drug"  :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:
I don't know how they can be so proud of winning with them odds. - Little Big Man

"We can't rewrite history. We can learn our own history, and share it with other people. While, we learn, from them, their history." -Me,Myself,I

Offline XJDenton

  • What a shame
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5303
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #78 on: January 23, 2021, 11:13:50 AM »
I get what you're saying. But why would that Navajo President say that, if he did, he'd be out of that office, and guarantee some would forcefully remove him. Could even start a mutiny.

No disagreement there. If it was not clear, my choice to use the Navajo President is simply that the First Peoples are a group in the US who are not in a position of power and authority over a large segment of the population, whereas I think you can certainly make that argument about white people, and it was certainly true historically that they were.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

Online Ben_Jamin

  • Posts: 12335
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm just a man, thrown into existence by the gods
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #79 on: January 23, 2021, 11:39:05 AM »
I get what you're saying. But why would that Navajo President say that, if he did, he'd be out of that office, and guarantee some would forcefully remove him. Could even start a mutiny.

No disagreement there. If it was not clear, my choice to use the Navajo President is simply that the First Peoples are a group in the US who are not in a position of power and authority over a large segment of the population, whereas I think you can certainly make that argument about white people, and it was certainly true historically that they were.

That is true, but that can happen anywhere in the world. "White people", or how I prefer to term it "White Culture and Mindset" dominate the world, and that is fact. Yet, that also happens in the Middle East, the most famous one is known as Osama Bin Laden, as "Arabs/Muslims/Islamic Mindset" dominates that area of the world currently, and you know why, because they're a people whom won't take any other people assimilating them. Why else do you think they're fighting against the US. They want the US out and to leave them alone, and if they fall, then they fall, at least it was on their own accord and not determined by "The Other". The United States is "The Other".  What is going on there, is similar to what happened here to us Natives, and it's eerie seeing how similar we were, their houses and areas look exactly like a Pueblo Village. There's a reason why the Military has a lot of Bases in the Southwest, particularly New Mexico and why Sandia National Laboratories is in New Mexico, and why they tested the Atom Bomb here in White Sands, and also why the Aliens came to New Mexico ( :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: )


The focus has shifted from Islamic Terrorists now to Domestic Terrorists, and they are going after the White Supremacy. But we should not forget what they are also doing in the Middle East, and not let the Domestic Terrorist focus distract us from that. But, White Supremacy is a big issue, that should be dealt with, and ignoring and suppressing those people is not the way to do it. What we could do is evaluate these people, and ask them why they feel this intense hatred toward a fellow human. And use terms like Human, and non-racial words, while evaluating these people, that way you can get to them that they are equal to "The Other" because you both are Human Beings, with the same Physical Design, only you're painted this way and he's painted that way.

Basically, you Educate the children and the young, Evaluate the Adults, and Ignore the old. (These old elders are set in their ways and there is nothing you could do or say to change their minds. I think, it could be that they're already set in their ways already, as they are now the keepers of the knowledge. So if you suppress the old knowledge, it can't teach the young)...That's why they kidnapped the children and sent them away to educate them about "The Others" way, and my god did it work.

I don't know how they can be so proud of winning with them odds. - Little Big Man

"We can't rewrite history. We can learn our own history, and share it with other people. While, we learn, from them, their history." -Me,Myself,I

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28089
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #80 on: January 25, 2021, 08:51:49 AM »

At the same time, though, I'm conscious that integration of people with problematic beliefs can be harmful, too.  First of all, there's the basic pain that can be caused by expecting people to coexist with people who hate them on principle.  This is something that I think is often glossed over in discussions about common ground.  It's one thing for me to try to befriend homophobes, but it's another for me to expect my gay friends to make that effort.  Secondly, there's the fact that ideas spread.  There's a lot of impressionable people in the world, and there's a lot of people with dangerous ideas.  When we ask those two groups to find common ground, we run the risk that the dangerous ideas will be the common ground they build together. 


I'm going to say something similar to XJ as well, but I would offer that we have to be very careful not to lose the forest for the trees.  We have to be consistent.  If "ideas spread", then we have to - absent some hard scientific evidence to the contrary - assume that the spread is content neutral.  If we're worried about the "bad apple" spreading their message to others, why do we ignore the possibility - no, the PROBABILITY - that the GOOD apples will spread their message? That's the point of pointing out that racism is rooted in isolation.  If the ISOLATION is what helps to cause the racism to begin with, wouldn't inclusion negate or at least mitigate the bad apple influence?   

Some of this is rooted in fear; I get that.  And I get the sort of natural presumption to not give someone that hurt you the benefit of the doubt.   I've got no argument to that, and I'm really not interested in the "yeah, okay Mr. White Guy, easy for you to say".   But at some point we have to decide what the path forward is: do we want to solve it?  Or do we want retribtion for it?  Or a combination of both?  Are we willing to make sacrifices to get it, or do we only accept the least painful option (even if of lesser efficacy)?

I'm not telling anyone they HAVE to do anything; I'm saying, though, that we should at least be considering the possibility that the science isn't going to follow the conventional wisdom path, and it may not afford us the opportunity to have our cake (ending racism) and eating it too (exactly the revenge/retribution that many of us feel is necessary or just).

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Et in Arcadia Ego
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 43461
  • Gender: Male
  • Postwhore Emeritus
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #81 on: January 25, 2021, 09:02:43 AM »
Well it looks like the Biden presidency will be over soon.

Law Suit charging "Gondor has no King"

Hey, Stadler. I didn't know you were a member of the Texas state bar.  :biggrin:
That's fantastic.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Online Ben_Jamin

  • Posts: 12335
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm just a man, thrown into existence by the gods
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #82 on: January 25, 2021, 09:43:42 AM »

At the same time, though, I'm conscious that integration of people with problematic beliefs can be harmful, too.  First of all, there's the basic pain that can be caused by expecting people to coexist with people who hate them on principle.  This is something that I think is often glossed over in discussions about common ground.  It's one thing for me to try to befriend homophobes, but it's another for me to expect my gay friends to make that effort.  Secondly, there's the fact that ideas spread.  There's a lot of impressionable people in the world, and there's a lot of people with dangerous ideas.  When we ask those two groups to find common ground, we run the risk that the dangerous ideas will be the common ground they build together. 


I'm going to say something similar to XJ as well, but I would offer that we have to be very careful not to lose the forest for the trees.  We have to be consistent.  If "ideas spread", then we have to - absent some hard scientific evidence to the contrary - assume that the spread is content neutral.  If we're worried about the "bad apple" spreading their message to others, why do we ignore the possibility - no, the PROBABILITY - that the GOOD apples will spread their message? That's the point of pointing out that racism is rooted in isolation.  If the ISOLATION is what helps to cause the racism to begin with, wouldn't inclusion negate or at least mitigate the bad apple influence?   

Some of this is rooted in fear; I get that.  And I get the sort of natural presumption to not give someone that hurt you the benefit of the doubt.   I've got no argument to that, and I'm really not interested in the "yeah, okay Mr. White Guy, easy for you to say".   But at some point we have to decide what the path forward is: do we want to solve it?  Or do we want retribtion for it?  Or a combination of both?  Are we willing to make sacrifices to get it, or do we only accept the least painful option (even if of lesser efficacy)?

I'm not telling anyone they HAVE to do anything; I'm saying, though, that we should at least be considering the possibility that the science isn't going to follow the conventional wisdom path, and it may not afford us the opportunity to have our cake (ending racism) and eating it too (exactly the revenge/retribution that many of us feel is necessary or just).

The way I see it is this...If we have issues with each other over pointless bullshit reasons, what makes one think that Racism is possible to eliminate entirely, or even prejudices?

So we should just do as you said, as well. Communicate and not Isolate the issue. Find out why that person hates the other? What's the reason behind the hate. Because right now, Non-People of color have a subtle hatred towards "whitey", for what they are doing, and how they are acting, and their entire Mindset. Why else do you have Alexandria being the loud mouth she is, and BLM demanding what they are.

And those are rooted in religion, because That Christian Mindset is what the constitution and all of "White law" is based off of. All law has religious roots, even the CCP has religious leanings.

I don't know how they can be so proud of winning with them odds. - Little Big Man

"We can't rewrite history. We can learn our own history, and share it with other people. While, we learn, from them, their history." -Me,Myself,I

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28089
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #83 on: January 25, 2021, 09:58:30 AM »
Then we're talking past each other.

We seem to do that a lot unfortunately. I'm not sure whose fault that is but I'm going to do better to try and elaborate on my points more cogently. I have a habit of posting short, pointed questions simply because I don't have so much time to post nowadays, but I acknowledge that is probably not conductive to good quality discussion. In any case, I aim to do better.


As do I; if we're both committed to working on it, I have no doubt we'll figure it out.  I have no desire to fight with you, and no desire to be misunderstood.

Quote
I suspect the disconnect here may be how we define violence. For me, threatening speech (such as vocally advocating for white supremacy or suppression/eradication of persons or ethnic groups) which I view as fundamental to being a neo-nazi, as opposed to any other kind of racist, IS a form of violence, or at the very least contributes to the manifestation of violent acts. I imagine that is a contentious issue for some, but there are plenty of ways that speech can incite violence in ways that are deliberate and statistically predictable, and ways speech itself can cause real harm to persons through stress, terror and the like. This is the entire model that Stochastic terrorism and the idea of the "lone wolf". Nazi's love lone wolfs as it furthers their goals of terror while giving them plausible deniability.

Violence, I'm bought in.  You lose me as you move from tangible action to more tenuous things. I'm not sure I'm as invested if we're talking abuot the "stress" that someone's language incites.  There's a point that we have to learn to adapt to our environment; that's the premise of anger management, is it not?  We can't attempt to program a world where no one is ever stressed, no one is ever offended, no one is ever "terrified".   

But like I said to Jaffa, at some point we need to accomodate ALL the information.  If in fact the lone wolf model is what works for them, wouldn't then tactics like inclusion serve to reduce the impact over time?  If I'm a nebulous, decentralized organization, I can promote and incite by sharing data with one cell that "the Connecticut cell was thrown in jail for their beliefs; are you going to stand for that? Are you going to let that happen to you?"  It's an inciter.  How much traction do you think the framework is going to get with "The Connecticut cell was shown love and inclusiveness, decided the hate wasn't worth it, and are now welcome, prosperous members of society; are you going to stand for that?  Are you going to let that happen to you?"   Not as effective, is it?
Quote
We also have laws that cover hate crimes because the state (however reluctantly) has at least partially acknowledged that threatening speech and violence can have different effects based on the power dynamics of that group. If the leader of the Najavo nation were to suddenly stand up and advocates for white genocide, that would have much less effect than the president of the United States standing up and calling White Nationalists "very fine people" and signaling (intentionally or not) to every white nationalist out there that "we see you views on race, and that's okay". That's how I see things at least.

I'm not sure you - anyone, I'm not singling you out - can tell what has more effect and what doesn't.  And why should we assume that?   I'm not saying anything controversial here; race and race-related things have a way of having a distorted impact.   We're at the point now where one only need MENTION race - even in a benign way - and someone will have issue.   I'm more cynical; I feel pretty strongly that we have hate crimes not because they carry any special heinous place in our criminal jurisprudence, but because in typical human fashion, it's a way of sending a signal that we're "doing something" (even if, in reality, we're not actually doing something).  I'm not interested in defending Trump, I'm glad he's gone, but we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this "very fine people" thing.  I think it inflamed people that were prone to inflammation, be it by him specifically or the issue in general.  The reality is, he said something that is unpalatable, not something that is INCITEFUL.  (Just on a law of averages basis, there likely WAS at least one "very fine person" there, depending on how you define that; I'm not trying to be snarky, I'm making a point on the subjectivity and vagueries of language, particularly coming from someone as ineloquent as Trump).

Quote
The point I was initially trying to make by bringing up the point about Neo-nazis (which while extreme are at least relevant at this point in history) is that compromise is fine, but in order to compromise you have to have a common moral or ethical foundation between the two parties. If you want to discuss the best way to deliver healthcare to everyone and find a compromise solution between socialized healthcare and a market solution? Fine, lets have that conversation. But you can't have a compromise with people whose foundation is either ambivalent or even actively opposed to the idea that poor people or migrants should have access to it. When it comes to the rights of individuals, I will happily discuss and compromise with people who have opinions on how best to ensure every person, regardless of ethnicity, gender identity has full and equal rights, but I'm not going to compromise on that foundation. And neo-nazis stated aim is to destroy that foundation. Burn it to the ground.

I'd rather not be talking about Nazi's because I just don't want to be seen as advocating for them, but as a more general matter, I disagree with that.   Part of compromise is exactly what you're saying "can't" happen.   You're just discussing normal bartering.  You want a car, I want to sell you a car, let's find a price.  That's not "compromising".   This is the mistake Trump made (and many people who assumed "he's a great businessman, he'll be a great President!" made).   He's not a negotiator; in his NY real estate game he NEVER has to do a deal he doesn't want to do.  That's not negotiation.  Negotiation is when you have no walkaway, and you still have to find compromise and middle ground.  Part of the idea of "combating racism by inclusion" is bridging that gap to begin with.    I hope you won't take this as an attack, because it's not, it's observation, but you - personally - have a decision to make.   It's all well and good that you won't compromise, but you have to admit then that you are part of the problem.  You're no better - even though you think you are, because your position is "on the right side of history" - than they are in terms of solving the problem.  I have my morals, my principles; one of them is personal liberty.  Even if I don't like what you do with your personal liberty, it's my foundational belief that I can't tell you what to think.   It underpins everything I write here.  Having said that, I had to make a choice a couple years ago (he doesn't know it, and doesn't post here in P/R much, but Barry - Kirksnosehair - had a big part in that) and I decided that this isn't Star Wars or Marvel CU where the good guys always prevail.   WE NEED HEALTHCARE, and even though single payer doesn't fit with my overall worldview, it's a necessary compromise I need to make in order to make sure that we can have all the OTHER personal liberties that we as humans and American citizens ought to enjoy.

Offline H2

  • Posts: 386
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #84 on: January 25, 2021, 12:07:11 PM »
I am being increasingly convinced of more liberal ideas and am interested in seeing how certain liberal policies play out.

I'm still trying to what to think about the $15 min wage. I like the idea of a safety net, but I worry that it is a little too blunt of an instrument, and on some sensible economic models, it would diminish the number of job hours employers can hand out, and it doesn't benefit unemployed people, and cost of living varies greatly across the US--where I live (MO), $15/hr is much higher than a livable wage. Also, it seems too violative of voluntary employer-employee relationships. Universal basic income would seem better, as it doesn't stumble into any of those pitfalls. But what are the counterarguments?

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 25654
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #85 on: January 25, 2021, 12:26:47 PM »
I am being increasingly convinced of more liberal ideas and am interested in seeing how certain liberal policies play out.

I'm still trying to what to think about the $15 min wage. I like the idea of a safety net, but I worry that it is a little too blunt of an instrument, and on some sensible economic models, it would diminish the number of job hours employers can hand out, and it doesn't benefit unemployed people, and cost of living varies greatly across the US--where I live (MO), $15/hr is much higher than a livable wage. Also, it seems too violative of voluntary employer-employee relationships. Universal basic income would seem better, as it doesn't stumble into any of those pitfalls. But what are the counterarguments?
Yeah, I'm not going to bite.

What I will say is that the minimum wage at this point is a tool for an idea that's dead and buried. It's a rallying cry for a way of life that Americans will no longer subscribe to. When it originally came to be, it insured that all workers could own a house and support a family. America has collectively decided "yeah, fuck all that." In modern America you're either a winner or you deserve to be poor. End of story.
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 H2

  • Posts: 386
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #86 on: January 25, 2021, 12:45:28 PM »
Quote from: El Barto link=topic=56134.msg2744060#msg2744060
Yeah, I'm not going to bite.

Not sure what you mean by that comment, but I'm being serious and not baiting. FWIW, I'm becoming convinced that some safety net is a good thing, and the traditional American values of equality of opportunity, self-reliance, individualism, etc., might only be instantiated by some level of governmental economic control beyond what a libertarian would have in mind.

I've been intrigued by UBI lately as a liberal policy, and it seems much better to me than raising the minimum wage. I could vote for Yang next time he's up.

Quote
What I will say is that the minimum wage at this point is a tool for an idea that's dead and buried. It's a rallying cry for a way of life that Americans will no longer subscribe to. When it originally came to be, it insured that all workers could own a house and support a family. America has collectively decided "yeah, fuck all that." In modern America you're either a winner or you deserve to be poor. End of story.
Are you simply reporting the modern American sentiment or are you expressing your own attitude about min wage?

Offline jingle.boy

  • I'm so ronery; so sad and ronery
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 34847
  • Gender: Male
  • DTF's resident deceased dictator
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #87 on: January 25, 2021, 12:54:52 PM »
Minimum wage policy is a provincial issue up here.  Not sure it's appropriate to be a federal one - as you said, standards of living are so varied.  It's certainly not plausible to put it in the jurisdiction of regions or municipalities, so I guess it being a Provincial issue makes the most sense.

Ontario put it to $14.25/hr a few years back, and everyone thought it would be the death of small business.  It wasn't.
Fox = drip-feeding dumb people with rage-porn. CNN = drip-feeding smug assholes with moral reassurance.
I'll do my best, but this? The guy's getting Llamathrust.
Happy is the dog that stops and licks his balls.

Offline XJDenton

  • What a shame
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5303
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #88 on: January 25, 2021, 01:01:05 PM »
To give an outside perspective: Sweden, where I live, does not in fact have a nationally mandated minimum wage, and there is opposition to it by the unions. This is because here the unions have sufficiently large power that they can mandate a minimum wage from employers, with the knowledge that if an employer screws the workers over, they will be at war with basically every union in the country. They will not only see their staff strike, they won't be getting water and electricity. In that respect, the unions see a minimum wage as weakening their position since if there's a national "minimum level", employers now have an argument against raising above that level. In this respect, minimum wage isn't needed if the workers are sufficiently powerful.

However, when it comes to the USA, private sector union power has basically been gutted (Police and teachers and some transport still have some power), and I don't think that is a thing that can be fixed any time soon, so I think a minimum wage is necessary as a stop gap to ensure a livable wage. UBI would be far more preferable, but that's even more of a pipe dream in the US political landscape. Minimum wage is basically the most practical rallying cry remaining for the US left.

Incidentally, the de facto minimum wage in Sweden is around 16-18 USD, and McDonalds still manages to churn out 10 SEK burgers (1.20 USD).
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 25654
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #89 on: January 25, 2021, 01:33:43 PM »
It really does seem like the dire consequences of increased costs have been significantly overstated. And this applies to our own US experience, as well. Minimum wage increased with inflation up until the 80s (Gosh, I wonder what happened?), and we grew the middle class accordingly.  As I stated before, I like minimum wage as a means to an end. If we believe that everybody in this country should be able to work 8/40 and raise a family in the middle class then we should be expanding it (or moving to something along the lines of UBI). I don't think we, or at least our plutocratic overlords, want that, though. Token increases in the MM wage at this point won't make any difference if we're not determined to move towards that goal.
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 hefdaddy42

  • Et in Arcadia Ego
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 43461
  • Gender: Male
  • Postwhore Emeritus
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #90 on: January 25, 2021, 02:27:04 PM »
The problem with the minimum wage is that it doesn't keep up with inflation or cost of living.

I'm not sure if the magic number is $15.00, which is what is being pushed by many Dems, but $7.25 is definitely too low.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline H2

  • Posts: 386
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #91 on: January 25, 2021, 02:38:14 PM »
The problem with the minimum wage is that it doesn't keep up with inflation or cost of living.

I'm not sure if the magic number is $15.00, which is what is being pushed by many Dems, but $7.25 is definitely too low.
Suppose the federal minimum wage was relativized to an accurate CoL measure, and it was set to grow with inflation (maybe readjusted every couple of years). Would those modifications solve those problems?

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Et in Arcadia Ego
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 43461
  • Gender: Male
  • Postwhore Emeritus
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #92 on: January 25, 2021, 03:42:31 PM »
The problem with the minimum wage is that it doesn't keep up with inflation or cost of living.

I'm not sure if the magic number is $15.00, which is what is being pushed by many Dems, but $7.25 is definitely too low.
Suppose the federal minimum wage was relativized to an accurate CoL measure, and it was set to grow with inflation (maybe readjusted every couple of years). Would those modifications solve those problems?
I mean, it would be better than what we have now.  I don't know about "solve", I was an English major lol.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28089
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #93 on: January 25, 2021, 04:03:37 PM »
I don't have a fundamental or ideological problem with the minimum wage; I have a problem with the implementation and the expectations.  Business is a math problem, simple as that.   You take in money (in revenue), you pay out some portion of that, hopefully less than your revenue, as the cost of doing business (or "cost of goods sold") and what remains is your profit.  ANYTHING - minimum wage, healthcare, leave provisions, climate change or other environmental requirements - that increase the COGS is problematic.  It comes out of profit to a point, then comes out of... thin air?   

No, the economy didn't collapse because of minimum wage, but something HAD to give, be it hours, or other benefits, or profits, or R&D...  I don't mind that as a provision.   I mind the blithe and unfounded "common sense" arguments that so often come with the minimum wage argument, as well as the seemingly unlimited OTHER ways in which corporations are supposed to fund a particular agenda.   The pot of gold - the revenue - is NOT unlimited.

Offline H2

  • Posts: 386
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #94 on: January 25, 2021, 04:14:43 PM »
@ Stadler, totally hear you on all these things, and for all those reasons you gave, I'm bothered by minimum wage. No one else has commented on my point that it violates some principle undergirding voluntary contracts; people tend to be very consequentialist about these issues yet forget there are a priori considerations of rights and justice at play here too.

FWIW, this is a simple cool lesson on how raising the minimum wage can affect the labor market, from Khan Academy (for anyone who is a n00b like myself): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0c2vmFGbtk&t=61s

I'm trying to go through the whole playlist to be a little more well-informed about economic theory.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2021, 04:23:18 PM by H2 »

Offline DragonAttack

  • Posts: 2194
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #95 on: January 25, 2021, 04:26:52 PM »
Minimum wage:  you have fifteen employees making $12/hour.  Bump the minimum wage to $15, and most companies will go down to twelve employees.  That's what I would expect an almost universal response to be.  And, how does that help the economy?

Yeah, I know that response might shock some people coming from me.  I feel the same about 'free education'.  Look, I paid for it, my wife paid for it, we certainly paid much more for her daughter's college education.  The costs, and especially the high registration fee when taking only one or two classes, are what need to come down.  And not allowing refinancing of student loans ...uh, well, that's for another topic.
'Discretionary posting is the better part of valor.'  Falstaff

Offline H2

  • Posts: 386
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #96 on: January 25, 2021, 04:34:20 PM »
I guess the counter to that would be--well, once MW goes up, people will have more money to spend, so consumption will go up, so businesses will make more to offset the higher wages going to their employees, so hours won't go down.

I don't buy that line, though--is it really mathematically supported?

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28089
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #97 on: January 25, 2021, 06:29:28 PM »
This has a mixed bag.   27 million would see wage increases (not all of those are below $15; the study assumes that by attrition, those slightly above $15 would also see pay raises. That's a dubious assumption), the number of people below the poverty line would decrease by about 1 million, but about 4 million would lose their jobs.

Now couple that with all the other burdens we're putting on businesses.  Factor in increased environmental restrictions and more stringent climate change protocols.  Factor in increased paid leave requirements.   Factor in the continuing burden of requiring business to foot the bill on healthcare...


Offline H2

  • Posts: 386
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #98 on: January 25, 2021, 08:32:31 PM »
Thanks for that study. It confirms what intuitively seems to be true.

Offline lonestar

  • DTF Executive Chef
  • Official DTF Tour Guide
  • ****
  • Posts: 19956
  • Gender: Male
  • Silly Hatted Knife Chucker
    • Lady Obscure Music Magazine
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #99 on: January 25, 2021, 08:55:17 PM »
This whole Guliani-Dominion suit is going to be very interesting. Only hours after the papers are filed, Rudy goes on record for the first time admitting that Joe won the election. Using the commonplace language of his ilk, he then accuses Dominion (the FAR LEFT!!!) of using the exorbitant amount of money to "wipe out and censor the exercise of free speech". Last I checked, Dominion isn't the govt. and they have every right to defend their good name.

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 10440
  • Gender: Male
  • Inglourious Basstard
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #100 on: January 25, 2021, 08:58:59 PM »
To give an outside perspective: Sweden, where I live, does not in fact have a nationally mandated minimum wage, and there is opposition to it by the unions. This is because here the unions have sufficiently large power that they can mandate a minimum wage from employers, with the knowledge that if an employer screws the workers over, they will be at war with basically every union in the country. They will not only see their staff strike, they won't be getting water and electricity.

Unions here generally support a higher minimum wage, because as they often set their wages based on min wage, <minimum wage + x>, thus it benefits them. And I cannot speak to Sweden, and I don't know what the right balance of power is, but that balance of power seems a little out of whack, if unions are going to hold companies hostage in such a manner.

However, when it comes to the USA, private sector union power has basically been gutted (Police and teachers and some transport still have some power)...

That's like saying Tom Brady has had some success in the playoffs.

Look, I paid for it, my wife paid for it, we certainly paid much more for her daughter's college education.  The costs, and especially the high registration fee when taking only one or two classes, are what need to come down. 

I am sure most everyone outside of the academic world should be able to get behind this. 
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Offline TAC

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 49033
  • Gender: Male
  • Kip Rolled
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #101 on: January 25, 2021, 09:08:33 PM »
This whole Guliani-Dominion suit is going to be very interesting. Only hours after the papers are filed, Rudy goes on record for the first time admitting that Joe won the election. Using the commonplace language of his ilk, he then accuses Dominion (the FAR LEFT!!!) of using the exorbitant amount of money to "wipe out and censor the exercise of free speech". Last I checked, Dominion isn't the govt. and they have every right to defend their good name.

I honestly have no idea if they have a case or not, but it's great they're fighting back. At some point, shit cannot go unchecked.
would have thought the same thing but seeing the OP was TAC i immediately thought Maiden or DT related
Winger Theater Forums................or WTF.  ;D

Offline lonestar

  • DTF Executive Chef
  • Official DTF Tour Guide
  • ****
  • Posts: 19956
  • Gender: Male
  • Silly Hatted Knife Chucker
    • Lady Obscure Music Magazine
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #102 on: January 25, 2021, 09:12:38 PM »


Look, I paid for it, my wife paid for it, we certainly paid much more for her daughter's college education.  The costs, and especially the high registration fee when taking only one or two classes, are what need to come down. 

I am sure most everyone outside of the academic world should be able to get behind this.

Yup, especially try to bring down the cost of community colleges. The books alone price out a fair sized sector of the population from ever going beyond high school without a loan.


This whole Guliani-Dominion suit is going to be very interesting. Only hours after the papers are filed, Rudy goes on record for the first time admitting that Joe won the election. Using the commonplace language of his ilk, he then accuses Dominion (the FAR LEFT!!!) of using the exorbitant amount of money to "wipe out and censor the exercise of free speech". Last I checked, Dominion isn't the govt. and they have every right to defend their good name.

I honestly have no idea if they have a case or not, but it's great they're fighting back. At some point, shit cannot go unchecked.

I honestly thing they should nail every one of those fuckers for the way they dragged the company name through the mud. I see it going a few ways, either Guliani et al will have to provide some level of proof that their slander of the company was founded in fact (the ever elusive evidence) or they'll have to eat some serious crow to avoid ending up getting milked for every dime he has. He could also throw Donnie under the bus, especially since it seems Donnie is writing Rudy's ass off as he does with every one else who isn't useful to him anymore. Should be fun...

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 25654
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #103 on: January 26, 2021, 10:48:43 AM »
Seems to me this is an excellent business decision. It's fantastic advertising. Rudy will almost certainly settle with them, and whether or not it goes to trial they will have put forth the idea that their systems are up to snuff. Either they prove it in court, or they imply it by the fact that Rudy couldn't actually challenge them on it and had to pay to get out of his accusations.
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 lonestar

  • DTF Executive Chef
  • Official DTF Tour Guide
  • ****
  • Posts: 19956
  • Gender: Male
  • Silly Hatted Knife Chucker
    • Lady Obscure Music Magazine
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #104 on: January 26, 2021, 02:14:44 PM »
Seems to me this is an excellent business decision. It's fantastic advertising. Rudy will almost certainly settle with them, and whether or not it goes to trial they will have put forth the idea that their systems are up to snuff. Either they prove it in court, or they imply it by the fact that Rudy couldn't actually challenge them on it and had to pay to get out of his accusations.

100% agree, they're secure enough in the efficacy of their machines to go through with it as well, which is yet another testament to the veracity of the election.