United States Politics Thread 47

[Richard W]

Trump has promised money on multiple previous occasions, it never arrived, and even Trump's fellow Republicans are panning this, since they certainly don't want to pay for it.

This sounds like a contract though, so I think it may sway votes.

[Travis B.]

Trump has promised money on multiple previous occasions, it never arrived, and even Trump's fellow Republicans are panning this, since they certainly don't want to pay for it.

This sounds like a contract though, so I think it may sway votes.

I see absolutely no one in the media, even conservative media, taking this seriously at the present.

[malloc]

Trump has promised money on multiple previous occasions, it never arrived, and even Trump's fellow Republicans are panning this, since they certainly don't want to pay for it.

This sounds like a contract though, so I think it may sway votes.

I see absolutely no one in the media, even conservative media, taking this seriously at the present.

Hopefully people forget about it ASAP since the longer it stays in the news cycle, the more likely it will make a difference. Unfortunately, it's still getting a lot of traction in the news and I really worry that it won't go away.

[malloc]

Alarmingly enough, the $5000 is still floating around in the news, which means it probably has the legs it needs to influence voting patterns. Also according to this, the Republicans could simply refuse to seat Democratic representatives even if they win.

[rotting bones]

http://youtube.com/post/UgkxXpxQzEKR6I3 ... HT9fLhOu9V

[Ares Land]

http://youtube.com/post/UgkxXpxQzEKR6I3 ... HT9fLhOu9V

Ah yes, we were talking about that the other day. I'm not sure it's a great idea for supermarkets to sue. It makes them look nasty, and also makes them look silly (New York City is pretty big [citation needed] so I don't see how a grand total of five supermarkets is going to terribly bother other supermarket chains.)

[Raphael]

I admit I'm a bit confused by this:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwvgy1mj4yqmo

Assuming that he has neither been cloned nor resurrected, it turns out that Mitch McConnell was alive all the time. So why, then, did so many of the people around him or in his party act in such suspicious ways?

[jcb]

I admit I'm a bit confused by this:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwvgy1mj4yqmo

Assuming that he has neither been cloned nor resurrected, it turns out that Mitch McConnell was alive all the time. So why, then, did so many of the people around him or in his party act in such suspicious ways?

They were still hiding how poor his condition was. He is now confined to a wheelchair, it seems.

[Ahzoh]

I admit I'm a bit confused by this:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwvgy1mj4yqmo

Assuming that he has neither been cloned nor resurrected, it turns out that Mitch McConnell was alive all the time. So why, then, did so many of the people around him or in his party act in such suspicious ways?

You see, he did die, but they were waiting for the dark magic to resurrect him.

[rotting bones]

http://youtube.com/post/UgkxXpxQzEKR6I3 ... HT9fLhOu9V

Ah yes, we were talking about that the other day. I'm not sure it's a great idea for supermarkets to sue. It makes them look nasty, and also makes them look silly (New York City is pretty big [citation needed] so I don't see how a grand total of five supermarkets is going to terribly bother other supermarket chains.)

I'm not sure small steps like this will help enough people. If nothing else, how would you scale this approach to a whole country?

[Ares Land]

http://youtube.com/post/UgkxXpxQzEKR6I3 ... HT9fLhOu9V

Ah yes, we were talking about that the other day. I'm not sure it's a great idea for supermarkets to sue. It makes them look nasty, and also makes them look silly (New York City is pretty big [citation needed] so I don't see how a grand total of five supermarkets is going to terribly bother other supermarket chains.)

I'm not sure small steps like this will help enough people. If nothing else, how would you scale this approach to a whole country?

I'm surprised at the initial scale too, but after all you have to start somewhere.
I don't know what Mamdani has in mind, but in defense of the approach: helping some people is better than doing nothing at all; it could also serves as an experiment (see what works, what doesn't), establish a legal precedent and demonstrate that the approach works.

The logical next step would be to scale the approach to a denser coverage of NYC. The difficulty of expanding the approach to the whole US is political, not practical. Seeing the approach work in NYC or other cities could lead to greater acceptance.

Assuming there were no political obstacles (an awfully big assumption), I don't see why the approach wouldn't scale. We know how to run country-wide supermarket chains.

[Raphael]

Assuming there were no political obstacles (an awfully big assumption), I don't see why the approach wouldn't scale. We know how to run country-wide supermarket chains.

Depends on their finances. If they're running at a loss, scaling might be difficult - easier to spend a little money than a lot of money.

[Ares Land]

Assuming there were no political obstacles (an awfully big assumption), I don't see why the approach wouldn't scale. We know how to run country-wide supermarket chains.

Depends on their finances. If they're running at a loss, scaling might be difficult - easier to spend a little money than a lot of money.

The issue is also political here I think -- it also depends on whether relevant government(s) are willing are to subsidize these, and by how much.
Huge government-owned companies with regulated prices work all right; we used to have these in Europe.

I'm not completely sold on the idea of public grocery stores, btw. It sounds to me like the real problem is the wages are too low. But the idea also emphasizes two important attitudes: a) trying to help wherever you can b) being willing to experiment.

[malloc]

Supreme Court allows Trump administration to use expanded database for potential voter purges. It looks like Trump has finally gotten his trump card in this election.

[bradrn]

It looks like Trump has finally gotten his trump card in this election.

I believe you’ve expressed variations of this sentiment roughly a dozen times already, each time about a different thing.

[rotting bones]

Liberalism can be just as idealistic as fascism: https://www.theideasletter.org/essay/in ... pocalypse/

[Raphael]

Liberalism can be just as idealistic as fascism: https://www.theideasletter.org/essay/in ... pocalypse/

I've heard a lot of different cuisines have food, too. I guess this means that they're all the same, and the tastiest food is just as bad as the most foul-tasting food. /s

Ideals don't equal ideals. It doesn't make sense to argue that if fascists and anti-fascists both have ideals, this somehow means there's no difference. Michelangelo and geometry-phase Piet Mondrian both painted paintings.

"My conceptual term A covers both B and C, and B is clearly bad, so this proves that C is bad, too" is an extremely common fallacy in political arguments. See, for instance, the way right-wingers sometimes talk about socialism.

Besides, from watching you over the years, I think it's pretty clear that you're fairly idealistic yourself, no matter how strong your psychological commitment to denying that might be. Yes, pure Marxist theory claims to shun ideals and be all about non-nonsense materialism, but simply looking at the cultural history of real-life Marxists and their movements shows that that is not the case. It looks pretty clear to me that, for instance, the last lines of the Communist Manifesto were at least partly written as an appeal to readers' idealism.

[rotting bones]

I've heard a lot of different cuisines have food, too. I guess this means that they're all the same, and the tastiest food is just as bad as the most foul-tasting food. /s

I didn't post this in your thread because you, unlike Snyder, have no power.

Ideals don't equal ideals. It doesn't make sense to argue that if fascists and anti-fascists both have ideals, this somehow means there's no difference. Michelangelo and geometry-phase Piet Mondrian both painted paintings.

"My conceptual term A covers both B and C, and B is clearly bad, so this proves that C is bad, too" is an extremely common fallacy in political arguments. See, for instance, the way right-wingers sometimes talk about socialism.

The problem with idealism is that it doesn't actually solve any problems. It tells people to do good things. Then people do the bad things social structures incentivize them to do. The process ends there.

The scientific alternative to idealism is to identify social structures that create perverse incentives and change them.

Besides, from watching you over the years, I think it's pretty clear that you're fairly idealistic yourself, no matter how strong your psychological commitment to denying that might be. Yes, pure Marxist theory claims to shun ideals and be all about non-nonsense materialism, but simply looking at the cultural history of real-life Marxists and their movements shows that that is not the case. It looks pretty clear to me that, for instance, the last lines of the Communist Manifesto were at least partly written as an appeal to readers' idealism.

Idealism would imply that I think societies are governed by ideals. I disagree. I believe that most people don't have a morality. The only way to make humans moral is to beat them as kids until their spirit breaks. The "morality" that results is more inhumane than the worst thing innocent immortality can imagine. Such people enjoy inflecting suffering to make up for the punishment they endured as kids.

I think the best motivation to create a society of universal brotherhood is untutored* and rational (in the sense of calculated) self-interest on the part of the majority. The majority should violently impose this goal on the slavering geniuses who rule them.

* In our society, tutoring is required to counter the propaganda spewed by the geniuses.

[Raphael]

I've heard a lot of different cuisines have food, too. I guess this means that they're all the same, and the tastiest food is just as bad as the most foul-tasting food. /s

I didn't post this in your thread because you, unlike Snyder, have no power.

?

Ideals don't equal ideals. It doesn't make sense to argue that if fascists and anti-fascists both have ideals, this somehow means there's no difference. Michelangelo and geometry-phase Piet Mondrian both painted paintings.

"My conceptual term A covers both B and C, and B is clearly bad, so this proves that C is bad, too" is an extremely common fallacy in political arguments. See, for instance, the way right-wingers sometimes talk about socialism.

The problem with idealism is that it doesn't actually solve any problems. It tells people to do good things. Then people do the bad things social structures incentivize them to do. The process ends there.

The scientific alternative to idealism is to identify social structures that create perverse incentives and change them.

Those approaches by no means exclude each other. They can as well complement each other. For instance, specific forms of idealism might provide people with the necessary motivation to try their best to change the structures of their societies and the incentives these structures provide. Why would people with absolutely no ideals bother with that?

Idealism would imply that I think societies are governed by ideals.

No. It doesn't. Having ideals is ideals. No matter how much or how little you assume that a society as a whole has them.

I disagree. I believe that most people don't have a morality. The only way to make humans moral is to beat them as kids until their spirit breaks. The "morality" that results is more inhumane than the worst thing innocent immortality can imagine. Such people enjoy inflecting punishment to make up for the suffering they endured as kids.

Nope. That's one possible method for promoting one type of morality. I don't see you provide any good reason to assume that it's the only possible method.

Besides, if you're so much against ideals, what's your reason for criticizing inhumane results?

I think the best motivation to create a society of universal brotherhood is untutored* and rational (in the sense of calculated) self-interest on the part of the majority. The majority should violently impose this goal on the slavering geniuses who rule them.

* In our society, tutoring is required to counter the propaganda spewed by the geniuses.

Well, what is people's self-interest in the first place? You assume that for the disadvantaged, it's their self-interest as members of the group of the disadvantaged. I see no reason to assume that without some kinds of appeals to idealism. The non-idealistic approach to life is to ruthlessly do whatever it takes to comply with the existing set of incentives in your society in a way that advantages you personally the most. Any derivation from that is at least unconsciously a form of idealism. Which is why I see ideals as so vital.

[rotting bones]

No one is explicitly following your ideals and messing up leftist politics as a result.

Those approaches by no means exclude each other. They can as well complement each other. For instance, specific forms of idealism might provide people with the necessary motivation to try their best to change the structures of their societies and the incentives these structures provide.

If you are motivated by ideals, then you wouldn't be able to recalculate when the situation changes. One of the biggest sources of idealistic confusion is whether to co-operate with people who hold different ideals.

Why would people with absolutely no ideals bother with that?

Out of self-interest.

No. It doesn't. Having ideals is ideals. No matter how much or how little you assume that a society as a whole has them.

By your definition, I am an idealist. That's not Snyder's definition.

Nope. That's one possible method for promoting one type of morality. I don't see you provide any good reason to assume that it's the only possible method.

Philosophers like Peter Singer have a long argument that most people don't have morals.

What's your method?

Besides, if you're so much against ideals, what's your reason for criticizing inhumane results?

They harm me.

Well, what is people's self-interest in the first place?

Developing the environment they live in. Other people and the (edit: natural) environment are critical to this enterprise.

Compare an alternative I'm partial to, Nazrul's aestheticism: He said he fought for justice because he saw all people as beautiful and he couldn't bear to see them suffering.

That's fine. I have no problem cooperating with such people. The problem is the most people don't see all people as beautiful. This is actually a big problem because many fascists are also motivated by aesthetics. They just happen to see outgroups as ugly.

You assume that for the disadvantaged, it's their self-interest as members of the group of the disadvantaged. I see no reason to assume that without some kinds of appeals to idealism. The non-idealistic approach to life is to ruthlessly do whatever it takes to comply with the existing set of incentives in your society in a way that advantages you personally the most. Any derivation from that is at least unconsciously a form of idealism. Which is why I see ideals as so vital.

Most marginalized groups can't comply with existing conditions. For the minority which tries, it routinely backfires.

Not only that, the existing inegalitarianism even backfires on groups that are otherwise dominant. Members of these groups who value long-term security and growth should side with the marginalized.

I could expand on this, but it's a traditional leftist argument. I'm sure you can imagine what I'm going to say. Patriarchy hurts men too, etc.