I avoid discussing politics with people. I don't care what other people's opinions are about political policies, whether they are a socialist or a capitalist.
I watched some morning news and am getting to watch some of the NFL playoffs this afternoon putting everything else out of my mind. I'm not living in fear because of a small group of radical Trump protestors anymore than I was during the riots, looting, and burning of cities over the summer.
I avoid discussing politics with people. I don't care what other people's opinions are about political policies, whether they are a socialist or a capitalist.
I watched some morning news and am getting to watch some of the NFL playoffs this afternoon putting everything else out of my mind. I'm not living in fear because of a small group of radical Trump protestors anymore than I was during the riots, looting, and burning of cities over the summer.
Polling shows a majority of republicans support storming the Capitol. This is not a small group. Governors had kidnapping plans against them. Don't keep your head buried in the sand. That's how nazis rose to power.
I avoid discussing politics with people. I don't care what other people's opinions are about political policies, whether they are a socialist or a capitalist.
I watched some morning news and am getting to watch some of the NFL playoffs this afternoon putting everything else out of my mind. I'm not living in fear because of a small group of radical Trump protestors anymore than I was during the riots, looting, and burning of cities over the summer.
Polling shows a majority of republicans support storming the Capitol. This is not a small group. Governors had kidnapping plans against them. Don't keep your head buried in the sand. That's how nazis rose to power.
Uhhh.... you are talking about something completely different vs. what I stated. I was referring to the group that rushed the Capital building. So, out of a country the size of the U.S., that's a small group. I'm not concerned about them coming to my house.
You can live in fear if you choose to, but I will not. I watched news as recent as this morning - as I stated earlier, so that's far from keeping my head in the sand. Now, I'm enjoying some football. I am not going to waste the whole day on news or worrying about things.
Bluntly, I think there is a risk of severe social upheaval within the next weeks or months. Certain elements of our society have demonstrated that they are completely willing to resort to violence to get their way.
While I don't think there is an extreme risk, I think the risk is high enough to warrant some preparedness.
What, if anything, are you doing with your home, your finances, to ensure you and your family's safety, etc.?
I just arrived in SW Florida today, my family was *freaked* that I was coming down here and kept warning me about all the unrest.
Well, where I am is very chill. Excellent mask wearing everywhere, very calm, people seem pretty chill. My friend was like "don't let anyone know you're Canadian! You don't get how bad it is down there right now".
Obviously there's a ton of conflict right now, but the way the news presents it, my friends and family practically thought I was flying into a war zone.
Incidentally, I'm in snow bird territory, so everyone I've spoken to has been like "oh yay! Canadian!! There's so few of you guys here this year, we miss you"
Suffice to say, no riots in the streets and no being accosted for wearing a mask, as my loved ones quite seriously worried about.
I *was* however charged by a giant fucking bird.
Turns out it's a Wood Stork. Fuck they're huge!
Worthless and stunningly ignorant.
Worthless and stunningly ignorant.
Stunning rebuttal.
Do you just not remember Kavanaugh? Maybe because everyone didn't throw a massive hissy fit in the media about how our Democracy was in danger?
HUNDREDS of protestors broke into the Capitol then. Over 300 were arrested. They refused to cooperate with law enforcement and broke into Senators offices.
How was that celebrated as an exercise of First Amendment rights, but this is some kind of massive travesty? Is it because Trump told his supporters to go home, but the media interpreted that as "burn down the city?" I'm honestly curious what you think happened that was egregious.
Edit: I just want you to see the hypocrisy here. And also acknowledge that the technocracy in this country effectively silenced the President.
The technocracy in this country effectively silenced the President.Bullshit. He can hold a press conference any time he's not afraid to stand in front of reporters.
The technocracy in this country effectively silenced the President.Bullshit. He can hold a press conference any time he's not afraid to stand in front of reporters.
Not really too worried. We live among a majority of MAGA supporters which by the way might have been surprised by the events at the Capitol. Our MAGA flag flying neighbor for the past several years has suddenly pulled down his flag. The late comer neighbor who had just started flying a MAGA flag after the elections suddenly pulled down his too.
I'm with you. This is long from over. State Capitols will be soon.
We have 1 gun and I've thought about buying another. Other than that, not much else I can do.
I've struggled in the past if I should cut ties with fam and friends that are MAGAs but let it stand. No more. If they don't denounce him I can't be around them.
I think it's safe to say 60-70% of cops are conservatives and a large chunk of that are sympathetic to MAGA world. If stuff devolves too much that will not be good as sides will need to be chosen.
Sorry if it's divisive to denounce friends and fam that are still MAGAs, I want to be divided against those that stand for nazis and traitors.
Sorry if it's divisive to denounce friends and fam that are still MAGAs, I want to be divided against those that stand for nazis and traitors.
Like any conflict, there are ways to escalate the situation, or de-escalate. I don't see a lot of de-escalation in your words, and if enough people are feeling the same way, then the conflict you fear is almost guaranteed.
Ahh yes, we should be friendly to traitors of this country and bargain with the terrorists.
LOL man some of you.
I'm not saying I want to fight with my fam/friends, I just don't want them in my life if they still support this president. Full stop.
Ahh yes, we should be friendly to traitors of this country and bargain with the terrorists.
LOL man some of you.
I'm not saying I want to fight with my fam/friends, I just don't want them in my life if they still support this president. Full stop.
I think if you've made an honest effort to communicate with them, and understand why they hold different views than you do, it's fine to avoid contact. But I think as a society, we've pretty much failed to properly communicate for the last few decades, and simply started shouting at each other because taking an empathetic approach to civil disagreement and trying to understand a different viewpoint is a lot more work than just shouting.
The people that stormed the Capitol saw themselves as patriots defending their democracy from traitors. You see yourself as a patriot defending your democracy from traitors. Everybody thinks they're the good guy.
Ahh yes, we should be friendly to traitors of this country and bargain with the terrorists.
LOL man some of you.
I'm not saying I want to fight with my fam/friends, I just don't want them in my life if they still support this president. Full stop.
I think if you've made an honest effort to communicate with them, and understand why they hold different views than you do, it's fine to avoid contact. But I think as a society, we've pretty much failed to properly communicate for the last few decades, and simply started shouting at each other because taking an empathetic approach to civil disagreement and trying to understand a different viewpoint is a lot more work than just shouting.
The people that stormed the Capitol saw themselves as patriots defending their democracy from traitors. You see yourself as a patriot defending your democracy from traitors. Everybody thinks they're the good guy.
Ahh yes, we should be friendly to traitors of this country and bargain with the terrorists.
LOL man some of you.
I'm not saying I want to fight with my fam/friends, I just don't want them in my life if they still support this president. Full stop.
I think if you've made an honest effort to communicate with them, and understand why they hold different views than you do, it's fine to avoid contact. But I think as a society, we've pretty much failed to properly communicate for the last few decades, and simply started shouting at each other because taking an empathetic approach to civil disagreement and trying to understand a different viewpoint is a lot more work than just shouting.
The people that stormed the Capitol saw themselves as patriots defending their democracy from traitors. You see yourself as a patriot defending your democracy from traitors. Everybody thinks they're the good guy.
These people are objectively wrong though. The only reason they believe that is because The President, who is typically someone of authority, has been lying to them for years.
Myself and many others have been fighting the battle of, "Don't listen to Trump, he's a demonstrable liar" for five years now. Countless phone conversations with families. Email exchanges. Posts on this and many other forums.
I cannot accept "both sides"ing on this. That is also intellectually lazy IMO.
I hear you @jehovasfitness23 -- I too have family members that are Trump supporters. ...
I talked with them after the mob violence last week, and they don't think Trump is to blame for it. But -- they think what the rioters did was terrible. OK, there's a tiny bit of common ground. Let's all stay calm and try to build on that.
I cannot accept "both sides"ing on this. That is also intellectually lazy IMO.
What "Both sides"-ing? I agree that people were objectively wrong in this case. My point is not who is wrong or not on this specific issue. My point is that we don't come back from this unless we all work at it. There will always be another divisive issue brought to the forefront, and we need to do a better job of diffusing these types of conflict or it will tear us apart.
I guess if suggesting that we could all be more empathetic boils down to "both sides"-ing, then I'm guilty of that.
I hear you @jehovasfitness23 -- I too have family members that are Trump supporters. ...
I talked with them after the mob violence last week, and they don't think Trump is to blame for it. But -- they think what the rioters did was terrible. OK, there's a tiny bit of common ground. Let's all stay calm and try to build on that.
I live in an area with tons of Trumps supporters. I've talked to a few and this is representative of what they think. NOBODY I've talked to thinks it was OK to break into the capitol. They think it's equivalent to the violence that happened in the BLM protests and are opposed to both. I even know one person who was at the rally but not near the capitol building. He said the overall vibe was extremely peaceful and respectful. I honestly believe the folks who broke in or support that type of action are a very small minority of the Trump supporters.
I cannot accept "both sides"ing on this. That is also intellectually lazy IMO.
What "Both sides"-ing? I agree that people were objectively wrong in this case. My point is not who is wrong or not on this specific issue. My point is that we don't come back from this unless we all work at it. There will always be another divisive issue brought to the forefront, and we need to do a better job of diffusing these types of conflict or it will tear us apart.
I guess if suggesting that we could all be more empathetic boils down to "both sides"-ing, then I'm guilty of that.
Myself and millions of others compromised on a more progressive policy agenda to unite behind the "unity and decency" candidate. Listen to Joe Biden's victory speech and weigh it against Trump's Jan 6th speech. Consider that he and his enablers have actively sought to disenfranchise tens of millions of people over the last two months while also completely dropping the ball on vaccine distribution as 10K-20K people a week die of COVID.
I fail to see how "everyone needs to be more empathetic" is the way out here. I agree that it is the pacification route. "Turning the temperature down" will get us through the next few weeks and allow us to focus on more fun things knowing that the country won't burn down. It will also embolden the more Trumpy right to continue trying to delegitimize elections results moving forward. Making peace so we can all watch the NFL playoffs for a couple of weeks is short sighted when I know these people are going to try to take my vote away at some point.
The way out is for anti-democracy people to stop being anti-democracy.
Myself and millions of others compromised on a more progressive policy agenda to unite behind the "unity and decency" candidate. Listen to Joe Biden's victory speech and weigh it against Trump's Jan 6th speech. Consider that he and his enablers have actively sought to disenfranchise tens of millions of people over the last two months while also completely dropping the ball on vaccine distribution as 10K-20K people a week die of COVID.
I fail to see how "everyone needs to be more empathetic" is the way out here. I agree that it is the pacification route. "Turning the temperature down" will get us through the next few weeks and allow us to focus on more fun things knowing that the country won't burn down. It will also embolden the more Trumpy right to continue trying to delegitimize elections results moving forward. Making peace so we can all watch the NFL playoffs for a couple of weeks is short sighted when I know these people are going to try to take my vote away at some point.
The way out is for anti-democracy people to stop being anti-democracy.
Myself and millions of others compromised on a more progressive policy agenda to unite behind the "unity and decency" candidate. Listen to Joe Biden's victory speech and weigh it against Trump's Jan 6th speech. Consider that he and his enablers have actively sought to disenfranchise tens of millions of people over the last two months while also completely dropping the ball on vaccine distribution as 10K-20K people a week die of COVID.
I fail to see how "everyone needs to be more empathetic" is the way out here. I agree that it is the pacification route. "Turning the temperature down" will get us through the next few weeks and allow us to focus on more fun things knowing that the country won't burn down. It will also embolden the more Trumpy right to continue trying to delegitimize elections results moving forward. Making peace so we can all watch the NFL playoffs for a couple of weeks is short sighted when I know these people are going to try to take my vote away at some point.
The way out is for anti-democracy people to stop being anti-democracy.
I and millions of others voted for Joe Biden in part because he was the unity and decency candidate, and his victory speech bore out that confidence.
I agree with you that the way out is for the anti-democracy people to stop being anti-democracy. However, in my experience the more people are convinced that "the other side" hates them and could never forgive them, the less likely they are to re-evaluate their current beliefs. Which makes sense when you think about it. If one side is going to hate you no matter what, it is extremely risky to start questioning beliefs that could lead to the other side hating you too.
I cannot force anyone to change their beliefs, but there are actions I can take in my personal and public life to either lower or raise the barriers to others choosing to do so as the evidence that their beliefs were wrong continues to accumulate.
Jesus I wish that's where we were. That they wanted forgiveness. But we're 250 miles down the road from even admitting that Trump was a mistake, let alone thinking anything was done that requires forgiveness. This is why I'm against "we need to be more empathetic" right now. It's just a bandaid so that we can watch the superbowl together and forget about our problems.
The only tools I have to combat this are my education and fact-based reporting. This has been characterized by the President as stuff of, "The enemy of the people." Countless times. Including last Wednesday.
These people are completely lost in the woods right now and first and foremost, they need to get out and figure out why they were led astray. For my part, I've spent hours this past week writing and calling the congress people who I believe are knowingly leading them astray and imploring them to stop it.
If that qualifies as empathy, then maybe I am being empathetic. But I don't know.
The only tools I have to combat this are my education and fact-based reporting. This has been characterized by the President as stuff of, "The enemy of the people." Countless times. Including last Wednesday.
These people are completely lost in the woods right now and first and foremost, they need to get out and figure out why they were led astray. For my part, I've spent hours this past week writing and calling the congress people who I believe are knowingly leading them astray and imploring them to stop it.
If that qualifies as empathy, then maybe I am being empathetic. But I don't know.
Okay, that sounds like a quite reasonable approach. Do you feel like anyone in this thread is telling you not to do that? Or saying that it isn't worth doing so?
Okay, that sounds like a quite reasonable approach. Do you feel like anyone in this thread is telling you not to do that? Or saying that it isn't worth doing so?
I feel like calls for "empathy on all sides" is pretty ambiguous solution that is more likely to lead to temporary pacification, with long term consequences being paid for mostly by people who aren't privileged enough to pursue FIRE.
Regarding investments: No change. The stock market will be fine, as usual.
Regarding the country: I don't know. We live in a solid blue state, so I can't help vote out dangerous disinformation (a word I hate, we already have a perfectly good word for spreading "disinformation", it's called LYING) spreading senators like Hawley and Cruz. I will continue donating money to the DNC to unseat them and their like. I think we need enough Democrats in the government to actually start passing agenda instead of sitting on bills ala McConnell. Our only way forward is to make the lives of all American's better--no matter how much they scream about hating Obamacare (but they like their ACA plan.)
"Bipartisan government." "Unity." "Have empathy for the other side." Sounds good, when are the Republicans going to start? We scrapped the public option and passed Romney's healthcare nationally. We were called communists for it, and the other side ran on REPEAL AND REPLACE. Replace with what? They never told us. Replace with nothing, it turned out. And they couldn't even do that with a Republican majority. When are the Republicans going to apologize for calling us radical socialist? When are they going to commit to not smearing the Democrats with their "Leftist" agenda?
Remember when Republican's said that gay marriage would destroy the family and cause more child rape? I do. But I don't remember them coming out after it was passed to say, "Oh... that never happened... guess we were wrong about that and the Democrats were right." That's pretty damn easy to verify as incorrect based on years of data since Obergefell v Hodges, what's the hold up? Don't Republican's want unity and empathy?
Hey, do you remember when Republicans said, "Oh my gosh, an unarmed sleeping woman was murdered in her own home and her partner was jailed for trying to defend his home from plainclothes invaders? They had the right to stand their ground, let's get justice for them!" Oh wait, no, they continued trying to press charges against the survivor and protect Breonna Taylor's murderers. But a couple of yahoos waving guns at people not even on their property? McCloskeys need to speak at the RNC! Seems pretty empathetic of the Republicans huh? /s
Where in the middle should we meet these people? They hate us. They lie about anyone further left than Mitt Romney (and a little about him, too.) They call us communists, socialists, radicals, and extremists no matter what policy we put out. Here's my idea, how about the right meet us in the middle. How about they promise to stop lying to the public, for a start. How about they admit that they were wrong to lie about the election, providing fuel for Trump's rioters. How about they debate legislation on its merits instead of calling its organizers unpatriotic communists.
Democrats have tried empathy. It doesn't work. Let's try consequences instead.
"Meet me in the middle," said the dishonest man. "Ok," said his friend, and took one step towards the dishonest man. The dishonest man takes two steps backwards. "Meet me in the middle."
Okay, that sounds like a quite reasonable approach. Do you feel like anyone in this thread is telling you not to do that? Or saying that it isn't worth doing so?
I feel like calls for "empathy on all sides" is pretty ambiguous solution that is more likely to lead to temporary pacification, with long term consequences being paid for mostly by people who aren't privileged enough to pursue FIRE.
It would help me if you could point to a specific post or posts that you're referring to. One of mine? Someone elses?
Do you feel like calls for empathy and fact-based education are inherently in conflict with each other? I certainly don't, but I am interested to hear your take on it.
These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long. Go home with love & peace. Remember this day forever!
Yourself and Paper Chaser seem to be poking in that direction. I'm not trying to call you guys out because I think you're both great and I appreciate the perspective.
But what does unity and empathy mean right now? In the national discussion, right now it means forgive and forget. I think that's a horrible idea. I think removing Trump and censuring the representatives who voted for disenfranchisement is a good start but I'm willing to entertain other consequences as long as they aren't, "no consequences."
And while Biden at least tries to thread the needle of supporting the need for police reform while condemning tangential violence that happens during protests, please note that Officer Sicknick was beaten to death by rioters incited by the president 5 days ago, and the President has yet to make a statement on it.
In the simplest terms, much of the country has lined up behind the approaches of one of these two men. I think it's a mistake to say that lack of empathy from those trying to adhere to the Biden approach even makes the shortlist of issues here.
The scary thing right now is that there is such a large number of people on both sides who
In the words of Josh Holmes, former chief of staff to Mitch McConnell: If you're not in a white hot rage over what happened by now you're not paying attention.
Okay, that sounds like a quite reasonable approach. Do you feel like anyone in this thread is telling you not to do that? Or saying that it isn't worth doing so?
I feel like calls for "empathy on all sides" is pretty ambiguous solution that is more likely to lead to temporary pacification, with long term consequences being paid for mostly by people who aren't privileged enough to pursue FIRE.
It would help me if you could point to a specific post or posts that you're referring to. One of mine? Someone elses?
Do you feel like calls for empathy and fact-based education are inherently in conflict with each other? I certainly don't, but I am interested to hear your take on it.
When one side says "accept the certified election results" and the other side says "reject the certified election results," the correct thing is not to compromise on "sometimes accept the certified election results." No. The people who have worked to overrule the voters need to come to the realization that their behavior is unacceptable and change. The onus is on them in this regard. If there's anything I can do to point them to a resource that will help them on that path I'm happy to do so, but I feel like at some point everyone has had ample opportunity to read about whether elections are a good thing or not and any of my efforts to explain this will be in vain.
The scary thing right now is that there is such a large number of people on both sides who have such a level of righteous indignation they are willing to do things that they wouldn't normally do. It's a mixture of "they started it" and "they are so evil that the ends justify the means".
The right thinks that the left just stole an election by perpetrating mass voter fraud.
The left thinks Trump is an evil racist Nazi who is willing to do anything to stay in power and his followers MIGHT be marginally better.
Both sides are very disenfranchised with the other. I don't think we will have civil war because it's to hard to line up the other side and be clear who "THEY" are long enough to fight. But, we are reaching the point where some on both sides would be willing to pull the trigger if they knew who to target. The current government is so corrupt that many don't have any faith in them to fix the issues.
Lots of angry posts focused on national level politics, who should be blamed, and how they should be punished. I get anger. But is that productive on a personal level? How does being angry about this thing help us prevent the next one, or the one that is actually the root of all of this? Sure, you can punish people, and I'm on board with that. But is being angry making your life better, or is it just affecting the way you see other Americans? How does that change the likelihood of some disenfranchised faction of society becoming militarized again in the future? Getting one half of the country to ram legislation or politicians through that the other half doesn't want hasn't worked at any point, and it isn't going to solve this. The real issue at the root of all of these conflicts is that neither side is trying to find common ground. We're trying to break "the other guy's" will. Guess what, if you go looking for enemies, you'll probably find them. But taking the time to learn a bit about your enemy makes them less likely to be your enemy in the first place.
The scary thing right now is that there is such a large number of people on both sides who have such a level of righteous indignation they are willing to do things that they wouldn't normally do. It's a mixture of "they started it" and "they are so evil that the ends justify the means".
The right thinks that the left just stole an election by perpetrating mass voter fraud.
The left thinks Trump is an evil racist Nazi who is willing to do anything to stay in power and his followers MIGHT be marginally better.
Both sides are very disenfranchised with the other. I don't think we will have civil war because it's to hard to line up the other side and be clear who "THEY" are long enough to fight. But, we are reaching the point where some on both sides would be willing to pull the trigger if they knew who to target. The current government is so corrupt that many don't have any faith in them to fix the issues.
Ah yes, like that time BLM and the women's marches stormed the Capital to out a candidate they didn't like... Oh wait, that was when the women's marchers peacefully knit pink hats to march and BLM has met with the national guard already pre deployed.
The right believes a lie based on liars lying to them, therefore they are encouraging people with guns to overthrow a democratic election based on no evidence.
The left believes the right is becoming overtly radicalized and violent based on... the right's own actions. They are calling for the legal procedures to censure and respond to domestic terrorism and sedition to be enforced.
Totally the same, those leftists must need to back off on that "righteous indignation." Why ever are those on the left pointing out the clear sequence of events that means the right started it?
This is a great example of the double standards I think the left as a whole is really tired of. It's the equivalent of two kids, one breaks the family vase, and going to mom, "Well, sibling shouldn't have tattled on me, doesn't she share the blame?" The "moderate" compromise outcome of punishing both kids for one's behavior is unfair. It will not result in unity. It will result in resentment at the uneven treatment. It already has. To use the Bible, this is equivalent to the story of slicing the baby in half to satisfy both mothers. The real mom is going to be horrified at the compromise.
But as people here are saying, being angry alone doesn't produce outcomes. Anger is useful when it motivates you to achieve outcomes.
So I will contact my representatives to ask them to impeach Trump. I will donate to political causes I agree with. I will engage in debate so long as it looks like the people I am talking to are willing to change their minds. I will continue disengaging from people who use ad hominum attacks against me for my political view (no one in this thread, but IRL.) I will continue voting in every election I can. And I will keep pointing out hypocrisy when I see it, including both-sides-isms.
@The scary thing right now is that there is such a large number of people on both sides who have such a level of righteous indignation they are willing to do things that they wouldn't normally do. It's a mixture of "they started it" and "they are so evil that the ends justify the means".
The right thinks that the left just stole an election by perpetrating mass voter fraud.
The left thinks Trump is an evil racist Nazi who is willing to do anything to stay in power and his followers MIGHT be marginally better.
Both sides are very disenfranchised with the other. I don't think we will have civil war because it's to hard to line up the other side and be clear who "THEY" are long enough to fight. But, we are reaching the point where some on both sides would be willing to pull the trigger if they knew who to target. The current government is so corrupt that many don't have any faith in them to fix the issues.
Ah yes, like that time BLM and the women's marches stormed the Capital to out a candidate they didn't like... Oh wait, that was when the women's marchers peacefully knit pink hats to march and BLM has met with the national guard already pre deployed.
The right believes a lie based on liars lying to them, therefore they are encouraging people with guns to overthrow a democratic election based on no evidence.
The left believes the right is becoming overtly radicalized and violent based on... the right's own actions. They are calling for the legal procedures to censure and respond to domestic terrorism and sedition to be enforced.
Totally the same, those leftists must need to back off on that "righteous indignation." Why ever are those on the left pointing out the clear sequence of events that means the right started it?
This is a great example of the double standards I think the left as a whole is really tired of. It's the equivalent of two kids, one breaks the family vase, and going to mom, "Well, sibling shouldn't have tattled on me, doesn't she share the blame?" The "moderate" compromise outcome of punishing both kids for one's behavior is unfair. It will not result in unity. It will result in resentment at the uneven treatment. It already has. To use the Bible, this is equivalent to the story of slicing the baby in half to satisfy both mothers. The real mom is going to be horrified at the compromise.
But as people here are saying, being angry alone doesn't produce outcomes. Anger is useful when it motivates you to achieve outcomes.
So I will contact my representatives to ask them to impeach Trump. I will donate to political causes I agree with. I will engage in debate so long as it looks like the people I am talking to are willing to change their minds. I will continue disengaging from people who use ad hominum attacks against me for my political view (no one in this thread, but IRL.) I will continue voting in every election I can. And I will keep pointing out hypocrisy when I see it, including both-sides-isms.
Careful with revisionist history. Kenosha and Minneapolis were literally burned down.
There’s no place for violence, no place for looting or destroying property or burning churches or destroying businesses […] we need to distinguish between legitimate peaceful protest and opportunistic violent destruction
It’s no wonder people are taking to the streets and I support them. We must always defend peaceful protest and peaceful protestors. We should not confuse them with those looting and committing acts of violence, including the shooter who was arrested for murder. And make no mistake, we will not let these vigilantes and extremists derail the path to justice.
In Minneapolis, we have marched, we have protested, we have organized. And when we see people setting our buildings and our businesses ablaze, we know those are not people who are interested in protecting black lives. They might say they care about black lives, but they’re not interested in protecting black lives, because when you set a fire, you risk -- you risk the community that you are saying you are standing out for.
We support peaceful demonstrations. We participate in them. They are part of the essence of our democracy. That does not include looting, starting fires, or rioting. They should be prosecuted. That is lawlessness.
I'm still trying to avoid catching or inadvertently spreading Covid. There were 4000 other people who died on Wednesday from the virus. That's absolutely the bigger threat to me by every metric.
I worked in 1 WTC twenty years ago and was on my way into the building when a bunch of terrorists, angry with the way things were going in my country, killed some of my colleagues and friends. I saw the planes, the bodies of my coworkers, and witnessed the buildings collapse with my own eyes. Live, in person. Not on television. It's something of a random fluke that I wasn't already inside and doomed to die like so many people I knew. It sticks with me. In the years since, I've learned was that there is no purpose to sitting and viewing it all on-screen, over and over, endlessly debating and fomenting anger at those responsible or at those who share similar viewpoints with those responsible.
The events of Wednesday aren't unprecedented. Violent acts of terrorism have happened before. And even if that mob had succeeded in the most devastating of their plans, the certification of the electoral votes would still have happened. Terrorism never achieves support for the terrorists' objectives. It gets near universal condemnation and a backlash.
America is not on the precipice. We've just had an election. The people have spoken and the will of the people is being carried out.
Wear your mask. Keep your distance. Get your vaccines.
This is a wonderful answer:I'm still trying to avoid catching or inadvertently spreading Covid. There were 4000 other people who died on Wednesday from the virus. That's absolutely the bigger threat to me by every metric.
I worked in 1 WTC twenty years ago and was on my way into the building when a bunch of terrorists, angry with the way things were going in my country, killed some of my colleagues and friends. I saw the planes, the bodies of my coworkers, and witnessed the buildings collapse with my own eyes. Live, in person. Not on television. It's something of a random fluke that I wasn't already inside and doomed to die like so many people I knew. It sticks with me. In the years since, I've learned was that there is no purpose to sitting and viewing it all on-screen, over and over, endlessly debating and fomenting anger at those responsible or at those who share similar viewpoints with those responsible.
The events of Wednesday aren't unprecedented. Violent acts of terrorism have happened before. And even if that mob had succeeded in the most devastating of their plans, the certification of the electoral votes would still have happened. Terrorism never achieves support for the terrorists' objectives. It gets near universal condemnation and a backlash.
America is not on the precipice. We've just had an election. The people have spoken and the will of the people is being carried out.
Wear your mask. Keep your distance. Get your vaccines.
I'm so sorry you had to witness that, kite. Thank you for sharing this.
-----
I'm doing nothing. Nothing, except helping my kids understand what's going on around them.
Freedom, democracy, and the betterment of society absolutely aren't things that will materialize out of thin air, but I'm still doing 'nothing'.
Most of my family is Republican and many still believe in the ideology of the Trump movement. Not the "burn antifa" movement (or however you choose to characterize it), but more toward the "Drain the Swamp" approach that he took earlier in his first campaign and first year of his term.
I won't burn bridges with them, nor coworkers who hold the same views, nor friends. I won't sabotage the entire network of relationships in my life over something that will eventually fade and heal. I don't engage, I don't argue, I don't refute. I actively deflect, play Devil's advocate, shed doubt on dubious claims, and poke holes in arguments where holes can be poked.
Otherwise, I'm raising my kids. I'm working. We're looking to buy a house. We're avoiding Covid. Life moves on for us.
Ahh yes, we should be friendly to traitors of this country and bargain with the terrorists.
Well, they started boarding up the first floor windows on our state capitol building today.
Ahh yes, we should be friendly to traitors of this country and bargain with the terrorists.
Did you call the people who drove the police out of a neighborhood in Seattle for three weeks to create the CHAZ/CHOP traitors and terrorists as well? There were killings there too and yet the traitors and terrorists still would not allow police to return or investigate, even days after a young boy was shot to death. Please answer, it will tell us if you truly care about terrorists or if you're just political posturing on the internet. There's radical nutjobs that have driven keepers of law and order out of all kinds of places before. If you only call them traitors and terrorists when you disagree with them and call them freedom fighters when you agree with them, then you're not truly in favor of equality and law and order.
To me, all breakdown of law and order is bad. It's bad when its leftists in Seattle and bad with its rightists in D.C. It's all bad because the breakdown of law and order is bad in a nation like the USA which is supposed to be trying for equality and the rule of law. Not mob rule and advancement of whoever's got the biggest show of power.
Ahh yes, we should be friendly to traitors of this country and bargain with the terrorists.
Did you call the people who drove the police out of a neighborhood in Seattle for three weeks to create the CHAZ/CHOP traitors and terrorists as well? There were killings there too and yet the traitors and terrorists still would not allow police to return or investigate, even days after a young boy was shot to death. Please answer, it will tell us if you truly care about terrorists or if you're just political posturing on the internet. There's radical nutjobs that have driven keepers of law and order out of all kinds of places before. If you only call them traitors and terrorists when you disagree with them and call them freedom fighters when you agree with them, then you're not truly in favor of equality and law and order.
To me, all breakdown of law and order is bad. It's bad when its leftists in Seattle and bad with its rightists in D.C. It's all bad because the breakdown of law and order is bad in a nation like the USA which is supposed to be trying for equality and the rule of law. Not mob rule and advancement of whoever's got the biggest show of power.
..... a terrorist attack--violence aimed at causing a desired political outcome...
Also the BLM protests in Seattle were to raise awareness of the racist policing we have here, inform voters, and propose policy for lawmakers....
I won't call BLM protestors "traitors and terrorists."
Ahh yes, we should be friendly to traitors of this country and bargain with the terrorists.
LOL man some of you.
I'm not saying I want to fight with my fam/friends, I just don't want them in my life if they still support this president. Full stop.
I think if you've made an honest effort to communicate with them, and understand why they hold different views than you do, it's fine to avoid contact. But I think as a society, we've pretty much failed to properly communicate for the last few decades, and simply started shouting at each other because taking an empathetic approach to civil disagreement and trying to understand a different viewpoint is a lot more work than just shouting.
The people that stormed the Capitol saw themselves as patriots defending their democracy from traitors. You see yourself as a patriot defending your democracy from traitors. Everybody thinks they're the good guy.
Reconciliation doesn't fall solely on the shoulders of the people who were right about Trump's cruelty and fascist tendencies from the beginning.
Even after insurrectionists were wound up by Trump, broke into the Capitol, and killed people, congress reconvened and over 100 congressmen voted to disenfranchise tens of millions of votes and overturn the results of a legitimate election in order to cater to Trump's baseless tin foil conspiracy theories.
Their constituents can, at any point, start pressuring those congressmen to admit fault and change course.
..... a terrorist attack--violence aimed at causing a desired political outcome...
Also the BLM protests in Seattle were to raise awareness of the racist policing we have here, inform voters, and propose policy for lawmakers....
I won't call BLM protestors "traitors and terrorists."
@CodingHare Thanks for your post. It helped explain some of what I've thought of as a disconnect.
Would you expand on this?
Are you saying the BLM protests were "aimed at causing a desired political outcome" but were not planned to be violent and that is why you won't call them terrorists?
That makes sense to me but then I struggle with thinking that some (a minuscule minority maybe) of the BLM protestors were planning violence to ensure attention was paid. So maybe a few were terrorists?
I know quite a truck drivers were afraid to drive thru big cities for fear of the violence taking place. Do you distinguish that violence as a side effect, not an intention?
I understand if you don't want to get into it here but your post is enlightening.
I guess I just see the breakdown of law & order as a bad thing, regardless of how it happens. After Minneapolis cops murdered George Floyd we had protests in something like 100+ cities but only in a few of them did we see law & order truly break down. In those places (the CHAZ is an example) it is very much comparable to the nutjobs that managed to get a breakdown of law & order in the capital as well.
It's not going to last long though. Joe Biden has made it clear that although he's seeking healing and an advancement of progressive ideals, he's absolutely a president of law & order. Look at the mayor of Portland. After literally having rioters drive him out of his own home, he got re-elected on the promise that he'll take a tougher stand against rioters than his opponent and that's what we've seen in Portland now. The pendulum swings. It swung hard against law & order this summer and we're going to see it swing back hard towards law & order under Biden. There will be peace because it's the only way to move forward.
As much as it sucks, we have to be the better people always, because two belligerent factions don’t make a stable country. Refer to Jesus and all that stuff he said.
Ahh yes, we should be friendly to traitors of this country and bargain with the terrorists.
LOL man some of you.
I'm not saying I want to fight with my fam/friends, I just don't want them in my life if they still support this president. Full stop.
I think if you've made an honest effort to communicate with them, and understand why they hold different views than you do, it's fine to avoid contact. But I think as a society, we've pretty much failed to properly communicate for the last few decades, and simply started shouting at each other because taking an empathetic approach to civil disagreement and trying to understand a different viewpoint is a lot more work than just shouting.
The people that stormed the Capitol saw themselves as patriots defending their democracy from traitors. You see yourself as a patriot defending your democracy from traitors. Everybody thinks they're the good guy.Reconciliation doesn't fall solely on the shoulders of the people who were right about Trump's cruelty and fascist tendencies from the beginning.
Even after insurrectionists were wound up by Trump, broke into the Capitol, and killed people, congress reconvened and over 100 congressmen voted to disenfranchise tens of millions of votes and overturn the results of a legitimate election in order to cater to Trump's baseless tin foil conspiracy theories.
Their constituents can, at any point, start pressuring those congressmen to admit fault and change course.
This. As an example, I have a cousin-through-marriage who married a big Trumper. Several months ago, we got into it on FB on our aunt's page. I pointed out that he really DOESN'T understand how his aunt feels, and her positions - and that's partly because he hasn't TRIED. (She's gay, she's lived all over. He's white, middle class, in lives in our very white home town.)
He attacked me with "oh, poor baby have I hurt your feelings." My response was less than nice with "oh please, I'm 50 years old and was in the military, you can't hurt my feelings because I literally don't give a shit what you think." (He's maybe 30 years old. It's my much younger cousin.)
Within a day his wife was all boo-hooing on FB about how people keep "attacking" her husband and if you don't like them, then just unfriend us. So...I did. I mean, if that's what you want, fine with me!
Well apparently yesterday, she posted in the private family group how people are "attacking" her husband and she loves us and doesn't feel mean towards us for our beliefs and we need to respect hers! So, I went to her public fb page, didn't see anything, and then went to his. Well, he posts a lot of the horrible things that you'd expect from a trump supporter and I saw our aunts and uncles interacting with him and his opinions...quite respectfully. And he basically "yelled" in return, as much as you can yell on facebook.
So, respectfully questioning your opinions is attacking? Well fuck that. I have no need to keep these nutcases in my life (I mean, I already unfriended her and we live on opposite coasts anyway. And I have like 70 cousins anyway.)
I asked this question to my therapist months ago, "what's the line? when people are rounded up into box cars?"
extreme but it poses a question, where's the line where people cut ties? For me it was Weds 6th after years of struggling to find that line.
..... a terrorist attack--violence aimed at causing a desired political outcome...
Also the BLM protests in Seattle were to raise awareness of the racist policing we have here, inform voters, and propose policy for lawmakers....
I won't call BLM protestors "traitors and terrorists."
@CodingHare Thanks for your post. It helped explain some of what I've thought of as a disconnect.
Would you expand on this?
Are you saying the BLM protests were "aimed at causing a desired political outcome" but were not planned to be violent and that is why you won't call them terrorists?
That makes sense to me but then I struggle with thinking that some (a minuscule minority maybe) of the BLM protestors were planning violence to ensure attention was paid. So maybe a few were terrorists?
I know quite a truck drivers were afraid to drive thru big cities for fear of the violence taking place. Do you distinguish that violence as a side effect, not an intention?
I understand if you don't want to get into it here but your post is enlightening.
Sure, happy to! I guess we go back to definitions. Both protests and terrorism try to effect change, often political. Protests don't say, Do what we want or we will hang you. They are saying, this group of people are unhappy and want x. We will vote for x, we will disrupt people's lives and cost money (via blocking roads and the like) to make sure people are listening to us. Often protests happen when lobbying through normal channels fails. A small protest might be ignored. A large one commands attention.
Terrorism seeks to force an immediate change via violence. Bomb the Pentagon so they can't organize strikes in the Middle East against insurgents, to use 9/11 as an example. Threaten to hang Pence if he doesn't overthrow the vote of the people.
That's why I characterize BLM and the Capitol riots differently.
Ednt: Missed the question about your truck driver's example, hazard of replying on mobile. I guess to me, I draw the line between inconveniencing society and harming its members. So I don't think individuals should ever face violence against their person, and the ideal purpose of law enforcement is to prevent that. On the flip side, in America money talks. Block a highway and impct shipments? No people harmed and not listening to the issue costs society in a real way. I think racial justice and the murders of innocent people merit that level of reaction.
IIRC, at least in Seattle the protestors explicitly let ambulences and fire trucks through.
Sorry if that was a ramble, I had an upfront view last year and thought a lot about what the George Floyd and Breonna Taylor marches meant in terms of economic impact locally, and how the events were heavily spun my national media.
Stop comparing BLM to traitors. This is a false equivalency, god.
1. BLM was for a legit cause that had some buildings damaged
2. The 6th was a conspiracy theory built on lies of a fraudulent election that had plans of executing members of congress to overthrow the gov't, with the help of some in law enforcement
they are NOT the same
1. BLM was for a legit cause that had some buildings damaged
2. The 6th was a conspiracy theory built on lies of a fraudulent election that had plans of executing members of congress to overthrow the gov't, with the help of some in law enforcement
they are NOT the same
Nobody is comparing BLM (the bigger movement with good intentions) to the terrorists on the 6th. Some of us are comparing the people who used violence for an end during the BLM riots and the people who used violence for an end on the 6th. I consider them both terrorists and don't understand why there is so much more outcry against one than the other. Also, people were injured and killed during the BLM protests, it wasn't just "some buildings damaged" https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/09/us/dallas-police-shooting.html
Nobody is comparing BLM (the bigger movement with good intentions) to the terrorists on the 6th. Some of us are comparing the people who used violence for an end during the BLM riots and the people who used violence for an end on the 6th. I consider them both terrorists and don't understand why there is so much more outcry against one than the other. Also, people were injured and killed during the BLM protests, it wasn't just "some buildings damaged" https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/09/us/dallas-police-shooting.html
ericrugiero, my view is that the biggest difference between the two is that violence specifically directed at people by some attendee of the BLM protests seemed to mostly be not pre-meditated (and so not aimed at achieving political ends) but the result of putting lots of angry young people together in an environment where the rule of law wasn't being enforces, whereas the occupation of the capitol appears to have involved more planning and organization.
In our society, the same crime is almost always worse when it is premeditated. If two people commit murder, one getting in a fight at a bar and breaking their opponent's neck, and one person plans for weeks where and when they can shoot a person who they don't like, the latter generally receives a harsher sentence than the former.
@CodingHare Thank you for the explanation of the differences you see. Please allow me to push back a little.
In the BLM protests, most people were peaceful and were legitimately there to draw attention to a problem so that our society could change for the better. I totally get that and agree that in large part the intentions were good. But, there were groups of people who perpetrated violence/vandalism and/or were holding signs or chanting "No Justice, No Peace" or "Know Justice, Know Peace". I take that to mean that they will continue to prevent peace until there is justice. That seems a lot like your definition of terrorism "Terrorism seeks to force an immediate change via violence".
In the capitol protests, most of the people were peaceful and were there because they legitimately believe that the election was stolen (they may be wrong but they have the right to a peaceful protest). A small percentage of them turned violent and did terrible acts of terrorism. Condemn the terrorists, prosecute them, throw the book at them. I will be right there with you. Just don't lump all conservatives in with them.
I am scared to death. I know enough about the runup to the Nazis and other nasty things in history. I don't know what I can do though. My husband thinks I am being foolish. I've had a rough year.BiB (I added the bold): for sure we have 99 problems here in the UK but insurrection plotted by our elected leaders isn't one of them.
I don't think it would help to hoard things or change my asset allocation. I keep a pretty low profile and only talk politics with certain close friends, never on social media. The area where I live is fairly buttoned up. We had a very peaceful BLM protest in June.
I/ my family wouldn't be a first target by a long shot, but I worry about friends who would. I have British citizenship but it's not much better there right now.
I don't watch the news too closely. I keep an eye on the headlines and my dad sends me an article sometimes. I don't watch video news at all because seeing Trump is an anxiety trigger for me.
I am not religious but I am praying in my foxhole for a peaceful next ten days. Maybe even an impeachment.
This is what makes the comparison fall flat IMO. Racial equity is a real issue. Election integrity is a made up issue.
This is what makes the comparison fall flat IMO. Racial equity is a real issue. Election integrity is a made up issue.
There's still enough voter suppression laws and policies on the book in many states. So maybe there are some ways to channel the "election integrity" discussion to make sure that a "downtown Atlanta black single mom" has the same access to voting as a rural farmer, and of course to make sure nobody else can vote in her name. :-D
1. BLM was for a legit cause that had some buildings damaged
2. The 6th was a conspiracy theory built on lies of a fraudulent election that had plans of executing members of congress to overthrow the gov't, with the help of some in law enforcement
they are NOT the same
While I agree that the two events were not the same, allow me to suggest that frame the difference being that the Floyd protests were for "a legit cause" (e.g. one that you agree with), is not a productive way to advance the discussion.
While I understand that this is not your intention, it ends up sounding like you have a problem with the occupation of the capitol because it was done in the name of a cause you do not support, rather than because occupying the capitol in order to try to overturn the results of democratic elections is unacceptable regardless of the cause the occupiers support.
People who disagree politically can agree that some tactics or actions are out of bounds regardless of the cause. Once you bring whether you agree with the position behind the tactics or action to the equation things rapidly degenerate to "the ends justify the means" and terrorism and treason become whatever the current party in power doesn't want people doing.
As someone who has spent the last four years in a country run by a government I fundamentally disagree with on a whole host of issues, I'd really rather we didn't go down that road in this country (more than we already have).
My reading of history is that indulging "election integrity" usually means making it harder to vote. More hoops to jump through. No same day registration. Voter ID. That stuff.
@CodingHare Thank you for the explanation of the differences you see. Please allow me to push back a little.
In the BLM protests, most people were peaceful and were legitimately there to draw attention to a problem so that our society could change for the better. I totally get that and agree that in large part the intentions were good. But, there were groups of people who perpetrated violence/vandalism and/or were holding signs or chanting "No Justice, No Peace" or "Know Justice, Know Peace". I take that to mean that they will continue to prevent peace until there is justice. That seems a lot like your definition of terrorism "Terrorism seeks to force an immediate change via violence".
In the capitol protests, most of the people were peaceful and were there because they legitimately believe that the election was stolen (they may be wrong but they have the right to a peaceful protest). A small percentage of them turned violent and did terrible acts of terrorism. Condemn the terrorists, prosecute them, throw the book at them. I will be right there with you. Just don't lump all conservatives in with them.
I think others have beaten the dead horse on why BLM vs the Capitol riots are different. I just wanted to respond to lumping all conservatives in with them, since I think maybe that is at the heart of why not condemning both groups might feel unfair.
I do not think every single person at DC on the 5th was a traitor and a terrorist personally. I do not think all conservatives are traitors and terrorists. What I know is that the following conservative leadership in particular whipped up the lies that lead to the 5th:
- Trump
- Cruz
- Hawley
- 139 House GOP members who voted to object to the electors from Arizona and/or Pennsylvania after the riots, despite seeing the same evidence of no election fraud as the rest of us.
So the people I think are traitors (and I use that word to mean traitors to the democratic process our country is founded on) are up above. The terrorists are the people who broke into the capital building. I'm seeing some on the right call out this behavior (Mitt Romney and Arnold Schwarzenegger, in particular.) I think in the interests of unity, bipartisanship, and empathy, conservatives need to clean out their own trash. I want to see official censure. I want to see bipartisan impeachment. I don't want consequences for insurrection at the capital and lying to court your base to be a left versus right issue. We'll see how that pans out over the next few days.
My reading of history is that indulging "election integrity" usually means making it harder to vote. More hoops to jump through. No same day registration. Voter ID. That stuff.
Just because "election integrity" has been framed in a way so as to advance Apartheid doe snot mean it has to always be that way.
The non-crazy people can steal their framing and use that against the crazy ones :-D.
--------------------------------------
I think the Dems need to learn to use the Right's rhetoric against them. Even though I am apprehensive of Big Tech's powers, I am loving every bit of the a*se-whopping that the "corporations are people" are getting. More than any good arguments, I think real consequences may convince some crazies to become less crazy.
jehovasfitness: one is legitimate because it is based on well-documented, observable reality, and the other is illegitimate because it is based on well-documented, observable lies.
maizefolk: wow so one is illegitimate simply because you disagree with it??
My reading of history is that indulging "election integrity" usually means making it harder to vote. More hoops to jump through. No same day registration. Voter ID. That stuff.
Just because "election integrity" has been framed in a way so as to advance Apartheid doe snot mean it has to always be that way.
The non-crazy people can steal their framing and use that against the crazy ones :-D.
--------------------------------------
I think the Dems need to learn to use the Right's rhetoric against them. Even though I am apprehensive of Big Tech's powers, I am loving every bit of the a*se-whopping that the "corporations are people" are getting. More than any good arguments, I think real consequences may convince some crazies to become less crazy.
You like to live dangerously, huh? :)
jehovasfitness: one is legitimate because it is based on well-documented, observable reality, and the other is illegitimate because it is based on well-documented, observable lies.
maizefolk: wow so one is illegitimate simply because you disagree with it??
@Cool Friend hat is a mischaracterization of my post (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/america-on-the-precipice-what-are-you-doing/msg2771980/#msg2771980), which you quoted alongside this statement.
If you're prefer the TL;DR version:
The illegitimacy or legitimacy of a cause shouldn't have to be a factor in condemning the occupation of the capitol building. That action, in of itself, is and should be out of bounds.
Politically, focusing on the tactic being out of bounds gets something like 7/8 americans to agree with you (making it easier to impose consequences on those responsible).
If you focus on whether or not they both agree with the justifications for the black lives matters protests AND disagree with the justifications given for storming the capitol you end up with a lot less and make it more likely people like Cruz and Hawley get off scot-free.
I actually disagree. If the election had actually been stolen, then we no longer live in a legitimate or functional democracy and violent revolution is probably justified.
jehovasfitness: one is legitimate because it is based on well-documented, observable reality, and the other is illegitimate because it is based on well-documented, observable lies.
maizefolk: wow so one is illegitimate simply because you disagree with it??
@Cool Friend hat is a mischaracterization of my post (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/america-on-the-precipice-what-are-you-doing/msg2771980/#msg2771980), which you quoted alongside this statement.
If you're prefer the TL;DR version:
The illegitimacy or legitimacy of a cause shouldn't have to be a factor in condemning the occupation of the capitol building. That action, in of itself, is and should be out of bounds.
Politically, focusing on the tactic being out of bounds gets something like 7/8 americans to agree with you (making it easier to impose consequences on those responsible).
If you focus on whether or not they both agree with the justifications for the black lives matters protests AND disagree with the justifications given for storming the capitol you end up with a lot less and make it more likely people like Cruz and Hawley get off scot-free.
I actually disagree. If the election had actually been stolen, then we no longer live in a legitimate or functional democracy and violent revolution is probably justified.
Fair enough. In that case I agree you have no choice but to argue that the occupation of the capital was wrong only because the cause the occupiers were acting in support of is wrong.
It's a tougher row to hoe, but it is the option open to you. Good luck!
January 6th is fast approaching, the future of this Republic hinges on the actions of a solitary few.
Get ready, the fate of a nation rests on our shoulders, yours and mine. Let’s show Washington that our backbones are made of steel and titanium.
It’s time to fight.
You mischaracterized jehovaswitness post by presuming "legit" meant "agreed on," giving the belief in the verifiable lie that the election was stolen from Trump an unmerited respectability.
Nobody is focusing on the above underlined because the BLM protests (or riots, if that's how you see them) are totally irrelevant to the topic.
I know there aren't a ton of religious people that post here, but regardless of how religious a person is/isn't, I think most people agree that "The Golden Rule" is a pretty worthy objective for how we interact with others.
You mischaracterized jehovaswitness post by presuming "legit" meant "agreed on," giving the belief in the verifiable lie that the election was stolen from Trump an unmerited respectability.
No. I said that jehovasfitness23 agreed with the BLM protests (based on him or her described them as legit). <-- note "fitness" not "witness."
I said the legitimacy of the cause people use to justify occupying the capitol shouldn't matter, the action should be off bounds regardless.
From the underlined it sounds like you are perceiving me as a right winger.
Perhaps it shouldn't matter, but it does. You're not going to convince the people who stormed the Capitol or approve of doing so that it's off bounds. It already happened, remember? They did it. It was on January 6th. Remember? And they're organizing to do it again. In light of of the lies they bought into, it is justifiable resistance. You're not going to convince them that it's wrong to take back the government from a hostile power that illegally stole an election from the President. Because that's what they believe and what you have to contend with.
Perhaps it shouldn't matter, but it does. You're not going to convince the people who stormed the Capitol or approve of doing so that it's off bounds. It already happened, remember? They did it. It was on January 6th. Remember? And they're organizing to do it again. In light of of the lies they bought into, it is justifiable resistance. You're not going to convince them that it's wrong to take back the government from a hostile power that illegally stole an election from the President. Because that's what they believe and what you have to contend with.
No, but I'm having a fair bit of success at convincing people who otherwise support Trump that they don't support the people who stormed the capitol and that those who did, and those who encouraged it should be held accountable.
From the folks posting on this thread, it sounds like people who argue from the point of view that it was wrong because the cause behind it was wrong (rather than because the action was wrong) are having less success. But that is indeed an assumption on my part. Are you having much success at convincing people (edit: who didn't already vote for Biden) using that strategy?
Perhaps it shouldn't matter, but it does. You're not going to convince the people who stormed the Capitol or approve of doing so that it's off bounds. It already happened, remember? They did it. It was on January 6th. Remember? And they're organizing to do it again. In light of of the lies they bought into, it is justifiable resistance. You're not going to convince them that it's wrong to take back the government from a hostile power that illegally stole an election from the President. Because that's what they believe and what you have to contend with.
No, but I'm having a fair bit of success at convincing people who otherwise support Trump that they don't support the people who stormed the capitol and that those who did, and those who encouraged it should be held accountable.
From the folks posting on this thread, it sounds like people who argue from the point of view that it was wrong because the cause behind it was wrong (rather than because the action was wrong) are having less success. But that is indeed an assumption on my part. Are you having much success at convincing people (edit: who didn't already vote for Biden) using that strategy?
No, but I'm having a fair bit of success at convincing people who otherwise support Trump that they don't support the people who stormed the capitol and that those who did, and those who encouraged it should be held accountable.
From the folks posting on this thread, it sounds like people who argue from the point of view that it was wrong because the cause behind it was wrong (rather than because the action was wrong) are having less success. But that is indeed an assumption on my part. Are you having much success at convincing people using that strategy?Given that the only Trump supporter in my family/friend group's response to gently questioning the validity of the election fraud claims was to yell, "I LOVE TRUMP, 4 MORE YEARS", no, not really. When asking questions (not jumping to accusations) is taken as a personal attack, dialogue is dead.
If the lies aren't also acknowledged as wrong, all we've done is set a precedent. One crisis of democracy and one dead cop every four years is totally acceptable now.
At least 45% of republicans agree with it. That's a massive and sad amount, but not shocking
Does the "off topic" section not exist anymore?
@maizefolkI agree with a lot of this, but I am 100% sure that Trump lost an honestly held election and then he and some ambitious and weak-willed politician lied about it to millions of poor fools in order to incite insurrection. I'm not seeing the shades of grey on that one.
I'm impressed with how you've tackled this thread.
I don't have much to add outside that kudos. Focussing on moving past the Us vs Them argument is a noble cause, and one I wish more people would try and tackle. The divisiveness of always identifying an Other to hate and blame seems lost on way too many people, and the admittedly harder steps it takes to empathize with "them" in any avenue should be applauded.
If anyone knows for sure they are 100% right about something then they should have a good footing to understand how frustrated the other side is when they think they're 100% right. The world works in shades of grey, not absolutes.
Caveat for those that need it: The attack on the capital was insane, wrong and unprecedented. I am Canadian so have less invested in the exact topic but know that from the outside lots of the world is lumping America into its own "Them" category, which includes everyone there... Seems a bit unfair no?
Personally, I think it’s okay for communities to occasionally talk about stuff other than payoff vs mortgage or VTI vs VOO.
Personally, I think it’s okay for communities to occasionally talk about stuff other than payoff vs mortgage or VTI vs VOO.
If the lies aren't also acknowledged as wrong, all we've done is set a precedent. One crisis of democracy and one dead cop every four years is totally acceptable now.
I agree. But if there aren't consequences for the people who provoked the crisis that lead to the deaths. (And I count the blame for Howard Liebengood's death in addition to Brian Sicknick's) we've set an even worse precedent:
That you can attempt to overthrow the outcome of an election, and either it works or it doesn't and you can go on about your life, wait, and try again in four years.At least 45% of republicans agree with it. That's a massive and sad amount, but not shocking
Where are you seeing 45%? The number I found was 18% of republicans. Source: https://thehill.com/homenews/news/533452-poll-18-percent-of-republicans-support-capitol-riots
I actually disagree. If the election had actually been stolen, then we no longer live in a legitimate or functional democracy and violent revolution is probably justified.
the hill piece should read 18% of all or something like that
https://www.news10.com/news/us-capitol-coverage/poll-one-fifth-of-voters-almost-half-of-republicans-agree-with-storming-of-us-capitol/
that also tracks with this:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommybeer/2020/09/02/majority-of-republicans-believe-the-qanon-conspiracy-theory-is-partly-or-mostly-true-survey-finds/
@maizefolkI agree with a lot of this, but I am 100% sure that Trump lost an honestly held election and then he and some ambitious and weak-willed politician lied about it to millions of poor fools in order to incite insurrection. I'm not seeing the shades of grey on that one.
I'm impressed with how you've tackled this thread.
I don't have much to add outside that kudos. Focussing on moving past the Us vs Them argument is a noble cause, and one I wish more people would try and tackle. The divisiveness of always identifying an Other to hate and blame seems lost on way too many people, and the admittedly harder steps it takes to empathize with "them" in any avenue should be applauded.
If anyone knows for sure they are 100% right about something then they should have a good footing to understand how frustrated the other side is when they think they're 100% right. The world works in shades of grey, not absolutes.
Caveat for those that need it: The attack on the capital was insane, wrong and unprecedented. I am Canadian so have less invested in the exact topic but know that from the outside lots of the world is lumping America into its own "Them" category, which includes everyone there... Seems a bit unfair no?
My reading of history is that indulging "election integrity" usually means making it harder to vote. More hoops to jump through. No same day registration. Voter ID. That stuff.
Just because "election integrity" has been framed in a way so as to advance Apartheid doe snot mean it has to always be that way.
The non-crazy people can steal their framing and use that against the crazy ones :-D.
--------------------------------------
I think the Dems need to learn to use the Right's rhetoric against them. Even though I am apprehensive of Big Tech's powers, I am loving every bit of the a*se-whopping that the "corporations are people" are getting. More than any good arguments, I think real consequences may convince some crazies to become less crazy.
You like to live dangerously, huh? :)
Think about it.
"Election Integrity" has two legs:
1. All valid voters can vote without any undue barriers and their vote is counted.
2. No invalid votes are counted.
The "Right" gets all wound up on the fictitious issues they perceive with #2, while intentionally screwing up #1. Rather than trying to badmouth the phrase "election integrity" itself, I think the Dems should just rhetorically support it with the clarification that they want both of the issues with election integrity addressed. Simple.
You will, of course, suddenly see the right dislike "election integrity", because they love their Apartheid. But in the confusion some good laws might get passed that addresses #1.
Given the rabid search by Republicans for evidence of fraud in the 2020 Presidential election and its complete and utter failure, #2 has already been achieved.My reading of history is that indulging "election integrity" usually means making it harder to vote. More hoops to jump through. No same day registration. Voter ID. That stuff.
Just because "election integrity" has been framed in a way so as to advance Apartheid doe snot mean it has to always be that way.
The non-crazy people can steal their framing and use that against the crazy ones :-D.
--------------------------------------
I think the Dems need to learn to use the Right's rhetoric against them. Even though I am apprehensive of Big Tech's powers, I am loving every bit of the a*se-whopping that the "corporations are people" are getting. More than any good arguments, I think real consequences may convince some crazies to become less crazy.
You like to live dangerously, huh? :)
Think about it.
"Election Integrity" has two legs:
1. All valid voters can vote without any undue barriers and their vote is counted.
2. No invalid votes are counted.
The "Right" gets all wound up on the fictitious issues they perceive with #2, while intentionally screwing up #1. Rather than trying to badmouth the phrase "election integrity" itself, I think the Dems should just rhetorically support it with the clarification that they want both of the issues with election integrity addressed. Simple.
You will, of course, suddenly see the right dislike "election integrity", because they love their Apartheid. But in the confusion some good laws might get passed that addresses #1.
This. When the choices presented are #1 or #2, I tend to agree with the Democrats that #1 is more important given the rarity of invalid votes happening in practice. However I am somewhat angry that both parties seem to accept the or framing rather than trying to achieve #1 and #2. I'd be really happy to see us move to a system where there's a little bit more verification of voter eligibility, and we also go out of our way to make sure every eligible voter has easy access to the documents they need to prove their eligibility.
Yeah, how many hundreds of thousands of people - maybe millions - have been unable to vote because they're supposedly worried about the 4 or 5 people who stole their grandmother's mail-in ballot or whatever? It's getting a little silly, tbh.Given the rabid search by Republicans for evidence of fraud in the 2020 Presidential election and its complete and utter failure, #2 has already been achieved.My reading of history is that indulging "election integrity" usually means making it harder to vote. More hoops to jump through. No same day registration. Voter ID. That stuff.
Just because "election integrity" has been framed in a way so as to advance Apartheid doe snot mean it has to always be that way.
The non-crazy people can steal their framing and use that against the crazy ones :-D.
--------------------------------------
I think the Dems need to learn to use the Right's rhetoric against them. Even though I am apprehensive of Big Tech's powers, I am loving every bit of the a*se-whopping that the "corporations are people" are getting. More than any good arguments, I think real consequences may convince some crazies to become less crazy.
You like to live dangerously, huh? :)
Think about it.
"Election Integrity" has two legs:
1. All valid voters can vote without any undue barriers and their vote is counted.
2. No invalid votes are counted.
The "Right" gets all wound up on the fictitious issues they perceive with #2, while intentionally screwing up #1. Rather than trying to badmouth the phrase "election integrity" itself, I think the Dems should just rhetorically support it with the clarification that they want both of the issues with election integrity addressed. Simple.
You will, of course, suddenly see the right dislike "election integrity", because they love their Apartheid. But in the confusion some good laws might get passed that addresses #1.
This. When the choices presented are #1 or #2, I tend to agree with the Democrats that #1 is more important given the rarity of invalid votes happening in practice. However I am somewhat angry that both parties seem to accept the or framing rather than trying to achieve #1 and #2. I'd be really happy to see us move to a system where there's a little bit more verification of voter eligibility, and we also go out of our way to make sure every eligible voter has easy access to the documents they need to prove their eligibility.
Yeah, how many hundreds of thousands of people - maybe millions - have been unable to vote because they're supposedly worried about the 4 or 5 people who stole their grandmother's mail-in ballot or whatever? It's getting a little silly, tbh.This. When the choices presented are #1 or #2, I tend to agree with the Democrats that #1 is more important given the rarity of invalid votes happening in practice. However I am somewhat angry that both parties seem to accept the or framing rather than trying to achieve #1 and #2. I'd be really happy to see us move to a system where there's a little bit more verification of voter eligibility, and we also go out of our way to make sure every eligible voter has easy access to the documents they need to prove their eligibility.Given the rabid search by Republicans for evidence of fraud in the 2020 Presidential election and its complete and utter failure, #2 has already been achieved.
The weakness in the system that Trump exploited was not weaknesses in the electoral system, it was weaknesses in social media that allowed him to spread lies and sedition. It was weaknesses in the mainstream media that did not call out his lies. It was weaknesses in the Republican Party that enabled and supported his lies and sedition. The electoral system held firm.Yeah, how many hundreds of thousands of people - maybe millions - have been unable to vote because they're supposedly worried about the 4 or 5 people who stole their grandmother's mail-in ballot or whatever? It's getting a little silly, tbh.This. When the choices presented are #1 or #2, I tend to agree with the Democrats that #1 is more important given the rarity of invalid votes happening in practice. However I am somewhat angry that both parties seem to accept the or framing rather than trying to achieve #1 and #2. I'd be really happy to see us move to a system where there's a little bit more verification of voter eligibility, and we also go out of our way to make sure every eligible voter has easy access to the documents they need to prove their eligibility.Given the rabid search by Republicans for evidence of fraud in the 2020 Presidential election and its complete and utter failure, #2 has already been achieved.
What I would say to both of you is this: Trump's presidency has been a prime example of how weaknesses in the system can and will be exploited eventually. Before Trump there was never a president who tried to profit off the presidency by granting favor to foreign dignitaries who would spend money staying at his properties. Before Trump there was never a president who pardoned people who were convicted of felonies related to his own bad behavior. These things, and so many others, never had any organized system put in place to prevent them, because they were just Not Done and we trusted our presidents to act within certain bounds of propriety. I think it's great that we've had no evidence of any significant quantities of illegitimate votes...yet. I also would like to see existing weaknesses in the system addressed in a way that does not prevent legitimate voters from casting ballots.
As I stated in my previous post, I agree with you that the evidence points toward #1 being a much bigger issue at present than #2, and yet I'd like to stop with the framing that we can only do one or the other. Let's find a way to make both happen.
Wondering how "off topic" this is when a core part of the MMM philosophy is, "Herp derp, why doesn't everyone just be a rich white guy who is completely and totally insulated from current events?"There's always a concern, when one maintains a focus on one aspect of existence, that one is doing this to the exclusion of all else.
My reading of history is that indulging "election integrity" usually means making it harder to vote. More hoops to jump through. No same day registration. Voter ID. That stuff.
Just because "election integrity" has been framed in a way so as to advance Apartheid doe snot mean it has to always be that way.
The non-crazy people can steal their framing and use that against the crazy ones :-D.
--------------------------------------
I think the Dems need to learn to use the Right's rhetoric against them. Even though I am apprehensive of Big Tech's powers, I am loving every bit of the a*se-whopping that the "corporations are people" are getting. More than any good arguments, I think real consequences may convince some crazies to become less crazy.
You like to live dangerously, huh? :)
Think about it.
"Election Integrity" has two legs:
1. All valid voters can vote without any undue barriers and their vote is counted.
2. No invalid votes are counted.
The "Right" gets all wound up on the fictitious issues they perceive with #2, while intentionally screwing up #1. Rather than trying to badmouth the phrase "election integrity" itself, I think the Dems should just rhetorically support it with the clarification that they want both of the issues with election integrity addressed. Simple.
You will, of course, suddenly see the right dislike "election integrity", because they love their Apartheid. But in the confusion some good laws might get passed that addresses #1.
This. When the choices presented are #1 or #2, I tend to agree with the Democrats that #1 is more important given the rarity of invalid votes happening in practice. However I am somewhat angry that both parties seem to accept the or framing rather than trying to achieve #1 and #2. I'd be really happy to see us move to a system where there's a little bit more verification of voter eligibility, and we also go out of our way to make sure every eligible voter has easy access to the documents they need to prove their eligibility.
I agree.
The people who stormed the capital were led there by lies and deceit they should have seen it coming. The shades get added when people start expanding that out to everyone at Trumps rally, then to everyone that voted Trump, then to every Republican. Creating groups to hate causes more division, but because it's the simplest way to tackle a topic and feel good (I'm right, and they're wrong) it's hard to move past.
My understanding is that the long lines, the limited places to vote and the difficulty in getting an appropriate ID have been deliberate, racist, tactics to reduce the Black vote. Which is why those pictures of long lines to vote, and long waiting times, whether for early voting or voting on the day, show long lines of people of colour not long lines of wealthy white suburbanites.My reading of history is that indulging "election integrity" usually means making it harder to vote. More hoops to jump through. No same day registration. Voter ID. That stuff.
Just because "election integrity" has been framed in a way so as to advance Apartheid doe snot mean it has to always be that way.
The non-crazy people can steal their framing and use that against the crazy ones :-D.
--------------------------------------
I think the Dems need to learn to use the Right's rhetoric against them. Even though I am apprehensive of Big Tech's powers, I am loving every bit of the a*se-whopping that the "corporations are people" are getting. More than any good arguments, I think real consequences may convince some crazies to become less crazy.
You like to live dangerously, huh? :)
Think about it.
"Election Integrity" has two legs:
1. All valid voters can vote without any undue barriers and their vote is counted.
2. No invalid votes are counted.
The "Right" gets all wound up on the fictitious issues they perceive with #2, while intentionally screwing up #1. Rather than trying to badmouth the phrase "election integrity" itself, I think the Dems should just rhetorically support it with the clarification that they want both of the issues with election integrity addressed. Simple.
You will, of course, suddenly see the right dislike "election integrity", because they love their Apartheid. But in the confusion some good laws might get passed that addresses #1.
This. When the choices presented are #1 or #2, I tend to agree with the Democrats that #1 is more important given the rarity of invalid votes happening in practice. However I am somewhat angry that both parties seem to accept the or framing rather than trying to achieve #1 and #2. I'd be really happy to see us move to a system where there's a little bit more verification of voter eligibility, and we also go out of our way to make sure every eligible voter has easy access to the documents they need to prove their eligibility.
YES! When each party is focused on one of the two legs we end up not doing a good job of either. Why can't we do both well?
We need to do a better job of making sure all areas of the country have places to vote that are accessible without traveling long distances or waiting in long lines. Tons of people voted early here. If we allow that in the areas with long lines, it should spread out the crowds and shorten the lines.
At the same time, is it really that big a deal to prove who you are in order to vote? I know some people don't have state issued ID's. Let's figure out a way around that problem. What does everyone have? Birth Certificate? SS card? It can't be that hard to figure out. Maybe we issue a voter ID card for people who register and don't already have a gov issued ID. You couldn't do that the same day but I'm not sure we should allow someone to register to vote the day of the election. It's not like the election date isn't known years ahead of time. Publicize the last day to register and then vote two weeks later (or however long we need). If someone isn't willing to register ahead of time (and we don't make it difficult) they aren't very motivated to vote.
If we do a better job of providing places to vote and allow more early in-person voting then there doesn't need to be so much mail in voting. (especially since most elections won't take place in a pandemic) Reducing/eliminating mail in ballots would reduce the risk of fraud. We need absentee ballots for military and others who are away for long times, but outside of a pandemic, is there really a need for mail in voting from people who live within 15 minutes of a polling place?
You couldn't do that the same day but I'm not sure we should allow someone to register to vote the day of the election. It's not like the election date isn't known years ahead of time. Publicize the last day to register and then vote two weeks later (or however long we need). If someone isn't willing to register ahead of time (and we don't make it difficult) they aren't very motivated to vote.
My understanding is that the long lines, the limited places to vote and the difficulty in getting an appropriate ID have been deliberate, racist, tactics to reduce the Black vote. Which is why those pictures of long lines to vote, and long waiting times, whether for early voting or voting on the day, show long lines of people of colour not long lines of wealthy white suburbanites.I know that's the perception and there may be some truth to it. Regardless, I think we should change it because everyone should have the option to vote.
And the risk of fraud is negligible, as demonstrated by the 60 Republican legal challenges to the 2020 Presidential election, not one of which alleged fraud.I don't agree that it's negligible. Whether it happened this past election there is still the possibility. All American's should want to reduce the instances of fraud.
At this point in the discussion I'm not clear why you are still being so deliberately obtuse - and that's me being polite.I'm not being deliberately obtuse. My political views are different than most on this board but I can assure you I want nothing more than a fair democratic election in which everyone has the opportunity to vote and only legal votes are counted. I will live with the results whether I like them or not.
You couldn't do that the same day but I'm not sure we should allow someone to register to vote the day of the election. It's not like the election date isn't known years ahead of time. Publicize the last day to register and then vote two weeks later (or however long we need). If someone isn't willing to register ahead of time (and we don't make it difficult) they aren't very motivated to vote.
Just because an 18-year-old teen mom in Detroit, or a homeless in NYC is less motivated to vote, it does not necessarily follow that their voice is less important than that of a landed white farmer in a rural area.
You couldn't do that the same day but I'm not sure we should allow someone to register to vote the day of the election. It's not like the election date isn't known years ahead of time. Publicize the last day to register and then vote two weeks later (or however long we need). If someone isn't willing to register ahead of time (and we don't make it difficult) they aren't very motivated to vote.
Just because an 18-year-old teen mom in Detroit, or a homeless in NYC is less motivated to vote, it does not necessarily follow that their voice is less important than that of a landed white farmer in a rural area.
Their vote is absolutely 100% as important as mine, yours or anyone else's. I never said or meant to imply anything different. But, I am very willing to spend an hour registering to vote to ensure a fair election and I would expect anyone who cares about democracy to do the same.
And the risk of fraud is negligible, as demonstrated by the 60 Republican legal challenges to the 2020 Presidential election, not one of which alleged fraud.I don't agree that it's negligible. Whether it happened this past election there is still the possibility. All American's should want to reduce the instances of fraud.
You couldn't do that the same day but I'm not sure we should allow someone to register to vote the day of the election. It's not like the election date isn't known years ahead of time. Publicize the last day to register and then vote two weeks later (or however long we need). If someone isn't willing to register ahead of time (and we don't make it difficult) they aren't very motivated to vote.
Just because an 18-year-old teen mom in Detroit, or a homeless in NYC is less motivated to vote, it does not necessarily follow that their voice is less important than that of a landed white farmer in a rural area.
Their vote is absolutely 100% as important as mine, yours or anyone else's. I never said or meant to imply anything different. But, I am very willing to spend an hour registering to vote to ensure a fair election and I would expect anyone who cares about democracy to do the same.
Yeah, if you don't vote, your vote doesn't count for much. Imagine that. lol
Voting was very easy for me - in and out in a few minutes. I'm not sure why anyone would say that's "difficult" They didn't ask to see any ID, but I did have to sign a paper.
Yeah, if you don't vote, your vote doesn't count for much. Imagine that. lol
Voting was very easy for me - in and out in a few minutes. I'm not sure why anyone would say that's "difficult" They didn't ask to see any ID, but I did have to sign a paper.
It's kinda embarrassing how difficult the US makes voting for it's citizens. I can't think of any other democratic country that does it worse.The problem is the generalizations. The "US" doesn't do voting at all. There's no such thing as a US election. What happens is 3142 county elections take place among all the states and D.C., each with its own rules and people running their local show. That's 3142 different voting authorities reporting up through a minimum of 51 state governments plus various other places like Guam, PR, and others that hold elections, just not for federal offices.
It's kinda embarrassing how difficult the US makes voting for it's citizens. I can't think of any other democratic country that does it worse.The problem is the generalizations. The "US" doesn't do voting at all. There's no such thing as a US election. What happens is 3142 county elections take place among all the states and D.C., each with its own rules and people running their local show. That's 3142 different voting authorities reporting up through a minimum of 51 state governments plus various other places like Guam, PR, and others that hold elections, just not for federal offices.
I've noticed a lot of people seem to not understand that the US is a lot like the EU in terms of just how much autonomy each individual state has, separate from the overall governing body. The US has more cohesion than the EU, but there's still a very clear separation between states in the same way that nations within the EU are clearly separate as well.
Wondering how "off topic" this is when a core part of the MMM philosophy is, "Herp derp, why doesn't everyone just be a rich white guy who is completely and totally insulated from current events?"There's always a concern, when one maintains a focus on one aspect of existence, that one is doing this to the exclusion of all else.
It shouldn't be the case that having a "Low Information Diet", which refers mostly to ignoring 24 hour cable news and celebrity gossip, means that one believes racism and classism don't exist.
There's an effort here by we moderators, on this forum, to evict the worst racists, moderate where infringements occur, and make sure we're a positive force - all while making sure this stays an Early Retirement Forum.
As the same time, we are aware of the way Early Retirement has a "(White) Boys' Club" feel to it and I toss out sexist pricks occasionally, too and try to keep the language here as accessible as possible in this free-for-all of hundreds of thousands of messages.
Toque.
Yeah, if you don't vote, your vote doesn't count for much. Imagine that. lol
Voting was very easy for me - in and out in a few minutes. I'm not sure why anyone would say that's "difficult" They didn't ask to see any ID, but I did have to sign a paper.
In Georgia, thousands of voters waited hours just to cast their ballot during early voting. Many attribute the long wait to voter enthusiasm, but other factors - like a limited number of polls, understaffing or computer glitches - have also been blamed.
Yeah, if you don't vote, your vote doesn't count for much. Imagine that. lol
Voting was very easy for me - in and out in a few minutes. I'm not sure why anyone would say that's "difficult" They didn't ask to see any ID, but I did have to sign a paper.
Not all polling locations are created equal.
https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-54240651Quote from: bbcIn Georgia, thousands of voters waited hours just to cast their ballot during early voting. Many attribute the long wait to voter enthusiasm, but other factors - like a limited number of polls, understaffing or computer glitches - have also been blamed.
Here are some personal accounts of people who waited as long as 11 hours
https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-54532189
I fully approve of the move as this thread has gone a direction I did not intend. I had hoped to spark some discussion about how people like us would evaluate our current life and financial strategy in light of the current events but that's not what happened. Oh well.
I've noticed a lot of people seem to not understand that the US is a lot like the EU in terms of just how much autonomy each individual state has, separate from the overall governing body. The US has more cohesion than the EU, but there's still a very clear separation between states in the same way that nations within the EU are clearly separate as well.
In the most talked about presidential election ever, fewer than half of the US population voted. Of course, plenty of the population is too young, or too foreign, but there's still a sizeable proportion who couldn't or wouldn't vote.
It's kinda embarrassing how difficult the US makes voting for it's citizens. I can't think of any other democratic country that does it worse.The problem is the generalizations. The "US" doesn't do voting at all. There's no such thing as a US election. What happens is 3142 county elections take place among all the states and D.C., each with its own rules and people running their local show. That's 3142 different voting authorities reporting up through a minimum of 51 state governments plus various other places like Guam, PR, and others that hold elections, just not for federal offices.
I've noticed a lot of people seem to not understand that the US is a lot like the EU in terms of just how much autonomy each individual state has, separate from the overall governing body. The US has more cohesion than the EU, but there's still a very clear separation between states in the same way that nations within the EU are clearly separate as well.
It's kinda embarrassing how difficult the US makes voting for it's citizens. I can't think of any other democratic country that does it worse.The problem is the generalizations. The "US" doesn't do voting at all. There's no such thing as a US election. What happens is 3142 county elections take place among all the states and D.C., each with its own rules and people running their local show. That's 3142 different voting authorities reporting up through a minimum of 51 state governments plus various other places like Guam, PR, and others that hold elections, just not for federal offices.
I've noticed a lot of people seem to not understand that the US is a lot like the EU in terms of just how much autonomy each individual state has, separate from the overall governing body. The US has more cohesion than the EU, but there's still a very clear separation between states in the same way that nations within the EU are clearly separate as well.
I'm fully aware of the Byzantine and totally unnecessary set of rules that have been implemented around voting - and have the temerity to argue that it's still stupid. Elections should be standardized and held in the same manner across the country. The current system is an embarrassment - and results are worse than basically every other democratic country I can think of.
A bit closer to being back on topic:
I work at a university and some of the people I work with will be teaching on Tuesday during the inauguration. They're worried enough about violence and unexpected outcomes that they're trying to come up with plans for what to do at what level. How bad can things get and you keep teaching class like nothing is happening? Is there a window where you acknowledge something is happening but go on with the lecture? When do you just cancel class entirely?
It's probably good planning to do anyway, better than trying to make the decision in the spur of the moment.
A bit closer to being back on topic:
I work at a university and some of the people I work with will be teaching on Tuesday during the inauguration. They're worried enough about violence and unexpected outcomes that they're trying to come up with plans for what to do at what level. How bad can things get and you keep teaching class like nothing is happening? Is there a window where you acknowledge something is happening but go on with the lecture? When do you just cancel class entirely?
It's probably good planning to do anyway, better than trying to make the decision in the spur of the moment.
I was in college for 9/11. Heard about it in the radio while driving to school. They didn't cancel any classes, just carried on as normal but with an endless loop of CNN on the TVs in the common areas.
You couldn't do that the same day but I'm not sure we should allow someone to register to vote the day of the election. It's not like the election date isn't known years ahead of time. Publicize the last day to register and then vote two weeks later (or however long we need). If someone isn't willing to register ahead of time (and we don't make it difficult) they aren't very motivated to vote.
Just because an 18-year-old teen mom in Detroit, or a homeless in NYC is less motivated to vote, it does not necessarily follow that their voice is less important than that of a landed white farmer in a rural area.
Their vote is absolutely 100% as important as mine, yours or anyone else's. I never said or meant to imply anything different. But, I am very willing to spend an hour registering to vote to ensure a fair election and I would expect anyone who cares about democracy to do the same.
Not true at all. In the American system, rural votes are more important than the 18 year old mom in Detroit, or the guy in NYC. Rural votes count for more and are not equal.
A bit closer to being back on topic:
I work at a university and some of the people I work with will be teaching on Tuesday during the inauguration. They're worried enough about violence and unexpected outcomes that they're trying to come up with plans for what to do at what level. How bad can things get and you keep teaching class like nothing is happening? Is there a window where you acknowledge something is happening but go on with the lecture? When do you just cancel class entirely?
It's probably good planning to do anyway, better than trying to make the decision in the spur of the moment.
In the most talked about presidential election ever, fewer than half of the US population voted. Of course, plenty of the population is too young, or too foreign, but there's still a sizeable proportion who couldn't or wouldn't vote.
In the 2019 UK general election 67.3% of registered voters voted. This was the election with Brexit on the line wasn't it? So it seems like folks should have been pretty motivated to turn out and vote.
In the 2020 US presidential election 66.7% of potentially eligible voters (including both registered voters and people who could have registered to vote and hadn't) voted. .
One thing that I will definitely be changing going forward is h
....
upheaval than I had previously considered likely.
A bit closer to being back on topic:
I work at a university and some of the people I work with will be teaching on Tuesday during the inauguration. They're worried enough about violence and unexpected outcomes that they're trying to come up with plans for what to do at what level. How bad can things get and you keep teaching class like nothing is happening? Is there a window where you acknowledge something is happening but go on with the lecture? When do you just cancel class entirely?
It's probably good planning to do anyway, better than trying to make the decision in the spur of the moment.
I was in college for 9/11. Heard about it in the radio while driving to school. They didn't cancel any classes, just carried on as normal but with an endless loop of CNN on the TVs in the common areas.
It's kinda embarrassing how difficult the US makes voting for it's citizens. I can't think of any other democratic country that does it worse.The problem is the generalizations. The "US" doesn't do voting at all. There's no such thing as a US election. What happens is 3142 county elections take place among all the states and D.C., each with its own rules and people running their local show. That's 3142 different voting authorities reporting up through a minimum of 51 state governments plus various other places like Guam, PR, and others that hold elections, just not for federal offices.
I've noticed a lot of people seem to not understand that the US is a lot like the EU in terms of just how much autonomy each individual state has, separate from the overall governing body. The US has more cohesion than the EU, but there's still a very clear separation between states in the same way that nations within the EU are clearly separate as well.
I'm fully aware of the Byzantine and totally unnecessary set of rules that have been implemented around voting - and have the temerity to argue that it's still stupid. Elections should be standardized and held in the same manner across the country. The current system is an embarrassment - and results are worse than basically every other democratic country I can think of.
It's kinda embarrassing how difficult the US makes voting for it's citizens. I can't think of any other democratic country that does it worse.The problem is the generalizations. The "US" doesn't do voting at all. There's no such thing as a US election. What happens is 3142 county elections take place among all the states and D.C., each with its own rules and people running their local show. That's 3142 different voting authorities reporting up through a minimum of 51 state governments plus various other places like Guam, PR, and others that hold elections, just not for federal offices.
I've noticed a lot of people seem to not understand that the US is a lot like the EU in terms of just how much autonomy each individual state has, separate from the overall governing body. The US has more cohesion than the EU, but there's still a very clear separation between states in the same way that nations within the EU are clearly separate as well.
I'm fully aware of the Byzantine and totally unnecessary set of rules that have been implemented around voting - and have the temerity to argue that it's still stupid. Elections should be standardized and held in the same manner across the country. The current system is an embarrassment - and results are worse than basically every other democratic country I can think of.
Who are these consuma-suckers buying $$$ long guns? An aluminum baseball bat is sufficient for most riot-defense needs. Plus you can play baseball with it! :-)
Is it accurate to say that the USA is strong b/c the government survived the Civil War 158 years ago? That was very different time, very different knowledge levels, very different levels of technology, very different sensibilities.
I'm not sure anything before the 1950s is a good yardstick.
Well, FWIW, the feds announced this morning that they are closing the National Mall entirely on Inauguration Day.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/national-mall-closed-inaugruation-day/2021/01/14/1ca4e540-561c-11eb-a817-e5e7f8a406d6_story.html
Is it accurate to say that the USA is strong b/c the government survived the Civil War 158 years ago? That was very different time, very different knowledge levels, very different levels of technology, very different sensibilities.
I'm not sure anything before the 1950s is a good yardstick.
Is it accurate to say that the USA is strong b/c the government survived the Civil War 158 years ago? That was very different time, very different knowledge levels, very different levels of technology, very different sensibilities.
I'm not sure anything before the 1950s is a good yardstick.
The Civil War helped make the central government as strong as it is now.
But you don't have to look that far back. In the 1960s we had tons of riots, assassinations, bombings, and major divisions between right and left, but eventually the situation normalized.
Is it accurate to say that the USA is strong b/c the government survived the Civil War 158 years ago? That was very different time, very different knowledge levels, very different levels of technology, very different sensibilities.
I'm not sure anything before the 1950s is a good yardstick.
The Civil War helped make the central government as strong as it is now.
But you don't have to look that far back. In the 1960s we had tons of riots, assassinations, bombings, and major divisions between right and left, but eventually the situation normalized.
Many of what you're describing was actually caused by the government though. At least the CIA certainly did (and probably still are). They did things like infiltrate pseudo-socialist group The Weathermen with their own people with the goal of making the group more radical and likely to perform terrorist attacks against citizens of the US . . . the reasoning being that this would reduce support for socialism. And it worked great. After the CIA radicalized the group the Weathermen started bombing stuff and lost public support. It also helped lead to the tensions that caused the Kent State shooting.
You couldn't do that the same day but I'm not sure we should allow someone to register to vote the day of the election. It's not like the election date isn't known years ahead of time. Publicize the last day to register and then vote two weeks later (or however long we need). If someone isn't willing to register ahead of time (and we don't make it difficult) they aren't very motivated to vote.DC has a larger population than Vermont as well. (Same # of electoral votes)
https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population
Just because an 18-year-old teen mom in Detroit, or a homeless in NYC is less motivated to vote, it does not necessarily follow that their voice is less important than that of a landed white farmer in a rural area.
Their vote is absolutely 100% as important as mine, yours or anyone else's. I never said or meant to imply anything different. But, I am very willing to spend an hour registering to vote to ensure a fair election and I would expect anyone who cares about democracy to do the same.
Not true at all. In the American system, rural votes are more important than the 18 year old mom in Detroit, or the guy in NYC. Rural votes count for more and are not equal.
That's not exactly how it works. Votes in states with low total populations tend to be worth more. The system doesn't discriminate based on rural vs urban.
Votes in DC (no rural areas at all) are worth more than any state besides Wyoming. Votes in rural Texas or California (there are lots or rural areas in Texas and California) are worth less than your mom in Detroit or guy in NYC just because of the large total number of voters in the state. As a general rule, states with low populations do tend to be more rural but it's not really a rural vs urban thing. Reference: https://www.fairvote.org/population_vs_electoral_votes
As to the question, I'm not doing much differently. Wondering if the market will finally take a hit, but thats neither here nor there. I unfriended most Trumpers on Facebook after the act of war happened on the 6th. I was passed, and did not think I could continue to remain civil if I encountered any more of their bullshit on Facebook. Its been a lot--much of my DH's family. Thats it. I could not continue biting my tongue like I had been for years. I blame them for contributing to the echo chamber. I blame them for their "Christian " hypocrisy. I did not cut them out of my life completely, just out of my social media.
Its the cult of lies that frightens and angers me, and reminds me of Hitler's rise in power. The basket of deplorables will always be there. The echo chamber emboldens those deplorables, adding the delusional into their numbers.
Is it accurate to say that the USA is strong b/c the government survived the Civil War 158 years ago?
Politicians are punished for telling too much truth. That comment likely cost her the election. Obamas "cling to their guns and religion" cost democrats a lot of support as well.As to the question, I'm not doing much differently. Wondering if the market will finally take a hit, but thats neither here nor there. I unfriended most Trumpers on Facebook after the act of war happened on the 6th. I was passed, and did not think I could continue to remain civil if I encountered any more of their bullshit on Facebook. Its been a lot--much of my DH's family. Thats it. I could not continue biting my tongue like I had been for years. I blame them for contributing to the echo chamber. I blame them for their "Christian " hypocrisy. I did not cut them out of my life completely, just out of my social media.
Its the cult of lies that frightens and angers me, and reminds me of Hitler's rise in power. The basket of deplorables will always be there. The echo chamber emboldens those deplorables, adding the delusional into their numbers.
It sucks so bad that Hillary Clinton was right this entire time, and she was punished for pointing it out. Reminds me of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAhF8tPqafQ
While I disagree with the premise of the thread "America on the precipice: "
I will answer "What are you doing?"
I wrote my congressman, a Republican, via mail and Facebook.
Did you write back asking him to state on what facts he believes this racist Big Lie? Or is it just prejudice on his part?While I disagree with the premise of the thread "America on the precipice: "
I will answer "What are you doing?"
I wrote my congressman, a Republican, via mail and Facebook.
Same here. And he wrote back, denouncing the riot but doubling down on the "steal" lie. OK, dude -- if that's the strategy you're pursuing here -- sticking with the ProFa far right -- I'm not just voting against you in two years, I'm going to make it my damned mission to see you're not reelected and we flip this district.
Did you write back asking him to state on what facts he believes this racist Big Lie? Or is it just prejudice on his part?While I disagree with the premise of the thread "America on the precipice: "
I will answer "What are you doing?"
I wrote my congressman, a Republican, via mail and Facebook.
Same here. And he wrote back, denouncing the riot but doubling down on the "steal" lie. OK, dude -- if that's the strategy you're pursuing here -- sticking with the ProFa far right -- I'm not just voting against you in two years, I'm going to make it my damned mission to see you're not reelected and we flip this district.
Kinda weird that liberals can't call hardcore conservatives "Deplorables" but conservatives can get away with calling liberals ivory tower elites, pussies, and even worse words.
Says something I think about the mentality of a lot of social conservatives. A very "us against the world" view which is a little sad.
I just wish that dislike were more common that it seems to be. Or that people refrained from acting because of that dislike.Kinda weird that liberals can't call hardcore conservatives "Deplorables" but conservatives can get away with calling liberals ivory tower elites, pussies, and even worse words.
Says something I think about the mentality of a lot of social conservatives. A very "us against the world" view which is a little sad.
It is an economic class issue.
Calling out the poorer "working class" based on some generic markers is seen to be in bad taste. Nobody bats an eyelid calling the white collar class (="coastal liberals") names.
To me it just seems like the common human dislike of kicking someone when he/she is down.
Kinda weird that liberals can't call hardcore conservatives "Deplorables" but conservatives can get away with calling liberals ivory tower elites, pussies, and even worse words.
Says something I think about the mentality of a lot of social conservatives. A very "us against the world" view which is a little sad.
Kinda weird that liberals can't call hardcore conservatives "Deplorables" but conservatives can get away with calling liberals ivory tower elites, pussies, and even worse words.
Says something I think about the mentality of a lot of social conservatives. A very "us against the world" view which is a little sad.
And libtards... I really hate that one.
Name calling is only as effective as you let it be.I don't think the problem is that we "left-wingers" think of ourselves as "demon rats", it's that the Trumpists think of us as "demon rats" - and they are not going to be able to talk or compromise with people they think of as "demon rats". That's the problem, not our hurt feelings.
If you let it affect you what others think of you, then that is a weakness that will be exploited in any competitive field in life.
Did you write back asking him to state on what facts he believes this racist Big Lie? Or is it just prejudice on his part?While I disagree with the premise of the thread "America on the precipice: "
I will answer "What are you doing?"
I wrote my congressman, a Republican, via mail and Facebook.
Same here. And he wrote back, denouncing the riot but doubling down on the "steal" lie. OK, dude -- if that's the strategy you're pursuing here -- sticking with the ProFa far right -- I'm not just voting against you in two years, I'm going to make it my damned mission to see you're not reelected and we flip this district.
Not yet but I will! His office hasn't heard the last of me. I don't have much hope of my letters doing any good -- he was one of the speakers at the rally before the riot [shudder] -- but at the very least I want him to be hearing from reasonable people who are calling him out. And then I will organize/do what I can to make sure he is OUT in two years.
ETA: There are some current calls and petitions for him to resign, but I don't think that's going to happen
Kinda weird that liberals can't call hardcore conservatives "Deplorables" but conservatives can get away with calling liberals ivory tower elites, pussies, and even worse words.
Says something I think about the mentality of a lot of social conservatives. A very "us against the world" view which is a little sad.
And libtards... I really hate that one.
Demonrats is the one that gets me. It's just so... laughable.
Politicians are punished for telling too much truth.As to the question, I'm not doing much differently. Wondering if the market will finally take a hit, but thats neither here nor there. I unfriended most Trumpers on Facebook after the act of war happened on the 6th. I was passed, and did not think I could continue to remain civil if I encountered any more of their bullshit on Facebook. Its been a lot--much of my DH's family. Thats it. I could not continue biting my tongue like I had been for years. I blame them for contributing to the echo chamber. I blame them for their "Christian " hypocrisy. I did not cut them out of my life completely, just out of my social media.
Its the cult of lies that frightens and angers me, and reminds me of Hitler's rise in power. The basket of deplorables will always be there. The echo chamber emboldens those deplorables, adding the delusional into their numbers.
It sucks so bad that Hillary Clinton was right this entire time, and she was punished for pointing it out. Reminds me of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAhF8tPqafQ
"In Washington, telling the truth is a gaffe."
That comment likely cost her the election. Obamas "cling to their guns and religion" cost democrats a lot of support as well.
I was saying this on another message board recently: Democrats really have to work on their marketing of ideas. They are mostly terrible at it. I didn't used to get the draw of the whole "Hope and Change" motto, either, but I get it now. Short, simple feel-good ideas. Those other things aren't. They make people feel bad about themselves, and those people will reject in turn.
Name calling is only as effective as you let it be.I don't think the problem is that we "left-wingers" think of ourselves as "demon rats", it's that the Trumpists think of us as "demon rats" - and they are not going to be able to talk or compromise with people they think of as "demon rats". That's the problem, not our hurt feelings.
If you let it affect you what others think of you, then that is a weakness that will be exploited in any competitive field in life.
I have very little sympathy for the white (overwhelmingly male) Americans who benefited from America's cultural and military imperialism (and slavery, obviously) for two centuries and are now revolting because those "blacks" and "women" now have equal rights and they can't ride roughshod over them any more. Or heaven forfend all those coloured people can migrate to the US now and get good jobs as doctors and pharmacists and consign the dumb majority to more menial work. Welcome to not having unjustified privilege. Population: You.
You're not guaranteed any status in society - not any more. Now you know how all them minorities have felt for centuries.
I have very little sympathy for the white (overwhelmingly male) Americans who benefited from America's cultural and military imperialism (and slavery, obviously) for two centuries and are now revolting because those "blacks" and "women" now have equal rights and they can't ride roughshod over them any more. Or heaven forfend all those coloured people can migrate to the US now and get good jobs as doctors and pharmacists and consign the dumb majority to more menial work. Welcome to not having unjustified privilege. Population: You.
You're not guaranteed any status in society - not any more. Now you know how all them minorities have felt for centuries.
Preach. Neither of my Mexican immigrant grandparents had a formal education, and they picked crops to make ends meet. Neither of my white grandparents finished high school, and one of them was an immigrant. Both of my parents barely finished high school. I worked my ass off to do very well in high school, undergrad, and grad school to become the first doctor (PhD) in my family. And yet the assumption was often that I got in solely because of my minority status and took a place from a (supposedly deserving) white kid. Fuck that. They could have worked as hard as I did and then they would have been viable competition.
...The competent hard-working ones will do fine, but the slackers can't slide by any more....
...The competent hard-working ones will do fine, but the slackers can't slide by any more....
Do you really think so? There are all sorts of reasons we could have different frames of reference: from living in different countries to having different ideas of what it means to be doing fine (or what it means to be competent for that matter). But I think back the the folks I went to high school with, and many, not all of them but many, where intelligent and motivated and hard working. ...and yet.... The better part of two decades later many of those same people have been struggling and are still struggling.
At least in my observation, at least for my part of one country and at least for my definitions of competent and hard working and "doing fine", being competent and hard working isn't enough anymore. At least in my part of this one country I see a move more and more towards a winner take all society where the absolute smartest* and hardest working** do increasingly well while the vast majority of people who are still competent and still willing to work hard are less and less likely to be able to earn some security and stability of their own. I know it can be easier and more comfortable to blame any struggles on personal failures and that people should just work harder to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Yet that is simply not what I see around me, nor what I see from the trajectories of my high school cohort.
*Where smartest means having both the gift of native intelligence and the advantage of a childhood and young adulthood where one can work on refining and credentialing their talents instead of needed to focus simply on earning enough money to just get by.
**Where hardest working means not only motivation and drive, but also a life that allows then to focus on work during the workweek, log long hours at work, and ideally have a spouse who puts their own career ambitions aside to help propel them forward, or no spouse/no children.
What's the answer, then? Because going backwards to a period when someone like me (who has the brains, ability, and tenacity) would have been shut out of opportunities offered to white men simply because I am female and of minority ethnicity isn't the answer, either.
...The competent hard-working ones will do fine, but the slackers can't slide by any more....
Do you really think so? There are all sorts of reasons we could have different frames of reference: from living in different countries to having different ideas of what it means to be doing fine (or what it means to be competent for that matter). But I think back the the folks I went to high school with, and many, not all of them but many, where intelligent and motivated and hard working. ...and yet.... The better part of two decades later many of those same people have been struggling and are still struggling.
At least in my observation, at least for my part of one country and at least for my definitions of competent and hard working and "doing fine", being competent and hard working isn't enough anymore. At least in my part of this one country I see a move more and more towards a winner take all society where the absolute smartest* and hardest working** do increasingly well while the vast majority of people who are still competent and still willing to work hard are less and less likely to be able to earn some security and stability of their own. I know it can be easier and more comfortable to blame any struggles on personal failures and that people should just work harder to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Yet that is simply not what I see around me, nor what I see from the trajectories of my high school cohort.
*Where smartest means having both the gift of native intelligence and the advantage of a childhood and young adulthood where one can work on refining and credentialing their talents instead of needed to focus simply on earning enough money to just get by.
**Where hardest working means not only motivation and drive, but also a life that allows then to focus on work during the workweek, log long hours at work, and ideally have a spouse who puts their own career ambitions aside to help propel them forward, or no spouse/no children.
Was supposed to have some people come out to the house on Monday to do some work. Just got a phone call that the company involved is cancelling and rescheduling all appointments all next week out of concern for the safety of their employees. I sure hope that simply reflects an overabundance of caution/allergy to potential liability on the part of large publicly traded companies. We'll know soon enough. Ugh.
For those of you who think Clinton was right all along, please do remember she put only one half of Trump supporters in her metaphorical basket of deplorables while in the same speech she said that the other half of the people supporting Trump "... are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they’re just desperate for change. It doesn’t really even matter where it comes from. They don’t buy everything he says, but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won’t wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroine, feel like they’re in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well."
I was referring to doing fine in terms of being able to compete on a level playing field.* Of course there are so many other factors, that everyone may be doing badly. But who will be doing least badly?
*and even our metaphors are from sports that used to be all male. Gah.
Now you posted up thread about grad school and research which is a field I know both of us have firsthand experience with. And I've seen the same comments you describe "so-and-so is only here because she's a woman, he's only here because he's black" and so on over and over. When people are competing over scarce resources, or even thinking about needing to compete for scarce resources, all these markers of racism and sexism go through the roof. And life in academia is a constant competition over scarce resources. But honestly, even there, I don't believe the fact that woman and people of color have a better shot than they would in the past is a primary driver of that resource scarcity.
We're operating in an academic system that worked really well when the college age population of the USA was growing rapidly and at the same time the proportion of college age students who end to college was growing. Those conditions held for decades, but now they don't. So we admit lots of PhD students who must fight over too few funding opportunities. And the ones who make it through then fight for too few faculty positions. And the ones who manage to get hired for a faculty position turn around and fight for funding so they can keep paying their grad students and that grad students can make rent. That's a situation that breeds a resource scarcity mindset which, in turn, in all too many people, produces racism and sexism about women and people of color having opportunities. But giving more people more opportunities isn't what caused the competition for scarce resources in the first place.
More funding for education and research is what can actually make America great!!!! Maybe we can throw in single payer healthcare and housing-first social policies and more public transportation and libraries too. Tax the rich and quit wasting money on walls and private prisons.
I just think it's a lot easier to line up the political support we need to make changes like these happen if we don't buy into the right wing narrative that the reason non-college educated white people are doing worse in this country is because black and brown people are doing better and those same worse off white people are slackers who aren't willing to work hard.
Economic mobility differs geographically
https://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr_edge_featd_article_071414.html
"do not just “move up” but also generally “move out.” "
so move https://inequality.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/SOTU_2015_economic-mobility.pdf
Again:
"a huge swath of people in the U.S. have been left behind is because our politics written by race, written by regionalism long before Trump, has made us have the weakest welfare state and the weakest worker protections in the world for a rich country. And so, go across the border of Canada, go across the Atlantic to any Western European country, go the other direction to Australia or Singapore or Japan and workers have not been left behind as much."
https://ritholtz.com/2020/11/transcript-adam-posen/
It would help to vote for politicians that promote pro-worker policies
I live in one of those funny states where almost everyone in state government is a Republican... except for the governor. I'm not concerned about that kind of violence here. Drug and domestic violence is far more common.
While we have plenty of people out there with revolutionary hero fantasies, they're also quite lazy. It's easier to complain on Facebook than to take up arms.
Economic mobility differs geographically
https://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr_edge_featd_article_071414.html
"do not just “move up” but also generally “move out.” "
so move https://inequality.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/SOTU_2015_economic-mobility.pdf
Again:
"a huge swath of people in the U.S. have been left behind is because our politics written by race, written by regionalism long before Trump, has made us have the weakest welfare state and the weakest worker protections in the world for a rich country. And so, go across the border of Canada, go across the Atlantic to any Western European country, go the other direction to Australia or Singapore or Japan and workers have not been left behind as much."
https://ritholtz.com/2020/11/transcript-adam-posen/
It would help to vote for politicians that promote pro-worker policies
As a Canadian, I am repeatedly amazed and disappointed that Americans tend to see "socialism" as a bad thing. It is not a synonym for "Communism," but helps create a leveler playing field for all people. When your basic needs are guaranteed (at least more so that in the US), you can focus on making the most of your potential, whatever that may be, which in turn benefits the rest of society. Everybody wins. I don't understand how that is so difficult to see, except that there has been generations of brainwashing leading to reflexive fear and rejection of the concept. Unfortunately, often by those who would benefit the most by it. But maybe that's the goal of the brainwashing - keep the perks in the hands of a relative few and let the rest suffer. Which is so short-sighted. That's exactly the cause of social revolutions, and I fear that one is brewing in the USofA.
Economic mobility differs geographically
https://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr_edge_featd_article_071414.html
"do not just “move up” but also generally “move out.” "
so move https://inequality.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/SOTU_2015_economic-mobility.pdf
Again:
"a huge swath of people in the U.S. have been left behind is because our politics written by race, written by regionalism long before Trump, has made us have the weakest welfare state and the weakest worker protections in the world for a rich country. And so, go across the border of Canada, go across the Atlantic to any Western European country, go the other direction to Australia or Singapore or Japan and workers have not been left behind as much."
https://ritholtz.com/2020/11/transcript-adam-posen/
It would help to vote for politicians that promote pro-worker policies
As a Canadian, I am repeatedly amazed and disappointed that Americans tend to see "socialism" as a bad thing. It is not a synonym for "Communism," but helps create a leveler playing field for all people. When your basic needs are guaranteed (at least more so that in the US), you can focus on making the most of your potential, whatever that may be, which in turn benefits the rest of society. Everybody wins. I don't understand how that is so difficult to see, except that there has been generations of brainwashing leading to reflexive fear and rejection of the concept. Unfortunately, often by those who would benefit the most by it. But maybe that's the goal of the brainwashing - keep the perks in the hands of a relative few and let the rest suffer. Which is so short-sighted. That's exactly the cause of social revolutions, and I fear that one is brewing in the USofA.
I'm one of the Americans who sees "socialism" as bad thing overall. The USA became a great and successful country because of the opportunity for individuals to start with nothing and work their way up to become a success. Both immigrants and native born Americans have been successful for hundreds of years through their hard work and perseverance. This has led to a country which has been widely acknowledged as the economic leader of the world. It's also the easiest place in the world to FIRE.
See the definition of socialism below:
Definition of socialism from Meriam Webster:
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
2b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
My problem with socialism is that when the government owns and controls the property, goods and wealth there is a much less direct tie between how good a job someone does or how hard they work and how well they are paid (or rewarded). This results in much less incentive for individuals to work hard and be successful. The more each person can see a path to be rewarded for doing constructive things the more a society will flourish.
Now, I'm not such a hard core capitalist that I don't think we should have some government intervention that could be considered socialism.
- Social security is needed in our country because so many people don't save adequately for retirement. But, most of us won't get nearly what we should from it because the government has mis-managed and raided the funds.
- Welfare is needed in our country. Some people have major challenges and need support. (challenges like poor health, mental illness, extreme lack or privilege, etc) However, we should set it up so it's designed to be a short term solution as much as possible. Right now, people are penalized for working and rewarded for having kids who are raised to stay on welfare.
- I don't pretend to have the answer for healthcare. Simplified billing and transparency of costs prior to care would help. We may still need government intervention. Our system is clearly broken. Government run healthcare doesn't seem to be all sunshine and roses either.
Basically, I want to keep a system where an individual can work hard, "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" and be successful. Capitalism has a better track record of that than socialism. I recognize that not everyone has the same starting point and we need to help the underprivileged. We just need to be sure we keep a system that rewards hard work, innovation and creativity while we help them.
I'm one of the Americans who sees "socialism" as bad thing overall. The USA became a great and successful country because of the opportunity for individuals to start with nothing and work their way up to become a success. Both immigrants and native born Americans have been successful for hundreds of years through their hard work and perseverance. This has led to a country which has been widely acknowledged as the economic leader of the world. It's also the easiest place in the world to FIRE.
See the definition of socialism below:
Definition of socialism from Meriam Webster:
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
2b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
My problem with socialism is that when the government owns and controls the property, goods and wealth there is a much less direct tie between how good a job someone does or how hard they work and how well they are paid (or rewarded). This results in much less incentive for individuals to work hard and be successful. The more each person can see a path to be rewarded for doing constructive things the more a society will flourish.
Now, I'm not such a hard core capitalist that I don't think we should have some government intervention that could be considered socialism.
- Social security is needed in our country because so many people don't save adequately for retirement. But, most of us won't get nearly what we should from it because the government has mis-managed and raided the funds.
- Welfare is needed in our country. Some people have major challenges and need support. (challenges like poor health, mental illness, extreme lack or privilege, etc) However, we should set it up so it's designed to be a short term solution as much as possible. Right now, people are penalized for working and rewarded for having kids who are raised to stay on welfare.
- I don't pretend to have the answer for healthcare. Simplified billing and transparency of costs prior to care would help. We may still need government intervention. Our system is clearly broken. Government run healthcare doesn't seem to be all sunshine and roses either.
Basically, I want to keep a system where an individual can work hard, "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" and be successful. Capitalism has a better track record of that than socialism. I recognize that not everyone has the same starting point and we need to help the underprivileged. We just need to be sure we keep a system that rewards hard work, innovation and creativity while we help them.
edit: I recognize that socialism at it's roots has good intentions. We all want (or should want) everyone to have shelter, food, medicine, clothing, etc. The difference comes in what we think is the most effective way to accomplish this. Socialism taken too far can bring the standard of living of everyone down in an effort to be "fair".
I feel like you're really massively ignoring the socialist things that the government does which made America great. Some super basic and simple stuff necessary for a society to thrive is socialist.
Public roads are socialist (the government is the only one allowed to build these roads on public land so it's a monopoly). Traffic laws are socialist. Hell, all laws are socialist . . . they're a government run monopoly and enforced by a special government run monopoly - police departments. Fire departments are socialist too. Public schools are socialist and government owned/run services . . . even though the majority of businesses rely on a steady stream of educated employees.
All environmental protections, all food/safety protections, drug regulations, water regulations - those are socialist government rules, enforced by socialist agencies. Banning slavery or instituting child labor laws are just a few of many examples of socialist interference in the free market. Time and again private business with a capitalist motive has proven themselves incapable of providing this sort of necessity for people.
Hell, even banking in the US is socialist at it's roots - the federal reserve is a government run monopoly with the goal of maintaining control the nation's currency. The means of production and the distribution of goods by the central bank is government owned/run - because every economist knows that a market allowed to run truly free is terrible for a country.
Socialism is bad when it's uncontrolled and unchecked by capitalism - it destroys motivation to work and becomes laden down with inefficiencies. Capitalism is equally as bad when it's uncontrolled and unchecked by socialism because it concentrates wealth and power into the hands of very few - eventually causing stagnation and revolution. But socialism vs capitalism is a false dichotomy. There exist zero successful countries in the world who have got there by following pure capitalism or pure socialism. Every successful nation in the world has a combination of both. They work hand in hand and are both equally necessary.
Efficiency is not the only criterion, or even the most important for many areas of society.I feel like you're really massively ignoring the socialist things that the government does which made America great. Some super basic and simple stuff necessary for a society to thrive is socialist.
Public roads are socialist (the government is the only one allowed to build these roads on public land so it's a monopoly). Traffic laws are socialist. Hell, all laws are socialist . . . they're a government run monopoly and enforced by a special government run monopoly - police departments. Fire departments are socialist too. Public schools are socialist and government owned/run services . . . even though the majority of businesses rely on a steady stream of educated employees.
All environmental protections, all food/safety protections, drug regulations, water regulations - those are socialist government rules, enforced by socialist agencies. Banning slavery or instituting child labor laws are just a few of many examples of socialist interference in the free market. Time and again private business with a capitalist motive has proven themselves incapable of providing this sort of necessity for people.
Hell, even banking in the US is socialist at it's roots - the federal reserve is a government run monopoly with the goal of maintaining control the nation's currency. The means of production and the distribution of goods by the central bank is government owned/run - because every economist knows that a market allowed to run truly free is terrible for a country.
Socialism is bad when it's uncontrolled and unchecked by capitalism - it destroys motivation to work and becomes laden down with inefficiencies. Capitalism is equally as bad when it's uncontrolled and unchecked by socialism because it concentrates wealth and power into the hands of very few - eventually causing stagnation and revolution. But socialism vs capitalism is a false dichotomy. There exist zero successful countries in the world who have got there by following pure capitalism or pure socialism. Every successful nation in the world has a combination of both. They work hand in hand and are both equally necessary.
Sure, the government is involved in lots of things and we need them to provide roads, oversee electric infrastructure, oversee banking, etc. I'm not at all saying we can have a pure capitalist society with no government oversite. Some of that oversite is socialism. But, from my experience, the things the government runs are less efficient than the things that are done in a free market.
I do not equate banning slavery, child labor or most other laws with socialism. Anything the government does is not automatically socialism.
In my opinion, we should have socialistic policies where it's truly needed. When we have a choice, we should favor capitalism because it rewards hard work and ingenuity which makes for a more successful society.
Sure, the government is involved in lots of things and we need them to provide roads, oversee electric infrastructure, oversee banking, etc. I'm not at all saying we can have a pure capitalist society with no government oversite. Some of that oversite is socialism. But, from my experience, the things the government runs are less efficient than the things that are done in a free market.
In my opinion, we should have socialistic policies where it's truly needed. When we have a choice, we should favor capitalism because it rewards hard work and ingenuity which makes for a more successful society.
I feel like you're really massively ignoring the socialist things that the government does which made America great. Some super basic and simple stuff necessary for a society to thrive is socialist.
Public roads are socialist (the government is the only one allowed to build these roads on public land so it's a monopoly). Traffic laws are socialist. Hell, all laws are socialist . . . they're a government run monopoly and enforced by a special government run monopoly - police departments. Fire departments are socialist too. Public schools are socialist and government owned/run services . . . even though the majority of businesses rely on a steady stream of educated employees.
All environmental protections, all food/safety protections, drug regulations, water regulations - those are socialist government rules, enforced by socialist agencies. Banning slavery or instituting child labor laws are just a few of many examples of socialist interference in the free market. Time and again private business with a capitalist motive has proven themselves incapable of providing this sort of necessity for people.
Hell, even banking in the US is socialist at it's roots - the federal reserve is a government run monopoly with the goal of maintaining control the nation's currency. The means of production and the distribution of goods by the central bank is government owned/run - because every economist knows that a market allowed to run truly free is terrible for a country.
Socialism is bad when it's uncontrolled and unchecked by capitalism - it destroys motivation to work and becomes laden down with inefficiencies. Capitalism is equally as bad when it's uncontrolled and unchecked by socialism because it concentrates wealth and power into the hands of very few - eventually causing stagnation and revolution. But socialism vs capitalism is a false dichotomy. There exist zero successful countries in the world who have got there by following pure capitalism or pure socialism. Every successful nation in the world has a combination of both. They work hand in hand and are both equally necessary.
Sure, the government is involved in lots of things and we need them to provide roads, oversee electric infrastructure, oversee banking, etc. I'm not at all saying we can have a pure capitalist society with no government oversite. Some of that oversite is socialism. But, from my experience, the things the government runs are less efficient than the things that are done in a free market.
I do not equate banning slavery, child labor or most other laws with socialism. Anything the government does is not automatically socialism.
In my opinion, we should have socialistic policies where it's truly needed. When we have a choice, we should favor capitalism because it rewards hard work and ingenuity which makes for a more successful society.
I feel like you're really massively ignoring the socialist things that the government does which made America great. Some super basic and simple stuff necessary for a society to thrive is socialist.
Public roads are socialist (the government is the only one allowed to build these roads on public land so it's a monopoly). Traffic laws are socialist. Hell, all laws are socialist . . . they're a government run monopoly and enforced by a special government run monopoly - police departments. Fire departments are socialist too. Public schools are socialist and government owned/run services . . . even though the majority of businesses rely on a steady stream of educated employees.
All environmental protections, all food/safety protections, drug regulations, water regulations - those are socialist government rules, enforced by socialist agencies. Banning slavery or instituting child labor laws are just a few of many examples of socialist interference in the free market. Time and again private business with a capitalist motive has proven themselves incapable of providing this sort of necessity for people.
Hell, even banking in the US is socialist at it's roots - the federal reserve is a government run monopoly with the goal of maintaining control the nation's currency. The means of production and the distribution of goods by the central bank is government owned/run - because every economist knows that a market allowed to run truly free is terrible for a country.
Socialism is bad when it's uncontrolled and unchecked by capitalism - it destroys motivation to work and becomes laden down with inefficiencies. Capitalism is equally as bad when it's uncontrolled and unchecked by socialism because it concentrates wealth and power into the hands of very few - eventually causing stagnation and revolution. But socialism vs capitalism is a false dichotomy. There exist zero successful countries in the world who have got there by following pure capitalism or pure socialism. Every successful nation in the world has a combination of both. They work hand in hand and are both equally necessary.
Sure, the government is involved in lots of things and we need them to provide roads, oversee electric infrastructure, oversee banking, etc. I'm not at all saying we can have a pure capitalist society with no government oversite. Some of that oversite is socialism. But, from my experience, the things the government runs are less efficient than the things that are done in a free market.
I do not equate banning slavery, child labor or most other laws with socialism. Anything the government does is not automatically socialism.
In my opinion, we should have socialistic policies where it's truly needed. When we have a choice, we should favor capitalism because it rewards hard work and ingenuity which makes for a more successful society.
I do not equate banning slavery, child labor or most other laws with socialism. Anything the government does is not automatically socialism.
It is quite common-sense to see why southerners thought that way. Blacks were property to them, and a means of production, in the same manner goats and cows are today. If you take that property away from them for "common good", that IS a textbook definition of socialism.
I do not equate banning slavery, child labor or most other laws with socialism. Anything the government does is not automatically socialism.…
If you are an "originalist" in the same mold of the judges that conservatives like to get in the court, then arguing the exact point that you did is - let's say - inconsistent.
…
Logically, given the then existing legal premise of slave ownership, sanctioned by the Constitution, abolition was both something that had to be done and socialism.It is quite common-sense to see why southerners thought that way. Blacks were property to them, and a means of production, in the same manner goats and cows are today. If you take that property away from them for "common good", that IS a textbook definition of socialism.
Sure, if you view blacks as property then outlawing slavery is socialism. I can totally see how some misguided slave owners would call it socialism. You and I view them as humans that are just as worthy as us anyone else. That's why I view abolition as something we ethically had to do and not socialism.
I do not equate banning slavery, child labor or most other laws with socialism. Anything the government does is not automatically socialism.…
If you are an "originalist" in the same mold of the judges that conservatives like to get in the court, then arguing the exact point that you did is - let's say - inconsistent.
…
I'm not following this argument. Can you elaborate?
I do not equate banning slavery, child labor or most other laws with socialism. Anything the government does is not automatically socialism.…
If you are an "originalist" in the same mold of the judges that conservatives like to get in the court, then arguing the exact point that you did is - let's say - inconsistent.
…
I'm not following this argument. Can you elaborate?
Originalists come in a couple of flavors. Some tell us we have to use the original meaning extant at the time of writing laws/constitution. Some tell us we have to use the "intent" of the lawmakers over and above the textual meaning.
The second variety is more extremist. Scalia was of this type (despite whatever protestations he may have made). This is why he dictated he alone could decide the true intent over and above the text ("militia") of the second amendment in Heller and over and above other precedents - some of which were unanimous - for decades and centuries preceding him.
Then of course there is a third group of judges who are textualists, and I consider that to be an honest and consistent thought process and hence respect that point of view even when I may not always agree. But they are not relevant for this discussion.
There was a specific legal "meaning" of the word "socialism" back in the day when much of the laws/constitution was written. If you are an originalist, you would be compelled to use that meaning in any legal context discussing those laws. If the context is "Civil Rights" laws, then the word "socialism" would not include abolition, per originalist logic. For much of the rest of the constitution and legal jurisprudence (e.g. "corporations are people", decided in early 1800's), it would.
Hence, if you make a blanket argument without nuance like you did, you would run afoul of Originalist dogma.
At least that is my - layman's, non-lawyer - reading.
Sure, the government is involved in lots of things and we need them to provide roads, oversee electric infrastructure, oversee banking, etc. I'm not at all saying we can have a pure capitalist society with no government oversite. Some of that oversite is socialism. But, from my experience, the things the government runs are less efficient than the things that are done in a free market.
I do not equate banning slavery, child labor or most other laws with socialism. Anything the government does is not automatically socialism.
In my opinion, we should have socialistic policies where it's truly needed. When we have a choice, we should favor capitalism because it rewards hard work and ingenuity which makes for a more successful society.
Overall, US government spending is around 38% of GDP. That means the overall size of the government as a proportion of the economy wouldn't look wildly out of line in 'socialist' Europe - Netherlands & Spain are at 42%, UK at 39%, Ireland at 25%, Switzerland at 32% to pick a few at random. It's just that spending priorities are different - a government budget of $700 billion per year on defence isn't considered to be 'socialism'.
An example was given of abolition being socialism which makes sense if you consider black people property. As I said above, they are not property so abolition is not socialism. In general, I'm thinking we start with our laws and then choose capitalism, socialism, or some combination.
Overall, US government spending is around 38% of GDP. That means the overall size of the government as a proportion of the economy wouldn't look wildly out of line in 'socialist' Europe - Netherlands & Spain are at 42%, UK at 39%, Ireland at 25%, Switzerland at 32% to pick a few at random. It's just that spending priorities are different - a government budget of $700 billion per year on defence isn't considered to be 'socialism'.
US GDP is much higher, per capita, than most of those "socialist" countries. So 38% of US GDP is not equal to 38% of France's GDP, e.g.
This further strengthens your overall argument. I just wanted to point this out because you were short selling it.
An example was given of abolition being socialism which makes sense if you consider black people property. As I said above, they are not property so abolition is not socialism. In general, I'm thinking we start with our laws and then choose capitalism, socialism, or some combination.
You're cheating here.
so·cial·ism - a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
The laws that ban slavery are created by the community as a whole to regulate and prevent free exchange (of slaves). It exactly meets the definition of socialism. It's weird to say that 'people aren't property' without getting back to the socialist roots of why they're not considered property any more by law. It's important to remember that free market capitalism fully condoned and supported the enslavement of others to generate wealth for the few.
But look, slavery is a really powerful hot button topic. I get it. If that's getting you riled up then by the same token, environmental regulation is clearly socialist. We're telling the free market what to do regarding negative externalities. A good capitalist gold mining company may well choose to create holding pools of heavy metals while they're extracting gold and making great profit. But the problem is, when that company goes out of business (maybe a hundred or a hundred and fifty years later) those holding pools still exist. And as time goes on, they tend to leech chemicals into waterways and damage the surrounding land. There exists no capitalist way to address the problem. We need these socialist laws that meddle with what companies can freely do to force a policy for long term environmental care.
Current environmental laws are still very much overly permissive when it comes to negative externalities.
Socialism is certainly not the cure to all woes . . . but it's also not a boogeyman to be afraid of, and (applied judiciously) has caused tremendous good through history.
OK, so if your definition of socialism is that ANY restriction on free market for ANY reason is socialism then doing away with slavery is socialism. That's not what most people view as socialism. The definition above specifically calls out ECONOMIC theory. If the North had told the South they couldn't have slaves because it was ECONOMICALLY unfair, I would agree it was socialism. When it's for moral reasons, that doesn't fit my, (and I think most people's) definition of socialism. Same thing for environmental regulations. Establish some regulations to limit the damage companies can do the environment (for moral reasons or the greater good, not for the economy) and then let the free market go to work. I'm in favor of that whether we call it socialism or not.
Clearly America has several socialist policies (some of which I like and some I don't).
The part of socialism that I'm not in favor of, and that many American's dislike, is when we limit free market economy because "it's not fair". When we take away the reward for hard work, very few people work hard. As I said before, we need safety nets and programs to help the under-privileged. Those are socialism. I think we should limit them, but we do need them. The goal should be to help people get off those socialistic programs.
But leaving that for a moment . . . The United States has a long history of limiting the free market when things aren't fair. Look up market allocation, bid rigging, price fixing, and monopolies. These have all been limited by law because they're fundamentally unfair business practice. Do you believe that ensuring fair competition is a bad idea?Maybe I worded that poorly. No, I don't believe that fair competition is a bad idea. On the contrary, I want nothing more than a fair competition. I just want there to be competition so that people are pushed to improve and rewarded when they do well.
As far as getting people off of 'socialistic programs' . . . I think what you mean here is stuff like welfare and food stamps, right? We're in agreement that the goal should be to get people to a situation where they're able to break free of these programs and better themselves. The thing is, often times it's social programs that have the best track record of doing this.I don't disagree with this. I would absolutely support programs that help prisoners to be successful again. I'm big on second chances and giving people the opportunity to succeed.
To take a case in point . . . criminal reform. Nordic countries consistently do better than we do here in North America with the reformation and reintegration of prisoners into society and reducing recidivism. The reason for this is that they have far more social programs to cover mental health problems, education, job training, etc. Here in North America we often provide the bare minimum . . . and get bare minimum results, including people who learn that it's too hard to succeed so simply give up entirely. Counterintuitively, providing more and better social programs can often reduce reliance on social programs.
Morality is a meaningless concept that changes over time, culture, and place.
But leaving that for a moment . . . The United States has a long history of limiting the free market when things aren't fair. Look up market allocation, bid rigging, price fixing, and monopolies. These have all been limited by law because they're fundamentally unfair business practice. Do you believe that ensuring fair competition is a bad idea?Maybe I worded that poorly. No, I don't believe that fair competition is a bad idea. On the contrary, I want nothing more than a fair competition. I just want there to be competition so that people are pushed to improve and rewarded when they do well.As far as getting people off of 'socialistic programs' . . . I think what you mean here is stuff like welfare and food stamps, right? We're in agreement that the goal should be to get people to a situation where they're able to break free of these programs and better themselves. The thing is, often times it's social programs that have the best track record of doing this.I don't disagree with this. I would absolutely support programs that help prisoners to be successful again. I'm big on second chances and giving people the opportunity to succeed.
To take a case in point . . . criminal reform. Nordic countries consistently do better than we do here in North America with the reformation and reintegration of prisoners into society and reducing recidivism. The reason for this is that they have far more social programs to cover mental health problems, education, job training, etc. Here in North America we often provide the bare minimum . . . and get bare minimum results, including people who learn that it's too hard to succeed so simply give up entirely. Counterintuitively, providing more and better social programs can often reduce reliance on social programs.
Morality is a meaningless concept that changes over time, culture, and place.
This is something you've asserted repeatedly on the forum. You're certainly welcome to continue to believe this is true (obviously, after all there is no way for one person to control another's believes). You and I have debated this belief at length, and I don't seek to convince you to change your viewpoint.
But in my observation, your belief that morality is a meaningless concept is one which is not shared with most people. Which again, is perfectly okay. I bring it up only because generally, arguments about other topics where your position is derived from this particular belief will you are likely going to be unproductive ones that just end in frustration on both sides if the person you are arguing or discussing with disagrees on this core point.
Anyway, carry on.
Scenario/moral dilemma:
If I am living in a society with very scarce food resources, and women in my society breastfeed until a child is 3 because otherwise children don't get enough protein in their diet, what do I do if I have another baby when my previous baby is only 2 and needs breastfeeding for another year minimum? I don't have enough food myself to make enough milk to feed 2 babies at once. No other woman in my group has milk for my baby. What is the moral thing to do?
Scenario/moral dilemma:
If I am living in a society with very scarce food resources, and women in my society breastfeed until a child is 3 because otherwise children don't get enough protein in their diet, what do I do if I have another baby when my previous baby is only 2 and needs breastfeeding for another year minimum? I don't have enough food myself to make enough milk to feed 2 babies at once. No other woman in my group has milk for my baby. What is the moral thing to do?
I agree that this is a moral dilemma. Essentially it is a version of the trolley problem.
I disagree that the existence this or other ethical dilemmas validate the statement "morality is a meaningless concept".
Scenario/moral dilemma:
If I am living in a society with very scarce food resources, and women in my society breastfeed until a child is 3 because otherwise children don't get enough protein in their diet, what do I do if I have another baby when my previous baby is only 2 and needs breastfeeding for another year minimum? I don't have enough food myself to make enough milk to feed 2 babies at once. No other woman in my group has milk for my baby. What is the moral thing to do?
I agree that this is a moral dilemma. Essentially it is a version of the trolley problem.
I disagree that the existence this or other ethical dilemmas validate the statement "morality is a meaningless concept".
Somewhere back in the discussion was the implication that morality is consistent. It isn't, it is based on a society's circumstances. That wasn't a restatement of the trolley problem, that was a real life situation for many societies. And the morality those societies generally developed was that if you can't find a wet nurse for the new baby, it is exposed to die or never allowed to breathe. Because a society that tight on resources cannot afford to lose the 3 years of investment (pregnancy plus nursing) put into the older child. And if the mother tries to nurse both children they will lose both children, and possibly her as well.
Somewhere back in the discussion was the implication that morality is consistent. It isn't, it is based on a society's circumstances. That wasn't a restatement of the trolley problem, that was a real life situation for many societies. And the morality those societies generally developed was that if you can't find a wet nurse for the new baby, it is exposed to die or never allowed to breathe. Because a society that tight on resources cannot afford to lose the 3 years of investment (pregnancy plus nursing) put into the older child. And if the mother tries to nurse both children they will lose both children, and possibly her as well.
I seems to me that you may potentially be confounding questions of pragmatism with questions of ethics based on the bolded bit. But this is extraordinarily far outside my area of expertise. Setting that aside:
If we take it as a given that the moral solution, not just the pragmatic solution, was to prioritize the two year old over the newborn infant and that you state that many independent societies converged on the same answer to the same moral dilemma, that certainly sounds less like ethics and morality being meaningless or arbitrary and more like there being general trends of common answers to moral questions across history and geography.
Do you think that today we'd view the moral solution to be to abandon the two year old to their fate and try to save the newborn? Or would we converge on the same solution (whether through moral reasoning or pragmatic reasoning) if we were actually faced with the same choice and the same constraints?
Moral dilemmas are hard. The ones where there are recent precedents in our social circles are easier because we feel less bad about reaching the same resolution that was reached by our peers. Moral dilemmas without recent precedent, as the scenario you describe would be for someone who grew up in most of the world today, are even harder because we cannot even comfort ourselves by telling ourselves we resolved the problem in the same way as others so it was probably the right decision in the end.