LawTalkers - We are all Slave now.

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)

- Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)

- - We are all Slave now. (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=882)

Re: We are all Slave now.

Re: ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower (Post 519194)

That's what I want to know! But whenever the conversation comes up, the only thing I am able to discern is that 1) if you are against the plan, you are an old greedy racist NIMBY bastard trying to preserve the value of your urban mansion on the backs of the oppressed, 2) if you are for the plan, you are either a young selfish asshole who just wants a nice apartment near downtown regardless of the consequences, or a dim-witted social justice warrior whose ill-conceived plan plays right into the hands of a cabal of evil developers who are licking their lips at the chance to enrich themselves through the destruction of the character and social fabric of Minneapolis.

The primary goal of the plan appears to create more economically and racially diverse neighborhoods through an increase in mixed housing. This is an oversimplification, of course, but suffice to say that I personally believe that the intended consequences are all good ones. Will the plan achieve these goals? Things get murky here real quick. As you may recall when the plan was last discussed, even Adder conceded that the whether or not the plan will meaningfully lessen racial disparity in Minneapolis is unclear at best (while still insisting that to oppose the plan is racist). Most people I have discussed the plan with are for it, but I have had no less than four discussions (including the exchange with Adder here a while back) where the primary argument for the plan is that 1) things right now are not fair, 2) we need to do something, and 3) the plan is something. If you ask whether it is possible that doing something just for the sake of doing something could actually make things worse, your motives come under suspicion. Unintended consequences are similarly unclear. Opponents of the plan argue that it will result in the razing of historic homes and the destruction of neighborhoods by the above-mentioned evil cabal of developers, although I have heard no persuasive evidence to suggest that this will occur. But, I have heard concerns from people who believe the goals of the plan are noble, but fear that areas populated by the less affluent will be most easily be targeted by developers who want to build lots of apartments for young professionals at the expense of making urban housing even less available for the often minority families in these neighborhoods. I have heard no persuasive evidence that the plan will address, much less effectively address, this unintended consequence. But because their is so much name-calling, propaganda, and disinformation being thrown around by both proponents and opponents, I have found it difficult to obtain information I consider reliable.

Here in the Bay Area, the price of housing is insane. The only way to really change it would be to allow people to tear down single-family homes and replace them with denser housing. The people who live in neighborhoods of single-family homes do not want this to happen in their neighborhood, because they do not like change or congestion, and they worry -- with good reason -- that it will reduce the value of their home. They're right!

Re: ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower (Post 519194)

If you ask whether it is possible that doing something just for the sake of doing something could actually make things worse, your motives come under suspicion.

Which things are you concerned will get worse? Some think adding new housing will make housing more expensive, because new housing is more expensive than old house. This is confusing cause and effect. Demand is making housing more expensive, not new housing.

One thing that could potentially be made worse, though, is displacing communities of color near downtown with redevelopment. One way to mitigate that is to allow additional housing in other desirable parts of the city. Which is in the plan.

Quote:

But, I have heard concerns from people who believe the goals of the plan are noble, but fear that areas populated by the less affluent will be most easily be targeted by developers who want to build lots of apartments for young professionals at the expense of making urban housing even less available for the often minority families in these neighborhoods. I have heard no persuasive evidence that the plan will address, much less effectively address, this unintended consequence.

We've yet to see the actual inclusionary zoning proposal, but they keep saying its coming.

Re: ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

Quote:

Maybe you can explain this to me. What is a prohibition on "micro aggressions"? (BTW, it's delightful to put cant you don't agree with in quotation marks while simultaneously tossing around your own cant. Delightful!)

Idk. I cited the article because it listed the nine cognitive deficiencies occurring today which are listed in Haidt's book. The opinions of the author are his.

Quote:

How does a prohibition on micro aggressions reinforce cognitive distortions and degrade student thinking? Is that argument only true if a prohibition on micro aggressions is meant to prevent students from harm? If hurt feelings don't constitute harm, why not?

I'll skip that word salad and just have the soup.

Quote:

Reading what you just said is a little like going to a wine tasting and not actually having any wine, but just listening to a guy tell me that one is redolent of blackberries while another has a hint of road tar.

Reading this is like reading someone avoiding a point he doesn't like.

Quote:

Oh good! Earnest both-sidism!

Calling out false equivalence is the new false equivalence. I can say that. Why? Because it's got just as much validity behind it as your convenient decisions to label something false equivalence. I don't like this point very much... Hmm. False equivalence!

I agree there is some false equivalence out there. I also believe you are abusing the concept for the purpose of appearing to refute something while not actually doing so.

Quote:

The real point of an argument about what both sides are doing is to signal that the writer is uniquely virtuous.

You're reading minds there, which both Kahneman and Haidt would advise against. You're also wrong, and once again abusing the privilege of criticizing people for both-sidesism.

Quote:

Wait, a second ago you were recommending this stuff about cognitive distortions, but now they're all playing a game. Which is it?

Everything's a game. If you're making moves based on faulty reasoning, you're playing badly. If you're asserting there should be certain rules based on faulty reasoning, you're playing badly.

Viewing things as a game is not a heuristic that automatically indicates cognitive distortion. Given actions have reactions, this view can be consistent with a logically sound approach to life.

Quote:

"I'm a cynic, and so is everyone else, but at least I recognize it." Compelling virtue signaling there.

There's nothing cynical about that observation at all. It's simply factual. The intentional actors on the extreme right and left are engaged in nihilistic campaigns.

Quote:

This is like reading a bad .ppt slide.

But is it wrong? No. So your point is?

Quote:

At the risk of departing from both-sidism, you have just described two common tropes of political speech which are very different. One is lying. The other is insisting that there is a broader context that is relevant to what is being discussed. Aren't these quite different?

Both are lying. If you insist the author of something is some form of bigot despite clear evidence she is not, you are a liar. If you then refuse to engage her on the subject because you know that would expose your argument that she is a bigot to be a lie, you are a liar doubling down. If you insist she retract her commentary because you don't want anyone to engage it, again because you know such engagement would prove you not only incorrect but a liar, you are a dangerous liar.

That you relabel poor or intentionally bad reasoning as the benign sounding act of "insisting that there is a broader context" does not confer validity on that illogic. You cannot just just call a thing something else (very different from what it actually is) and make it so. (See "Mission Accomplished" or Bush's endless environmentally damaging policies re-named as environmentally friendly policies.)

Quote:

I believe this is a huge problem in our discourse right now. We (politicians, journalists, people in public life) tend to assume good faith, but you have a significant number of people who are not arguing in good faith.

I agree. Hence, I say the people at the poles are comprised, one half, of intentional actors.

Quote:

And in the main, this is a conservative thing now.

70/30.

Quote:

Trump sets the tone. The lying and the conspiracy theories and the gaslighting and the concern trolling and all of it are tools of the right, of conservatives who do it most of all to trigger the libs, and of conservatives who very well understand that they want to do things that are not popular with most of the public, like cut social insurance, cripple health insurance, etc.

Nope. Trump is partly a reaction. The correctness movement was around long before he was. I recall its silliness in the 90s.

The two sides feed off each other. They've been Oceania and Eurasia since the concept of correctness reared its head long ago. Trump has simply taken it to a new level.

Quote:

If you pretend that both sides are doing it, you are letting conservatives off the hook for this.

There'd be no pretending. There are facts and there are untruths. And if you say both sides are not doing it, you are engaged in spreading untruth.

Quote:

And if you pretend that the place where this problem is really acute is colleges and universities, you either have a totally warped sense of priorities or you are straining to blame the left for something the right is doing.

Quote:

Exactly. The faux concern about how this stuff is wrecking colleges and universities is exactly that, a conjured up political talking point and not a real thing, since ordinary people can go to college and simply ignore this sort of thing.

If you're careful to take the right courses and to avoid subjects where controversial issues will be raised.

But again, Haidt is writing for a much broader audience. He's explaining why the idiocy we're seeing on the extreme right and extreme left is occurring. He's explaining what's wrong with the minds of these demented people. And like it or not, these people are having a profound political influence, and have been for some time now.

Re: We are all Slave now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 519195)

Another chapter in the long story of how the media are pawns of the Democratic Party.

The audience of 300 or so has clearly been brainwashed. Tragic.

Or (wait for the drum roll)...

Perhaps this is because there's a GOP administration in office, so... (if I have to fill in the rest, shoot me).

Or (another roll, Doc)...

Maybe this statistic, similar in value to "Celebrities Visiting My Home, 2017 vs. 2018," has value of (one more roll, please?)... 0.000000%?

Re: ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower (Post 519190)

As this post tends to demonstrate, people on both sides of the debate seem singularly focused on impugning the character, integrity, and motives of the others side. Which makes it virtually impossible to have a discussion about 1) what are the intended outcomes of the plan, 2) is the plan likely to achieve these outcomes, 3) what are the potential unintended consequences, and 4) how do we address those.

Why are you doing this? Are you suggesting Adder and his friends are making stuff up? I'd say he has more character than you. You know where you shove your plan and its outcomes.

Re: We are all Slave now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 519199)

Perhaps this is because there's a GOP administration in office, so... (if I have to fill in the rest, shoot me).

Pretty sure it skewed heavily toward the GOP during the Obama administration too.

Re: ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 519198)

Idk. I cited the article because it listed the nine cognitive deficiencies occurring today which are listed in Haidt's book. The opinions of the author are his.

You recommended a book. I said, what does it say? You pointed me to that article, for which thank you, except that I really can't tell from that article what the book is about, because the article is, as you say, word salad.

Quote:

Reading this is like reading someone avoiding a point he doesn't like.

I don't know whether I like it or not because I still don't understand what the point is.

Quote:

Maybe you missed it, but I referred to both-sidesism because that author (not you) literally said "both sides" were doing something.

I don't have any problem with the idea that there are phenomena that cut across both major political parties. For example, I just posted in this thread about the way that changes in publishing technology have resulted it epistemic foreclosure.

That said, it seems foolish to me to insist that both sides are equivalent in some important way, because they representing different parts of society and tend to act and be affected in different ways. For example, with regard to the changes in publishing technology that I described, conservatives tend to feel unrepresented in the mainstream media in ways that liberals do not, and tend to have more access to ideologically aligned sources of capital, and so they have created conservative media institutions that parallel the mainstream in ways that liberals have not (the Washington Times, Fox News, etc.). When liberals have tried this, it hasn't worked (Air America).

For this reasons, arguments that "both sides" do something are usually an effort to absolve one side by suggesting that whatever they're doing is ubiquitous, and/or an effort to signaling centrist virtue. Or both! How can you tell which? Sometimes the preening gives it away.

Quote:

If everything is a game, then the value of pointing out that people are playing a game is nil.

Quote:

But is it wrong? No. So your point is?

It's a useless and stupid thing to say. There are liberals and conservatives, and there are people who are deluded and there liars. So what? That .ppt slide has zero explanatory power.

Quote:

No, it's not true that both are lying. Accusing some There certainly are instances where people use claims of bigotry to shut down discussions, but even in that case it's really a form of ad hominem attack rather than lying. Which is to say, it's different.

Moreover, it's certainly not the case that any responsive claim of prejudice is an ad hominem attack that is an effort to avoid a conversation. I will give you an example, one you know well. When Ezra Klein said to Sam Harris, if you're going to talk about Charles Murray's ideas, you really need to acknowledge and discuss the racial context. There are people who try to silence Murray, but that is not what Klein was doing. Rather than avoid a conversation, he engaged in a lengthy debate with Sam Harris, which is the opposite of refusing to engage.

Quote:

That you relabel poor or intentionally bad reasoning as the benign sounding act of "insisting that there is a broader context" does not confer validity on that illogic. You cannot just just call a thing something else (very different from what it actually is) and make it so. (See "Mission Accomplished" or Bush's endless environmentally damaging policies re-named as environmentally friendly policies.)

You could be understood as suggested that any claim of prejudice that doesn't start a conversation is necessarily poor or intentionally bad reasoning. I don't think you mean that. You could think I mean that any claim of prejudice is necessarily made in good faith and is inherently not poor or intentionally bad reasoning, but obviously I don't mean that either. So I'm not sure what your point is.

Quote:

I agree. Hence, I say the people at the poles are comprised, one half, of intentional actors.

The point I was trying to make is that nobody is the poles, except to visit. Everyone lives somewhere between them.

Quote:

70/30.

Give me a break. You have one political party led by a bullshit artist who makes things up so constantly that no one bats an eye anymore, and a party that is scared to call him on it and happy to enjoy the benefits. The Administration is full of bullshit artists.

Where are the Democratic leaders who constantly truck in bad faith? Even calling it 70/30 is dangerously close to false equivalence.

Quote:

This idea that Trumpian gaslighting is somehow similar to political correctness -- I think that's what you mean -- is totally nutso. You should explain that one.

Quote:

I can't speak for Haidt, but I think his critique of colleges stems from the very reasonable position that they are the establishment. Their professors and administration are expected to behave like adults. He never says as much out loud, but it's clearly implied that those on the right are imbeciles, opportunists, and propagandists. There's no point in shaming them.

If you're careful to take the right courses and to avoid subjects where controversial issues will be raised.

But again, Haidt is writing for a much broader audience. He's explaining why the idiocy we're seeing on the extreme right and extreme left is occurring. He's explaining what's wrong with the minds of these demented people. And like it or not, these people are having a profound political influence, and have been for some time now.

Dude, on this particular point you are like the Monty Python's Black Knight who wants to keep fighting with limbs, except that the wounds are self-inflicted. As you just said, campus politics is a meaningless spectacle that doesn't really affect anyone.

Re: ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 519181)

My old GOP relatives will be dead son enough.

People have been saying this for years. The truth is, as white people further understand the advantages they have set up for themselves and the more they segregate themselves everywhere, in every possible way, the more they turn themselves into the last older generation.

By the way, I'm halfway through https://www.amazon.com/White-Fragili.../dp/0807047414 and it's an excellent book.

TM

Re: ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower (Post 519194)

Is there a requirement that a certain percentage of housing in any new development be subject to a lottery system to people who qualify for low income housing?

I imagine it doesn't because, well...racism.

TM

Re: ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 519196)

Yes. All the new apartments going up in Manhattan are worthless.

(Of course I'm not taking issue with the argument. If you owned a standalone house on a full block you owned in NYC, it would be worth way more than an apartment in a building on that block. But, damn. You don't own the right to every single space within x number of feet of your house just because you don't want the value of that house to drop. And frankly, I'm sick of people using the value of their house to justify every stupid racist, unsupportable notion.)

TM

Re: ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 519196)

We're currently getting people opposed to the plan both arguing that allowing small multi-units will increase the value of their homes (developers!) and decrease the value, because who wants to live next to a triplex!

But yes, this is exactly the discussion.

Re: ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 519206)

I think it's undeniable that if you have a block of single-family homes, and you tear one down and put up a multi-family dwelling, it will (if anything) decrease the value of the other homes on the block. Especially in neighborhoods that were built as large post-war developments. That is at least part of the problem.

Re: ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 519207)

I don't think it's undeniable. It's certainly possible and it's been a default assumption for a long time. (Sorta related: https://streets.mn/2016/02/07/no-lar...lue-your-home/ Hank warning: blog post)

But it's also possible that where there are very high land values that a luxury small multi unit will have no effect at all on the surrounding property values. Some very fancy row house type things just went up right on one of the lakes recently and I don't think it thrust the neighbors out of the upper echelon of local property values.

Just as importantly, we're already tearing down our older houses in fancy neighborhoods to build much bigger ones. Maybe those lower surrounding property values too (I doubt it) but you can certainly put a duplex in the same amount of space if it was allowed and not change anything for anyone else.

Re: ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 519208)

That is an interesting blog post and thanks for sharing. The third-to-last paragraph says:

Quote:

It’s probably true that the properties immediately abutting a six-story apartment lose value most of the time, even if new residents or the new building itself brings an amenity to the neighborhood and raises aggregate values. Zoning and small area plans as we’ve conceived them are basically a prisoner’s dilemma response to this reality.

Sounds right. All else equal, the replacement of a single home with multiples residences almost certainly decreases the value of other neighboring homes, in the Econ 101 sense that aggregate demand is unaffected and aggregate supply has increased.

I would rather live in a denser neighborhood, because it will support a greater diversity of stores and restaurants and services. But lots of people in the suburbs really value all those lawns.