Originally Posted by LessinSF (Post 512912)

My favorite bad argument corollary to identity politics is when someone prefaces their argument with "As a _______," as in "As a mother, I think Nassar should have received the death penalty."

This use of one's identity to insulate their argument from scrutiny, and de-legitimize the arguments of anyone who is not whatever the speaker is maddens me. It actually makes me discount their argument.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 512907)

Under either party, the money is funneling upwards. If you don’t see that both parties do little to effect real change, and only fiddle around the edges to the extent their corporate owners allow them to, whatever.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 512914)

False. Try again.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 512913)

As someone who had a quasi-judicial job, I have to say I did follow that line of reasoning. But what is your status where someone else gives a shit what you find the opposite of persuasive?

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 512916)

I watched a fellow attack Hitchens at a speech once, arguing Hitchens couldn't write about war or conflict because he'd never been in the military.

Hitchens thought for a moment, goading the audience into assuming he'd offer some complex and polite explanation, then stated: "That's too fucking stupid. I'm not responding to that." (Conservative paraphrase.)

Laughter followed, the guy got up in a huff and left. I think he might've attacked Hitchens, except that Hitchens was already bald and physically diminished from chemo at that point.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 512917)

whifferoooski

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 512902)

When I was a civil servant, I was kind of bored, and in law school. So I started doing grievances for our employee union.

The thing is, the gov "protections" aren't that big a deal. It seemed the supervisors only had to follow procedure and they could unfairly fuck people. The employees who were getting fucked we typically couldn't help, because the supervisor knew he was doing something wrong, so em was careful. Who could we help? The employee that should be getting fired, because their supervisor would often act hastily. That is, I don't think it is hard to fire gov employee now.

That said, I also knew NO ONE who was their because the job had firing security. Maybe some people, especially the clerical group, were there because layoffs were less likely. People in legal jobs might have been there for experience, because it does come quicker. And the bennies were great. I had 4 weeks from the start. And the thing is, I could use it. I remember big law telling me I got 4 weeks! Might as well have been 20, you can't use it all, and still keep your job.

But I never ever heard anyone there for "hard to get fired" rules.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 512911)

It’s going to be close... http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...democrats.html

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 512915)

True. You're applying bias and a limited lens.

Originally Posted by LessinSF (Post 512912)

My favorite bad argument corollary to identity politics is when someone prefaces their argument with "As a _______," as in "As a mother, I think Nassar should have received the death penalty."

This use of one's identity to insulate their argument from scrutiny, and de-legitimize the arguments of anyone who is not whatever the speaker is maddens me. It actually makes me discount their argument.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 512921)

No, I'm talking about what the government does. You are talking about what the rest of the economy does. "The money is funneling upwards" is a stupid thing to say. Money doesn't funnel itself. As you have pointed out many times -- and no one here disagrees -- the economy itself seems to be working lately in a way that advantages the already well-off, and disadvantages the not-so-well-off. I get it. We all get it. You think you're Moses coming down from Mount Sinai with great news on big tablets of stone, but you're like the guy who tweeted yesterday that Barney is a Tantric sex therapist now. We got it already.

My point, which is so obviously correct that you can't really disagree with it, is that the Democrats used their political power when they controlled Congress under Obama to change the law in ways that helped the poor at the expense of the rich, and the GOP is now doing the opposite. You know this is true. You're just so committed to presenting as the independent thinker that you feel compelled to offer a contrarian take. So daring!

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 512916)

I watched a fellow attack Hitchens at a speech once, arguing Hitchens couldn't write about war or conflict because he'd never been in the military.

Hitchens thought for a moment, goading the audience into assuming he'd offer some complex and polite explanation, then stated: "That's too fucking stupid. I'm not responding to that." (Conservative paraphrase.)

Laughter followed, the guy got up in a huff and left. I think he might've attacked Hitchens, except that Hitchens was already bald and physically diminished from chemo at that point.

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower (Post 512924)

Great story! I feel like there are some real valuable lessons in there about how I should be leading my life, but I fear I am too emotionally limited to be able to transcend biased thought in the way that you have. So I am doomed to sit here in my silo, like so much grain.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 512878)

I’m describing what I saw. I expected some babbling crap. I saw plagiarism of Reagan.

You underestimate the selling power of positivity. He pitched a generally positive vision last night, and just like Reagan, he never once explained how much added debt it would involve.

That speech was only trash to your fellow travelers. To the business community, particularly small business, Trump is a useful idiot bearing tax cuts. To Wall Street, a co-opted tool.

The Kochs are about to dump half a billion into keeping the houses red. And the left’s marketers are betting it all on “resistance” and #metoo. You might be right. Incumbents always lose in midterms. But I’m sensing this might be closer than you like.

Oh, I know, how dare I. Heresy! Right. Well, enjoy your silo.