We are all Slave now.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Your desire to create a world in which false equivalence is perfectly acceptable is absolutely mind-boggling.

One side wants to destroy everything, has Nazis marching in the streets, puts children in cages, believes that any black of Latino person who wants even a basic level of fair and safe treatment is a traitor to the country, etc.

The other side is asking to be treated with the respect that white, heterosexual people enjoy at such a level that, when they examine those other people asking for it, they think they're fucking crazy.

TM

I'm a classical social liberal. I believe almost everything consensual should be tolerated.

The progressives of the moment are very much against this sort of thinking. Hell, look at the war raging over free speech. And due process has gone out the window. If you're simply accused of a #metoo offense, you must Go Away Forever.

These people very much want their thinking enshrined in not only laws, but zero tolerance "social policing."

And alongside them are the Cass Sunsteins of the world ("we must nudge the proles to do what's best for them") and the Ezekial Emmanuels ("let me tell you how health care is best delivered to the masses").

I find the smart arguments from the Left compelling because they are backed up with data. Most crumble years later as a result of the law of unintended consequences and leave an even worse mess than before, but some actually work (Social Security).

But what we've got right now isn't a simple argument for tolerance versus intolerance. What we've got is an argument of "my preferred world" versus "your preferred world." Is the Left's preferred world better than the Right's? Yes. Of course. But why must we perpetually chose between officious intervening masters? Why aren't we allowed to live in a world of mostly negative rights?

This is why I like UBI. It's effectively, "Here's a check. Enjoy your freedom."

You stated elsewhere that "this country is done." I agree. This country was done long ago, when people forgot to mind their own business and started thinking it was not only okay but justified to tell their neighbors how they ought to conduct themselves in consensual matters.

ETA: There ought to be an amendment to the Constitution:

Is the behavior in which you seek the govt to interfere consensual and not directly harming anyone? If the answer is "No," Shut the Fuck Up.

(As Voltaire would advise, "tend your [own fucking] garden [and leave your neighbor to tend his as he likes].")

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

On a serious note, isn't there a difference between the "Bush bashing" that as I remember it focused heavily on Iraq (I mean, people were camped outside his ranch focusing on that issue for literally years, weren't they?) and the Obama stuff, focusing on things like his birth certificate?

We SHOULD always have passionate debate on issues. I encourage large boisterous rallies over wars, abortion, guns, etc. But there is no equivalent in the Bush bashing to the birther/tea party BS or to Fox/Breitbart.

Yes. Bush bashing was justified as it applied to Iraq. It was shrill when, even after 2004, people were still complaining about the 2000 election.

Obama birtherism was never justified to any extent. It was complete and utter nonsense and a national embarrassment.

Benghazi was another embarrassment.

Clinton's impeachment was one, too.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I'm a classical social liberal. I believe almost everything consensual should be tolerated.

The progressives of the moment are very much against this sort of thinking.

You have a board full of progressives. Loud, outspoken ones. Which of us do you think are against letting you do consensual things?

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I'm sure there's some of that. But there's far more of the following:

I know there's a guy jacking off on the street corner. Stop screaming 'There's a guy jacking over there!' We all see him. The police will be here soon enough.

The police in this analogy may be the midterm elections, actual law enforcement, or both.

This analogy is fucking ridiculous. But let's work with it.

First, "the police will be here soon enough," is comical coming from you who has done nothing but talk about how anything Trump has done is a big nothingburger.

Second, if this is about someone jacking off on the street corner, the people who keep yelling about it are:

1. People he's jacking off on
2. People who are shocked that the police actually aren't coming
3. People in different neighborhoods who are discovering the enormous amount of ejaculate he is spreading
4. People who are shocked at the new and different and more disgusting ways he is ejaculating
5. People who are wondering why he's only jacking off on poor people, people of color, LGBT people, and immigrants
6. People who are constantly flummoxed about why people like you keep pointing at the woman who picked her nose a few times and say, "What about her?"
7. People who are wondering why he is allowed to jack off Russian passersby for money
8. People who are amazed that there seem to be a number of people who walk by and say shit like, "Oh yeah. That's just how he is."

People are yelling about it because he is destroying this country and not yelling about it is not a fucking option. If you know anyone who is like, "Yeah. I know. But I'm tired of hearing the criticism, so I'm gonna vote for him again, listen closely, those people are completely full of shit.

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

You have a board full of progressives. Loud, outspoken ones. Which of us do you think are against letting you do consensual things?

I don't see any progressives here. Nobody here wants to compel people to do anything except maybe pay more in taxes.

They generally just want people to be tolerant of others. I'd say this place is full of liberals.

Progressives think they know how society ought to be arranged. They'll take care of your health care, they'll tell you what you can and can't say, they'll enforce fairness, and if you're unwilling* to care for yourself, they've got an administrative architecture of programs and incentives that will nanny you properly. (And if you're willing to care for yourself in a way they don't like, they'll fix that.)

Progressives know we're not wise enough to manage ourselves alone. But don't worry. They're benevolent. Handicappers General, "nudging" us in the right direction.

______
* Not "unable." Unwilling.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

You have a board full of progressives. Loud, outspoken ones. Which of us do you think are against letting you do consensual things?

Maybe he means I keep suggesting he find a different cocktail party set?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I was noting there are both swing voters and Trump voters with buyer's remorse who would vote against him, but may join him or stick with him out of distaste for shrill critics.

Yes, and my point is that this notion of yours (and the NYT's) that there are swing voters who decide to side with Trump "out of distaste for shrill critics" is total bullshit. Thank you for repeating it, in case I had forgotten it since I pointed out that it was bullshit yesterday.

You're wrong about Trump voters not changing their minds.

That woman who volunteered for Ron Paul and is now the example of a Trump voter sticking by her man in the face of Trump's critics -- she is not changing her mind.

There are some swing voters. But the NYT pretends that all voters are swing voters.

If the Democrats focused on how he lied to the blue collar voters and has not delivered for them, they'd peel away the purely economic voters in his base. Focusing on the social wedge issues (immigration, #metoo, Russia) is preaching to the converted. Dems already have all those voters.

If I were running against him, I'd slam the tariffs' negative impacts on jobs and the increase in gas prices relentlessly.

No one is running against him right now and now one can focus any message against him.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

On a serious note, isn't there a difference between the "Bush bashing" that as I remember it focused heavily on Iraq (I mean, people were camped outside his ranch focusing on that issue for literally years, weren't they?) and the Obama stuff, focusing on things like his birth certificate?

We SHOULD always have passionate debate on issues. I encourage large boisterous rallies over wars, abortion, guns, etc. But there is no equivalent in the Bush bashing to the birther/tea party BS or to Fox/Breitbart.

When Sebby calls critics of Trump "shrill," he is intentionally or unintentionally alluding to the way that Paul Krugman was dismissed early in the Bush years for not going along with the parade. As we all now know, Krugman was mostly right.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The progressives of the moment are very much against this sort of thinking. Hell, look at the war raging over free speech.

Please stop it. There is no war over free speech. If you're going to take the debates occurring on campuses of fairly liberal schools as a war, then you're not a serious person. The Bill Mahers of the world who have been personally butt-hurt for staying stupid shit and facing pushback have inflated this issue so far beyond what it is that they seem ridiculous constantly talking about it.

If you're trying to drag in instances when people say awful racist shit and have their shows taken away or their advertisers boycotted, as you've probably guessed, I'm not your guy.

And as you already know, none of that is a First Amendment issue.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

And due process has gone out the window. If you're simply accused of a #metoo offense, you must Go Away Forever.

As you already know, this is not a Due Process issue.

The instances of #metoo accusations that have resulted in people having to go away forever that are based on nothing do not exist. If you want to debate over whether or not certain instances of harassment warrant a career death sentence, do it. We've done it here. But that blanket statement is typical anti-pc bullshit in which some asshole tries to conflate examples of people judging minor instances with actual crazy offensive shit so that they can dismiss it all. You're better than that. (I think.)

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

These people very much want their thinking enshrined in not only laws, but zero tolerance "social policing."

Just fucking stop it. What are you talking about? If you're talking about the fringe and what they want and acting like this somehow represents everyone on the left and an actual push for zero tolerance laws, you are either being intentionally misleading to try to feed your false equivalency or you're an idiot.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

And alongside them are the Cass Sunsteins of the world ("we must nudge the proles to do what's best for them") and the Ezekial Emmanuels ("let me tell you how health care is best delivered to the masses").

This example is so ridiculous, I'm not sure why you included it.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I find the smart arguments from the Left compelling because they are backed up with data. Most crumble years later as a result of the law of unintended consequences and leave an even worse mess than before, but some actually work (Social Security).

This is so overwhelmingly broad that it amounts to utter nonsense.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

But what we've got right now isn't a simple argument for tolerance versus intolerance. What we've got is an argument of "my preferred world" versus "your preferred world."

This is total bullshit. What we have now is a group of people asking to be treated with respect on one side and a group of people who feel threatened and superior on the other who don't want to be bothered giving that respect and creating bullshit false equivalence arguments.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You stated elsewhere that "this country is done." I agree. This country was done long ago, when people forgot to mind their own business and started thinking it was not only okay but justified to tell their neighbors how they ought to conduct themselves in consensual matters.

Pure garbage. This country was done when we instituted slavery, wrote all of our laws to protect it, then wrote all of our laws to protect Jim Crow, and then fought in every possible way against any civil rights. That resulted in assholes moving away and bubbling themselves off so that they wouldn't have to interact with people who aren't like them, which carried over into whole news channels and sources which feed the fears that isolation (and the legacy of slavery) created. The fact that capitalism is completely unchecked combined with the existing reality that white people own everything (including the laws, the lawmakers, and the fact finders and courts) and have the power to essentially act with impunity is why things are the way they are. You can add to that male and heterosexual power dynamics.

What we are experiencing now is the extreme pushback of white people realizing that they are no longer supreme in the way they thought they were. They are doing everything they possibly can to hold on to their power, including, taking away people's ability to vote, packing the courts with assholes who support them retaining their power, legislating so blatantly in favor of themselves that it's comical, policing in a way that favors white people's tender sensibilities such that non-whites face death based on white fears, etc.

Whatever. Why am I even writing this?

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Please stop it. There is no war over free speech. If you're going to take the debates occurring on campuses of fairly liberal schools as a war, then you're not a serious person. The Bill Mahers of the world who have been personally butt-hurt for staying stupid shit and facing pushback have inflated this issue so far beyond what it is that they seem ridiculous constantly talking about it.

If you're trying to drag in instances when people say awful racist shit and have their shows taken away or their advertisers boycotted, as you've probably guessed, I'm not your guy.

And as you already know, none of that is a First Amendment issue.

Pushback is fine. Career execution is not. Internet mob reactions are not. And of course it's not a first amendment issue. But free speech isn't free if there's a mob of lunatics crying for a hanging whenever they hear something they don't like. And it goes far beyond campuses and Maher and Charles Murray. It also works from both sides, as in the case of Kathy Griffin.

The response to any speech you dislike should never be, "I am going to destroy that person!" That's dangerous, and on a continuum with Trump's attempts to silence journalists.

As you already know, this is not a Due Process issue.

It's a hysteria issue. In the case of Roseanne, the punishment was appropriate. In the case of Aziz Ansari, it was outrageous. In the case of Chris Hardwick, it's pretty obviously a hanging first then trial scenario.

This is scary and the sign of a deeply fucked up mentality which thinks, "I am aggrieved, so I have a right to destroy anyone worth accusing, without full vetting of facts."

The instances of #metoo accusations that have resulted in people having to go away forever that are based on nothing do not exist.

Oh, so all we need is a scintilla of evidence, enough to accuse, to convict. That's not dangerous, or Trumpian, at all.

If you're talking about the fringe and what they want and acting like this somehow represents everyone on the left and an actual push for zero tolerance laws, you are either being intentionally misleading to try to feed your false equivalency or you're an idiot.

I made it clear I do not view the views of people here as progressive. I do not think progressive are the entire Left. But they are eating all the media coverage at the moment.

Pure garbage. This country was done when we instituted slavery, wrote all of our laws to protect it, then wrote all of our laws to protect Jim Crow, and then fought in every possible way against any civil rights. That resulted in assholes moving away and bubbling themselves off so that they wouldn't have to interact with people who aren't like them, which carried over into whole news channels and sources which feed the fears that isolation (and the legacy of slavery) created. The fact that capitalism is completely unchecked combined with the existing reality that white people own everything (including the laws, the lawmakers, and the fact finders and courts) and have the power to essentially act with impunity is why things are the way they are. You can add to that male and heterosexual power dynamics.

I actually agree with most of this. Where I diverge is in regard to the progressive notions that we have to counter bad old rules with bad new rules.

I favor aggressive efforts to ensure the playing field is not stacked to favor any group. I think we should ruthlessly work to destroy all systems and hierarchies that serve discriminatory purposes. But those are negative rights. I'm telling the state it cannot shoot and jail people as it has. I'm telling municipalities they cannot use fines to place the poor in permanent debt servitude.

What I'm not doing is offering any progressive plans to further interfere in the system. We all owe each other a duty to ensure nobody's being preyed upon, but that's where the duty ends. After that, eevryone's on his own.

What we are experiencing now is the extreme pushback of white people realizing that they are no longer supreme in the way they thought they were. They are doing everything they possibly can to hold on to their power, including, taking away people's ability to vote, packing the courts with assholes who support them retaining their power, legislating so blatantly in favor of themselves that it's comical, policing in a way that favors white people's tender sensibilities such that non-whites face death based on white fears, etc.

What that is, more accurately, is a status quo acting to protect itself. It's a lot more than white people. In any complex society like ours, the tyranny of tired ideas, of outmoded business models, of stagnant hierarchies, prevails. They are very sticky things, and people reflexively bristle against change that knocks them off the pedestal. There's a lot of racism involved in the current backlash, but this is just a beginning. There's a broader cataclysm coming as automation and globalization work on us. The full armies of Luddites haven't even appeared yet.

And keep in mind, racism always spikes in times of economic instability. Stupid people need an "other" on which to pin blame. Historically, this presages a war or collapse.

This is a long way of saying, this moment is a lot more complex than a race issue. And I'm not saying this to deflect. I'm saying this because to view it as caused exclusively by racism is myopic. It's much bigger than that. But you know that.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I'm a classical social liberal. I believe almost everything consensual should be tolerated.

The progressives of the moment are very much against this sort of thinking. Hell, look at the war raging over free speech. And due process has gone out the window. If you're simply accused of a #metoo offense, you must Go Away Forever.

There is no "war" "raging" over free speech. There are conservatives who like playing the victim to make money, and a small number of people on college campuses who like to dance with them.

Due process has not gone out the window, except in immigration. If you are a classic social liberal and believe that everything consensual should be tolerated, you should have a huge problem with the fact that so many woman have experiences with men that they do not ask for or consent to, and that they have no recourse in the legal system. If you experience a #metoo offense, you have no hope that the legal system will do anything about it. That bothers actual liberals. "Classic liberals" are apparently those who want to see the benefits of liberals and social freedom for the people who had it two hundred years ago, which is to say affluent white men.

And alongside them are the Cass Sunsteins of the world ("we must nudge the proles to do what's best for them") and the Ezekial Emmanuels ("let me tell you how health care is best delivered to the masses").

The scorn you have for trying to make things better for the "proles" and the "masses" really puts the "classic" in "classic liberal."

I find the smart arguments from the Left compelling because they are backed up with data. Most crumble years later as a result of the law of unintended consequences and leave an even worse mess than before, but some actually work (Social Security).

Lovely -- a nod towards data, and then a completely fact-free generalization of -- what, really, it's hard to say.

But what we've got right now isn't a simple argument for tolerance versus intolerance. What we've got is an argument of "my preferred world" versus "your preferred world." Is the Left's preferred world better than the Right's? Yes. Of course. But why must we perpetually chose between officious intervening masters? Why aren't we allowed to live in a world of mostly negative rights?

Because markets do not always deliver optimal results for reasons that have been well understood for decades. Health-care, the environment, your favorite hobby horse of automation -- all issues because if the government simply allows a free market to operate, bad things will happen. It's not rocket science.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

When Sebby calls critics of Trump "shrill," he is intentionally or unintentionally alluding to the way that Paul Krugman was dismissed early in the Bush years for not going along with the parade. As we all now know, Krugman was mostly right.

You have it backwards. Krugman was spot-on in criticizing Bush's election and Iraq. After Bush won in 2004, credibly, his continued screaming about the 2000 election was shrill. His continued screaming about Iraq was not.

And I say this as someone who puts an asterisk next to "President Bush." I am not sure 2000 was valid.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I made it clear I do not view the views of people here as progressive. I do not think progressive are the entire Left. But they are eating all the media coverage at the moment.

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. For one, the way you use the term "progressive" has nothing to do with the way other people use the term, which is basically to describe people who are leftier than and at odds witht establishment Democrats. But setting that aside, please share a few examples from this morning's mainstream media to illustrate how your progressives are eating all the media coverage at the moment.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You have it backwards. Krugman was spot-on in criticizing Bush's election and Iraq. After Bush won in 2004, credibly, his continued screaming about the 2000 election was shrill. His continued screaming about Iraq was not.

You can say that now, but that's not when and why people called him shrill. And, please find me just one example of Paul Krugman "screaming about the 2000 election" from after November 2004. Just one.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. For one, the way you use the term "progressive" has nothing to do with the way other people use the term, which is basically to describe people who are leftier than and at odds witht establishment Democrats. But setting that aside, please share a few examples from this morning's mainstream media to illustrate how your progressives are eating all the media coverage at the moment.

Are you kidding me? Maxine Waters' defenders and detractors have been filling up the news feed (she's not progressive, but her fans sure seem to be). The unseating of a moderate D in NY by a progressive is everywhere.

Quite literally, any given day, half of Twitter will be progressives battling with Trump, and the endless litany of stories about these exchanges.