LawTalkers  

Go Back   LawTalkers > General Discussion > Politics

» Site Navigation
 > FAQ
» Online Users: 253
0 members and 253 guests
No Members online
Most users ever online was 4,499, 10-26-2015 at 08:55 AM.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-01-2018, 04:13 PM   #3841
Replaced_Texan
Random Syndicate (admin)
 
Replaced_Texan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Romantically enfranchised
Posts: 13,818
Re: ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield View Post
It goes far beyond college. It explains the cognitive failures and flawed reasoning causing polarization. It blames a lot of the moronic idiocy on the left on universities, true, but it applies the same criticism to the right and analyzes the silos that create that side’s groupthink.

And unsurprisingly, it’s lizard brain stuff that applies pretty solidly to both sides.

They use a compelling three part analysis (three “untruths”) both sides of our polarized debates have in common.

At the end, you realize both sides are kind of just playing an ends-justify-the-means game. But how the authors get you there is quite insightful.

I haven't read the book, and I don't really get a sense of college kids being overly coddled (though I've worked in an academic institution for nearly 17 years, none of mine are undergrad). But I do think THIS is an interesting examination of groupthink.
__________________
"In the olden days before the internet, you'd take this sort of person for a ride out into the woods and shoot them, as Darwin intended, before he could spawn."--Will the Vampire People Leave the Lobby? pg 79
Replaced_Texan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2018, 04:29 PM   #3842
sebastian_dangerfield
Moderator
 
sebastian_dangerfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Monty Capuletti's gazebo
Posts: 23,023
Re: ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

Quote:
Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan View Post
I haven't read the book, and I don't really get a sense of college kids being overly coddled (though I've worked in an academic institution for nearly 17 years, none of mine are undergrad). But I do think THIS is an interesting examination of groupthink.
That describes almost every old Republican I know. It’s puzzling. I think boomers are just bitter and don’t like being old and irrelevant to the future. Narcissists railing at easy targets.

The book has loads of references to the problems caused by social media, both right and left. The extreme right lives in a cave and ignores ideas that refute it. The extreme left is still open to debate, but there’s a call-out, shaming, and witch hunt sector of it that is trying to squelch debate it doesn’t like.

My old GOP relatives will be dead son enough. What of the dangerous alt-right young males and frivolous and coddled leftie kids?

The silos are creating armies of fresh idiots in this country.
__________________
All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.
sebastian_dangerfield is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2018, 04:39 PM   #3843
Tyrone Slothrop
Moderasaurus Rex
 
Tyrone Slothrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 30,259
Re: ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield View Post
It goes far beyond college. It explains the cognitive failures and flawed reasoning causing polarization. It blames a lot of the moronic idiocy on the left on universities, true, but it applies the same criticism to the right and analyzes the silos that create that side’s groupthink.

And unsurprisingly, it’s lizard brain stuff that applies pretty solidly to both sides.

They use a compelling three part analysis (three “untruths”) both sides of our polarized debates have in common.
Interesting. Can you explain? Or point to an on-line version?

I think an underrated part of polarization comes from
- people choose news that they want to hear
- technology has made it possible for anyone to publish anything, and has destroyed the financial models that previously led to consolidation in the media space
- consequently, people increasingly live in epistemic bubbles of their own choosing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan View Post
I haven't read the book, and I don't really get a sense of college kids being overly coddled (though I've worked in an academic institution for nearly 17 years, none of mine are undergrad). But I do think THIS is an interesting examination of groupthink.
I'm not going to defend Facebook or Google, but it seems to me the forces driving this are much bigger than they are. They just figured out how to monetize effectively before a lot of people, and rode the network effects.
__________________
“Faced with the choice between changing one’s mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof”
- John Kenneth Galbraith

Last edited by Tyrone Slothrop; 11-01-2018 at 05:07 PM..
Tyrone Slothrop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2018, 05:04 PM   #3844
Ty@50
Registered User
 
Ty@50's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 176
Re: ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop View Post
Interesting. Can you explain? Or point to an on-line version?

I think an underrated part of polarization comes from
- people choose news that they want to hear
- technology has made it possible for anyone to publish anything, and has destroyed the financial models that previously led to consolidation in the media space
- consequently, people increasingly live in epistemic bubbles of their own choosing.
Sebby, reading this, i can only apologize for what I did. You may recall during the W admin I posted blog-based-fuzzy-brained reasons that W should be impeached every day. In my defense, Hank did beg the rest of the Board to tell me I was wrong, and only PEnske complied. The rest of you are complicit.
__________________
much to regret
Ty@50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2018, 05:12 PM   #3845
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Registered User
 
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Government Yard in Trenchtown
Posts: 18,849
Re: ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield View Post
It goes far beyond college. It explains the cognitive failures and flawed reasoning causing polarization. It blames a lot of the moronic idiocy on the left on universities, true, but it applies the same criticism to the right and analyzes the silos that create that side’s groupthink.

And unsurprisingly, it’s lizard brain stuff that applies pretty solidly to both sides.

They use a compelling three part analysis (three “untruths”) both sides of our polarized debates have in common.

At the end, you realize both sides are kind of just playing an ends-justify-the-means game. But how the authors get you there is quite insightful.
If I scrolled before posting someone else might recommend this already, but if you want to understand the key cognitive failures today, best to start with Hans Rosling's new book (released after his death).

That said, I believe when they finally found the Rosetta stone and translated the earliest writing in human history, a chiseled stele from 5000 BC, the hieroglyphs began "Kids today...."
__________________
A wee dram a day!
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2018, 06:31 PM   #3846
Adder
I am beyond a rank!
 
Adder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 16,040
Re: ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield View Post
I think boomers are just bitter and don’t like being old and irrelevant to the future.
To take a big left turn, I mentioned before how Minneapolis is proposing a big change to its zoning and land use laws, via its long term plan, most controversially opening up "single family" neighborhood to the kinds of small, multi-unit structures (3-4 units) that used to get built alongside the single family homes when everything was built initially, but which we made illegal in the '70s. The stated intent is to open our neighborhoods with the greater existing amenities (parks, lakes, creek, schools, services, etc) to more people. The residents of some of those neighborhoods (generally the richest ones) are up in arms.

The planning commission just held a hearing on the plan, where more than a hundred people showed up to testify. Unscientifically, for and against were about 50/50, but the demographic divide could not have been more stark. Aside from two people of color who opposed because they felt the plan doesn't do enough to protect their communities, literally everyone else in opposition was over 50, mostly likely over 70. Meanwhile, if one or two notable exceptions, everyone in favor was younger than me.

The argument against were parking and traffic and transient renters who don't invest in the community, "my investment in my property" and "you guys didn't listen to me enough." Or, to pejoratively paraphrase, "what about me?" (There are also some bizarre and outdated concerns that more people in neighborhood will harm the environment, because apparently we assume those people don't exist if they don't live here).

The arguments for are about climate change, the need for people to be able to live closer to stuff, the need for housing diversity, welcoming others to our neighborhoods. Or to charitably paraphrase, "what about other people and the community?"

So, yeah, there at least a significant segment of olds who are selfish, mean and fiercely protective of any perceive threat to their hard-won gains. This is testimony a the 2040 plan. Many of those who testified are likely to be dead by then, but they still felt the need to show up and yell at the planning commissions for a few hours.

Last edited by Adder; 11-01-2018 at 06:40 PM..
Adder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2018, 07:01 PM   #3847
Tyrone Slothrop
Moderasaurus Rex
 
Tyrone Slothrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 30,259
Re: ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder View Post
To take a big left turn, I mentioned before how Minneapolis is proposing a big change to its zoning and land use laws, via its long term plan, most controversially opening up "single family" neighborhood to the kinds of small, multi-unit structures (3-4 units) that used to get built alongside the single family homes when everything was built initially, but which we made illegal in the '70s. The stated intent is to open our neighborhoods with the greater existing amenities (parks, lakes, creek, schools, services, etc) to more people. The residents of some of those neighborhoods (generally the richest ones) are up in arms.

The planning commission just held a hearing on the plan, where more than a hundred people showed up to testify. Unscientifically, for and against were about 50/50, but the demographic divide could not have been more stark. Aside from two people of color who opposed because they felt the plan doesn't do enough to protect their communities, literally everyone else in opposition was over 50, mostly likely over 70. Meanwhile, if one or two notable exceptions, everyone in favor was younger than me.

The argument against were parking and traffic and transient renters who don't invest in the community, "my investment in my property" and "you guys didn't listen to me enough." Or, to pejoratively paraphrase, "what about me?" (There are also some bizarre and outdated concerns that more people in neighborhood will harm the environment, because apparently we assume those people don't exist if they don't live here).

The arguments for are about climate change, the need for people to be able to live closer to stuff, the need for housing diversity, welcoming others to our neighborhoods. Or to charitably paraphrase, "what about other people and the community?"

So, yeah, there at least a significant segment of olds who are selfish, mean and fiercely protective of any perceive threat to their hard-won gains. This is testimony a the 2040 plan. Many of those who testified are likely to be dead by then, but they still felt the need to show up and yell at the planning commissions for a few hours.
I would assume that the people who feel most threatened by this are not the richest, but rather the people whose house constitutes the highest proportion of their net worth.

Not that it helps to point it out to them, but those people are enriching themselves by using the government to prevent other people from exercising their property rights.
__________________
“Faced with the choice between changing one’s mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof”
- John Kenneth Galbraith
Tyrone Slothrop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2018, 09:35 PM   #3848
Icky Thump
Registered User
 
Icky Thump's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,647
Re: ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield View Post
Precisely why Trump won.
__________________
You can breathe, you can blink, you can cry. Hell, you're all gonna be doing that!
Icky Thump is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2018, 10:28 AM   #3849
sebastian_dangerfield
Moderator
 
sebastian_dangerfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Monty Capuletti's gazebo
Posts: 23,023
Re: ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

Quote:
Interesting. Can you explain? Or point to an on-line version?
This focuses on colleges' problems, but these nine cognitive deficiencies apply to both the right and the left. Haidt applies them to both in the book, but you don't need his imprimatur to see how perfectly they apply to unthinking sorts of all stripes:

https://medium.com/the-polymath-proj...e-d1cfa81053ea

Quote:
I think an underrated part of polarization comes from
- people choose news that they want to hear
- technology has made it possible for anyone to publish anything, and has destroyed the financial models that previously led to consolidation in the media space
- consequently, people increasingly live in epistemic bubbles of their own choosing.
Haidt would agree with all of that. But that is pretty well known stuff. Where he offers insight is in his dismantling of the demented reasoning inside the minds of people in those silos. He offers a pretty solid description of the pathology at work.

Lukianoff compliments him by dismantling the flawed logic of both sides. I conclude both sides are playing an ends-justify-the-means game because, under his analysis, it becomes clear that neither a majority of the extreme right nor a majority of the extreme left can truly believe their arguments. Thus, it's not just the silo effect, but four groups at work:

1. Willful liars of the right
2. Deluded people on the right
3. Willful liars of the left
4. Deluded people on the left

Perhaps the best explanation of this is what I'd coin the "negation effect." On the right, if you offer facts that refute a favored narrative, they will either ignore it or make up a lie to refute it. ("Snopes is a left wing Soros site designed to refute right wing views!", etc.) On the left, if you offer facts that refute a favored narrative, they will respond by attacking the author as racist/sexist/trans-phobic, etc. rather than countering the argument. Lukianoff neatly describes this demented behavior as "insisting on retraction instead of offering rebuttal."

In both cases, engagement is assiduously avoided as it carries a high risk of putting the lie to the favored narrative.

In these situations, a significant number of intentional actors are at work, playing an ends-justify-means game ("I believe my view is better, and I am on the righteous side, so I am privileged to lie, offer conspiracy theories which shoot the messenger, or use brute force of online shame attacks to shut down anyone who challenges it.")

Quote:
I'm not going to defend Facebook or Google, but it seems to me the forces driving this are much bigger than they are. They just figured out how to monetize effectively before a lot of people, and rode the network effects.
You'll find much disturbing agreement from Haidt and Lukianoff there.

I think what we have at the poles of the country right now are two groups who simply want what they want and don't want to hear anyone tell them they can't have it. Hence, I stated at the outset, it's lizard brain stuff. Sure, one can dress it up as effectively and brutally playing out a Machiavellian hand. But I see every little clever behavior among what looks like armies of liars and deluded folks in a war of narratives with each other. It seems more a degradation, a devolution, than anything else.

ETA: But none of this can or should worry you or any other parent sending a kid to college. Because a smart kid can and should simply ignore this sort of thing and focus on learning something useful.
__________________
All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.

Last edited by sebastian_dangerfield; 11-02-2018 at 10:48 AM..
sebastian_dangerfield is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2018, 10:59 AM   #3850
sebastian_dangerfield
Moderator
 
sebastian_dangerfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Monty Capuletti's gazebo
Posts: 23,023
Re: ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop View Post
I would assume that the people who feel most threatened by this are not the richest, but rather the people whose house constitutes the highest proportion of their net worth.

Not that it helps to point it out to them, but those people are enriching themselves by using the government to prevent other people from exercising their property rights.
2. The monied don't look at homes as investments. That's the language of the guy who probably HELOCed himself underwater in the run up to 2008. And that boomer can't find a buyer now for the price he needs to get away from his big home because the kids have no money.

And why don't the kids have money? Because that same boomer and his ilk perverted the stock market, and then the housing market, into mechanisms that only value delivery of gains to asset holders on a short term (quarterly for stocks) basis. Hence, wages stagnated while investor gains and housing values soared.

The boomer out there whining about negative impact to his home value is just now paying for the boat and lavish vacations he enjoyed in the past, and he doesn't like it very much. Because he's a boomer, dammit, and he gets to have everything he wants all the time. He gets to have his portfolio rise as a result of buybacks while wages for the kids flat-line and also sell his home to one of those same cash-strapped kids for a huge gain.

Sorry old chap... You've had your cake. Now die, will you please?
__________________
All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.
sebastian_dangerfield is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2018, 12:32 PM   #3851
Pretty Little Flower
Moderator
 
Pretty Little Flower's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Flower
Posts: 7,924
Re: ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder View Post
To take a big left turn, I mentioned before how Minneapolis is proposing a big change to its zoning and land use laws, via its long term plan, most controversially opening up "single family" neighborhood to the kinds of small, multi-unit structures (3-4 units) that used to get built alongside the single family homes when everything was built initially, but which we made illegal in the '70s. The stated intent is to open our neighborhoods with the greater existing amenities (parks, lakes, creek, schools, services, etc) to more people. The residents of some of those neighborhoods (generally the richest ones) are up in arms.

The planning commission just held a hearing on the plan, where more than a hundred people showed up to testify. Unscientifically, for and against were about 50/50, but the demographic divide could not have been more stark. Aside from two people of color who opposed because they felt the plan doesn't do enough to protect their communities, literally everyone else in opposition was over 50, mostly likely over 70. Meanwhile, if one or two notable exceptions, everyone in favor was younger than me.

The argument against were parking and traffic and transient renters who don't invest in the community, "my investment in my property" and "you guys didn't listen to me enough." Or, to pejoratively paraphrase, "what about me?" (There are also some bizarre and outdated concerns that more people in neighborhood will harm the environment, because apparently we assume those people don't exist if they don't live here).

The arguments for are about climate change, the need for people to be able to live closer to stuff, the need for housing diversity, welcoming others to our neighborhoods. Or to charitably paraphrase, "what about other people and the community?"

So, yeah, there at least a significant segment of olds who are selfish, mean and fiercely protective of any perceive threat to their hard-won gains. This is testimony a the 2040 plan. Many of those who testified are likely to be dead by then, but they still felt the need to show up and yell at the planning commissions for a few hours.
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.
__________________
Minister of New New Super Heavy Funk.

I am not sorry.
Pretty Little Flower is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2018, 12:47 PM   #3852
Adder
I am beyond a rank!
 
Adder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 16,040
Re: ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower View Post
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.
There's quite a bit on intended outcomes in the plan itself. But the likely truth is that not all that much is going to change and the change that is going to happen is going to be pretty gradual all the freak out is completely disproportionate to what's actually going to happen.
Adder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2018, 01:06 PM   #3853
Tyrone Slothrop
Moderasaurus Rex
 
Tyrone Slothrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 30,259
Re: ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield View Post
This focuses on colleges' problems, but these nine cognitive deficiencies apply to both the right and the left. Haidt applies them to both in the book, but you don't need his imprimatur to see how perfectly they apply to unthinking sorts of all stripes:

https://medium.com/the-polymath-proj...e-d1cfa81053ea
I read Thinking Fast and Slow, which sounds like it covered similar ground better. Or maybe the problem is with that Medium article, which is good at repeating inventive terminology but does not try to actually explain anything with it.

Quote:
from that article
Lukianoff and Haidt make the point that many new practices and policies in American classrooms, such as “trigger warnings” and prohibitions on “micro aggression” reinforce cognitive distortions and consequently degrade rather than improve student thinking, based on the medical and moral argument that such practices are meant to prevent students from harm. (As if hurt feelings constituted harm — a different kind of distortion Lukianoff and Haidt call “concept creep”).
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!) 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?

Quote:
Haidt would agree with all of that. But that is pretty well known stuff. Where he offers insight is in his dismantling of the demented reasoning inside the minds of people in those silos. He offers a pretty solid description of the pathology at work.
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.

Quote:
Lukianoff compliments him by dismantling the flawed logic of both sides.
Oh good! Earnest both-sidism!

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

Quote:
I conclude both sides are playing an ends-justify-the-means game
Wait, a second ago you were recommending this stuff about cognitive distortions, but now they're all playing a game. Which is it?

Quote:
because, under his analysis, it becomes clear that neither a majority of the extreme right nor a majority of the extreme left can truly believe their arguments.
"I'm a cynic, and so is everyone else, but at least I recognize it." Compelling virtue signaling there.

Quote:
Thus, it's not just the silo effect, but four groups at work:

1. Willful liars of the right
2. Deluded people on the right
3. Willful liars of the left
4. Deluded people on the left
This is like reading a bad .ppt slide.

Quote:
Perhaps the best explanation of this is what I'd coin the "negation effect." On the right, if you offer facts that refute a favored narrative, they will either ignore it or make up a lie to refute it. ("Snopes is a left wing Soros site designed to refute right wing views!", etc.) On the left, if you offer facts that refute a favored narrative, they will respond by attacking the author as racist/sexist/trans-phobic, etc. rather than countering the argument. Lukianoff neatly describes this demented behavior as "insisting on retraction instead of offering rebuttal."

In both cases, engagement is assiduously avoided as it carries a high risk of putting the lie to the favored narrative.
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?

Quote:
In these situations, a significant number of intentional actors are at work, playing an ends-justify-means game ("I believe my view is better, and I am on the righteous side, so I am privileged to lie, offer conspiracy theories which shoot the messenger, or use brute force of online shame attacks to shut down anyone who challenges it.")
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. And in the main, this is a conservative thing now. 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.

If you pretend that both sides are doing it, you are letting conservatives off the hook for this. 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:
I think what we have at the poles of the country right now are two groups who simply want what they want and don't want to hear anyone tell them they can't have it. Hence, I stated at the outset, it's lizard brain stuff. Sure, one can dress it up as effectively and brutally playing out a Machiavellian hand. But I see every little clever behavior among what looks like armies of liars and deluded folks in a war of narratives with each other. It seems more a degradation, a devolution, than anything else.
I think what we have at the poles of the globe right now are two extremely cold places that are snowy and icy and frigid, and no one wants to be there.

Quote:
ETA: But none of this can or should worry you or any other parent sending a kid to college. Because a smart kid can and should simply ignore this sort of thing and focus on learning something useful.
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.
__________________
“Faced with the choice between changing one’s mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof”
- John Kenneth Galbraith

Last edited by Tyrone Slothrop; 11-02-2018 at 01:09 PM..
Tyrone Slothrop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2018, 01:08 PM   #3854
Tyrone Slothrop
Moderasaurus Rex
 
Tyrone Slothrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 30,259
Re: ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower View Post
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.
What are the intended outcomes of the plan? Is it likely to achieve them? What are the unintended consequences? What can be done about them?
__________________
“Faced with the choice between changing one’s mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof”
- John Kenneth Galbraith
Tyrone Slothrop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2018, 01:48 PM   #3855
Pretty Little Flower
Moderator
 
Pretty Little Flower's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Flower
Posts: 7,924
Re: ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop View Post
What are the intended outcomes of the plan? Is it likely to achieve them? What are the unintended consequences? What can be done about them?
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.
__________________
Minister of New New Super Heavy Funk.

I am not sorry.
Pretty Little Flower is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.0.1

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:34 AM.