LawTalkers  

Go Back   LawTalkers > General Discussion > Politics

» Site Navigation
 > FAQ
» Online Users: 47
1 members and 46 guests
Hank Chinaski
Most users ever online was 4,499, 10-26-2015 at 08:55 AM.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-16-2017, 05:24 PM   #766
Pretty Little Flower
Moderator
 
Pretty Little Flower's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Flower
Posts: 7,776
Re: You've got no love for the underdog/That's why you will not survive...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder View Post
I'm old enough to remember when Hank would have responded with a triumphant listing of all the cities he's won.
A police officer got on the stand, lied, and was just acquitted of shooting a man seven times within seconds of being pulled over, after the man announced he had a gun (and a permit for the gun), with a woman and child in the car. I can basically imagine no circumstances under which a police officer can shoot a black man and not be justified in doing so in our society right now.
__________________
Minister of New New Super Heavy Funk.

I am not sorry.
Pretty Little Flower is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2017, 06:29 PM   #767
Tyrone Slothrop
Moderasaurus Rex
 
Tyrone Slothrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 29,093
Re: You've got no love for the underdog/That's why you will not survive...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder View Post
I'm old enough to remember when Hank would have responded with a triumphant listing of all the cities he's won.
It's getting easy to just list the cities he hasn't won.
__________________
“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 06-16-2017, 06:35 PM   #768
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Registered User
 
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Government Yard in Trenchtown
Posts: 18,011
Re: You've got no love for the underdog/That's why you will not survive...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski View Post
Not trying to claim credit, just trying to call bullshit.
I thought you were trying to cull the signal from the noise.
__________________
A wee dram a day!
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2017, 09:03 PM   #769
Tyrone Slothrop
Moderasaurus Rex
 
Tyrone Slothrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 29,093
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.

This is more signal than noise.
__________________
“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 06-19-2017, 11:46 AM   #770
Adder
I am beyond a rank!
 
Adder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 15,497
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop View Post
Quote:
For all their “resistance,” the greatest impediment to Donald Trump remains his own stupidity.
To be fair, it's hard to impeded what stupidity and incompetence have already undermined.

Quote:
Why, for example, do liberals who routinely insist they support more ambitious progressive programs in their hearts, only rejecting them for now on pragmatic grounds, nonetheless oppose any such leftward movement when it becomes a realistic possibility? Why do they take up that opposition with a special enthusiasm, one that often feels more aggressive and personal than their rejection of their official rivals on the right?
Why don't they do all the stuff I want seems like a constant refrain from the left now. Which is fine and all but the notion that Bernie's now pushing that it's a political panacea is a bit annoying. Not even he thought that or he would have actually tried to win the endorsement by contesting the Dem primaries in the south.

Anyway, it's absolutely true that the center left doesn't really stand for anything at the moment, and the things it needs to stand are idea from it's leftish values, but no, Bernie would not have won.

Otherwise, that essay really didn't need the Freud.
Adder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2017, 11:49 AM   #771
Adder
I am beyond a rank!
 
Adder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 15,497
Re: You've got no love for the underdog/That's why you will not survive...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower View Post
A police officer got on the stand, lied, and was just acquitted of shooting a man seven times within seconds of being pulled over, after the man announced he had a gun (and a permit for the gun), with a woman and child in the car. I can basically imagine no circumstances under which a police officer can shoot a black man and not be justified in doing so in our society right now.
Once Yanez testified that he saw a gun, it was going to be really hard to get a conviction.

And heck, he probably believes he saw a gun (now), because that's how memory works - I must a seen a gun or I wouldn't have shot morphs to certainty I saw a gun - but yeah, I don't believe him.

Last edited by Adder; 06-19-2017 at 01:00 PM.
Adder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2017, 12:42 PM   #772
Pretty Little Flower
Moderator
 
Pretty Little Flower's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Flower
Posts: 7,776
Re: You've got no love for the underdog/That's why you will not survive...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder View Post
Once Yanez testified that he saw a gun, it was going to be really hard to get a conviction.

And heck, he probably believes he saw a gun (now), because that's how memory works - I must a scene a gun or I wouldn't have shot morphs to certainty I saw a gun - but yeah, I don't believe him.
I was not in the courtroom, so I am trying to be restrained with my judgment, but it sounded like he had self-contradicting stories about what he saw. And yes, I am sure he has convinced himself that he saw a gun and was acting under a legitimate threat. But it just does not add up. It has always seemed like he just fucked up -- panicked for no reason, and killed a guy.
__________________
Minister of New New Super Heavy Funk.

I am not sorry.
Pretty Little Flower is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2017, 12:53 PM   #773
Tyrone Slothrop
Moderasaurus Rex
 
Tyrone Slothrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 29,093
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder View Post
Why don't they do all the stuff I want seems like a constant refrain from the left now. Which is fine and all but the notion that Bernie's now pushing that it's a political panacea is a bit annoying. Not even he thought that or he would have actually tried to win the endorsement by contesting the Dem primaries in the south.

Anyway, it's absolutely true that the center left doesn't really stand for anything at the moment, and the things it needs to stand are idea from it's leftish values, but no, Bernie would not have won.
As you point it, what's most important is to put the Bernie crowd in their place. There'll be time later to pay attention to the other stuff.

Quote:
Otherwise, that essay really didn't need the Freud.
True. I just ignored it.
__________________
“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 06-19-2017, 01:27 PM   #774
sebastian_dangerfield
Moderator
 
sebastian_dangerfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Monty Capuletti's gazebo
Posts: 21,876
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop View Post
Liberalism's best selling point was the moral argument noted early in the piece.

But we're in a post-morality world. Pragmatism, empirical data, and rationality rule among the smarter sets of us.

For good reason. Morality's too vague, too subjective. It can't be measured or easily agreed upon by smart people, and is too easily used by dumb people to persecute others.

Modern liberals seem to have employed noblesse oblige where they once argued for "moral" concepts.
__________________
All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.
sebastian_dangerfield is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2017, 02:40 PM   #775
Tyrone Slothrop
Moderasaurus Rex
 
Tyrone Slothrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 29,093
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield View Post
Liberalism's best selling point was the moral argument noted early in the piece.

But we're in a post-morality world. Pragmatism, empirical data, and rationality rule among the smarter sets of us.

For good reason. Morality's too vague, too subjective. It can't be measured or easily agreed upon by smart people, and is too easily used by dumb people to persecute others.

Modern liberals seem to have employed noblesse oblige where they once argued for "moral" concepts.
I don't know what any of this means, and I'm pretty sure you don't either.
__________________
“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 06-19-2017, 02:42 PM   #776
Adder
I am beyond a rank!
 
Adder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 15,497
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield View Post
Liberalism's best selling point was the moral argument noted early in the piece.

But we're in a post-morality world. Pragmatism, empirical data, and rationality rule among the smarter sets of us.
There is no conflict between pragmatism, empiricism and rationality, on the one hand, and morality on the other. Those are just the means to get to what's just and moral.
Adder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2017, 03:00 PM   #777
sebastian_dangerfield
Moderator
 
sebastian_dangerfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Monty Capuletti's gazebo
Posts: 21,876
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop View Post
I don't know what any of this means, and I'm pretty sure you don't either.
It means what it says. In the past, moral compulsion had teeth. Concepts of what was right and wrong ruled (at least for the paroles and middle class). That's not the case so much anymore. The author gets into this a bit in criticizing the center left as bloodless. They don't argue that we must do what's humane. Take, for instance, the ACA. It couldn't be sold solely as a program to give the poor health care insurance, whatever the cost. It had to instead be sold as a cost-paring structure. The pragmatist will only save lives if it makes economic sense.

We're not a society elevating morality to the forefront. We're become more data obsessed, and employ cost/benefit assessments in place of old notions of right vs. wrong. It's not so much whether you should or shouldn't do something as much as what the upside and risks of an action present. Where decades ago, we might look at certain behaviors as objectively bad, we're more inclined today to view all actions as having certain risk premiums. "Oh, you got busted and had to pay a fine for that violation? Oh well... The potential payoff was good. The risk still made sense."

This isn't a criticism. I think morality is muddy and malleable. Risk and rational calculation are easier to measure and control.
__________________
All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.

Last edited by sebastian_dangerfield; 06-19-2017 at 03:08 PM.
sebastian_dangerfield is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2017, 03:06 PM   #778
sebastian_dangerfield
Moderator
 
sebastian_dangerfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Monty Capuletti's gazebo
Posts: 21,876
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder View Post
There is no conflict between pragmatism, empiricism and rationality, on the one hand, and morality on the other. Those are just the means to get to what's just and moral.
They are when people start assessing whether to do what is good for them but bad for others like a simple business risk analysis.

Selfishness is almost always rational.

By the way, I agree with your take on the superfluous tie-in of Freud. But if you can bear one more such reference, consider Nietzsche on the issue of whether man could survive without religion (then the source of most "morality"). He believed if men ever went to 100% rationality, society would collapse under extreme individualism and selfishness.
__________________
All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.
sebastian_dangerfield is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2017, 03:18 PM   #779
Adder
I am beyond a rank!
 
Adder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 15,497
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield View Post
Selfishness is almost always rational.
I know this is going to be hard for you, but: no it isn't. It's usually just a failure to appreciate the larger picture.
Adder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2017, 03:21 PM   #780
Tyrone Slothrop
Moderasaurus Rex
 
Tyrone Slothrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 29,093
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield View Post
It means what it says. In the past, moral compulsion had teeth. Concepts of what was right and wrong ruled (at least for the paroles and middle class). That's not the case so much anymore. The author gets into this a bit in criticizing the center left as bloodless. They don't argue that we must do what's humane. Take, for instance, the ACA. It couldn't be sold solely as a program to give the poor health care insurance, whatever the cost. It had to instead be sold as a cost-paring structure. The pragmatist will only save lives if it makes economic sense.

We're not a society elevating morality to the forefront. We're become more data obsessed, and employ cost/benefit assessments in place of old notions of right vs. wrong. It's not so much whether you should or shouldn't do something as much as what the upside and risks of an action present. Where decades ago, we might look at certain behaviors as objectively bad, we're more inclined today to view all actions as having certain risk premiums. "Oh, you got busted and had to pay a fine for that violation? Oh well... The potential payoff was good. The risk still made sense."

This isn't a criticism. I think morality is muddy and malleable. Risk and rational calculation are easier to measure and control.
Not sure who your "we" is, but it isn't "society." The people who voted for Trump were informed by a strong view of morality that Clinton voters did not share. Illegal immigration is wrong, and illegal immigrants are criminals who ought to face consequence. Law & order means that police should be respected and obeyed, and that people who threaten the social order should be punished. The undeserving shouldn't get help from the government. And so on. Trump was popular in part because he spoke forcefully and unapologetically to these morals.
__________________
“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
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 12:34 PM.