Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 512901)

I know this both-sidesism comes from your heart, but it's super-annoying because it's more about your self-image than about what the Left or Right are doing. Obama passed the ACA and Dodd-Frank. Trump is trying undo both, and passed a massive tax cut to benefit the rich. Both sides are interested in redistribution, but only one side is profiteering. This is as obvious as the nose on your face, and if you don't want to see it, whatever.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 512907)

Dodd Frank should be relaxed.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 512908)

What would you change?

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan (Post 512900)

I guess the GOP really is a train wreck.

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.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 512921)

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.

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower (Post 512926)

By the way, have I mentioned that I am enjoying the silo metaphor. It has a resonance for us Midwestern folks that "echo chamber" never did. Is an echo chamber even a real thing? Is that something you all have out on the East Coast? Like, when you are exhausted from constantly having to listen with open minds to divergent viewpoints and from having to apply critical thinking not just to others' beliefs but your own as well, you treat yourself to a few hours in the echo chamber?

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 512923)

The biggest reason money is getting concentrated is that unions have been busted. And there are lots of urban professionals who just don't give a shit, whether they are blue, red, purple or green.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 512925)

Break out! Get some Sebby stories of your own!

If you don't travel in Sebby's refined circles, make 'em up. Use this template:

(1) Name drop some asshole, make sure you use the first person to establish a relationship with them.
(2) Have them do something obnoxious
(3) Have nameless people react to it. They can laugh, gasp, choke, or almost have almost any reaction.
(3) Praise the ass for it.

Here's an example:

I remember that time Tomi Lahren went off on some Kennedy Kid. Called him a limp dick. Everyone laughed. Good stuff.

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 512927)

If I'm being charitable to Sebby, I don't think it's unfair to say (1) they didn't do enough of it, and (2) they did some of the opposite the prior time they controlled the White House.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 512867)

Your anecdote sounds made up to me. Until I consider where you live.

I know minority union members (in multiple states) who voted Trump because of TPP.

I think you have a tendency to call bullshit on anything that challenges certain assumptions you view as facts.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 512867)

In an economically challenged state, Maslow’s Hierarchy often puts paying the mortgage above voting for beliefs. You don’t live in an economically challenged area.

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 512932)

No. I call bullshit on your super-convenient cocktail-party based examples supporting your bullshit ongoing, amorphous, fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants, made-up, disconnected, and often ridiculous, look-at-me-I'm-non-tribal!, political narrative.

You really don't know anything, do you?

TM

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 512870)

So through decades of burned couches I’ve never been ashamed of my college, until this Nassar horror. Still I think the attack on basketball and football unfair. Nothing was hidden with either. Any thoughts?

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 512929)

I’m of the belief paralegals should be allowed to go to court on minor matters, that law schools should be two years, and that we should be allowed to split fees with non-lawyers. This would create loads of income in our field for non-lawyers, at cost us (we being beneficiaries of a license leveraging scheme). How many altruistic folks here would get behind that? Right. Tumbleweeds.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 512929)

Loss of unions is a part of it, but nowhere near the whole cause.

Re the urban professionals, that’s this board. I mean, everyone here jerks each other off about helping the poor, but not a one of us would dare fuck with the system in such a way that it damaged our revenue streams substantially.

We’re all about giving a few bucks more to the safety nets. But a policy that’d really help the lower classes at our expense? Fuck that.

I’m of the belief paralegals should be allowed to go to court on minor matters, that law schools should be two years, and that we should be allowed to split fees with non-lawyers. This would create loads of income in our field for non-lawyers, at cost us (we being beneficiaries of a license leveraging scheme). How many altruistic folks here would get behind that? Right. Tumbleweeds.

(Now cue some ass arguing that we need to limit who can practice this joke profession for “regulatory” reasons... to protect consumers.)

If this place isn’t the biggest parking lot for bullshit limousine liberals, I don’t know what is.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 512931)

D: Fuck the poor’s prospects. Not much can be done. Give them dreams of retraining, and more charity. Make sure they vote for us.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 512933)

I dont believe you know only one minority Trump voter.

You’re full of shit. And you’ll invent any argument or fact you need to suit your bias, which is the strongest in this board.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 512933)

I dont believe you know only one minority Trump voter.

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 512934)

I'm not sure what the fuck Izzo is doing with his current approach to questions about this. If he were smart, he'd have done a sit-down interview with Outside the Lines to get it all out. The questions about why the assistant coach was fired/placed on leave shortly(?) after he was accused of assault and/or sexual assault need to be addressed. I'm not sure how the accusation against the basketball players relates back to his program--I believe it came out after they left, but I could be very wrong.

He looks absolutely crazy dodging these questions with a "I support the survivors, I have and will cooperate with any investigation" response to everything.

TM

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 512931)

Here’s the difference between the GOP and Democrats right now:

D: Fuck the poor’s prospects. Not much can be done. Give them dreams of retraining, and more charity. Make sure they vote for us.

R: Fuck the poor’s prospects. Not much can be done. And fuck their safety nets and charity, too. Lie to the dumbest of them to keep them voting for us.

Nobody has a serious plan to make the poor “un-poor.” They have plans to manage the poor.

Yes, the Ds are kinder. No doubt. The bag of shit the poor get from them is less pungent.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 512883)

No. I meant exactly the words I wrote. When you assume all members of a certain group should or must have the same views and grievances, you’re engaging in identity politics.

An example of this would be white males who think other white males should like what Trump is doing.

Another example would be someone thinking all Hispanics, Middle Easterners, or women should vote against Trump and be primarily focused on his past sex abuse or policies on immigration. This assumes these groups are monolithic, and that within them there aren’t divergent views.

Identity politics is not necessarily a terrible thing. The problem is, the groupings are too broad. You can’t say “All of X race feels this way” or “All of X sex feels this way,” etc. You have to break people down into much smaller groups. And even then, it misses many exceptions.

I understand we have no better measure for predicting votes. But when the broadest generalizations are treated as fact, and bitterly defended as truth (“No Hispanic may validly vote for Trump, and they will all vote against him based on immigration”) you’re letting a predictive tool become a moral totem. And that’s really divisive, and pretty dumb.

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane? (Post 512895)

I think if I had the choice, I'd rather receive a wet willie rather than give one. I just don't want to stick my finger in anyone's ear.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 512907)

The profiteering of the GOP is a rounding error in the bigger picture. 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 sebastian_dangerfield (Post 512929)

Re the urban professionals, that’s this board. I mean, everyone here jerks each other off about helping the poor, but not a one of us would dare fuck with the system in such a way that it damaged our revenue streams substantially.

We’re all about giving a few bucks more to the safety nets. But a policy that’d really help the lower classes at our expense? Fuck that.

I’m of the belief paralegals should be allowed to go to court on minor matters, that law schools should be two years, and that we should be allowed to split fees with non-lawyers. This would create loads of income in our field for non-lawyers, at cost us (we being beneficiaries of a license leveraging scheme). How many altruistic folks here would get behind that? Right. Tumbleweeds.

(Now cue some ass arguing that we need to limit who can practice this joke profession for “regulatory” reasons... to protect consumers.)

If this place isn’t the biggest parking lot for bullshit limousine liberals, I don’t know what is.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 512931)

Here’s the difference between the GOP and Democrats right now:

D: Fuck the poor’s prospects. Not much can be done. Give them dreams of retraining, and more charity. Make sure they vote for us.

R: Fuck the poor’s prospects. Not much can be done. And fuck their safety nets and charity, too. Lie to the dumbest of them to keep them voting for us.

Nobody has a serious plan to make the poor “un-poor.” They have plans to manage the poor.

Yes, the Ds are kinder. No doubt. The bag of shit the poor get from them is less pungent.