US Politics: Deep State Solution

[maarsen]

There is no meritocracy here in the West. I have seen too many examples, personal and those that I have read about to think otherwise.  Getting ahead seems to require equal parts obsequiousness and the ability to give decent blow jobs.  It sure isn't talent. 

[all swedes are racist]

2 minutes ago, maarsen said:

There is no meritocracy here in the West. I have seen too many examples, personal and those that I have read about to think otherwise.  Getting ahead seems to require equal parts obsequiousness and the ability to give decent blow jobs.  It sure isn't talent. 

well, maybe not the talent you expected

[The guy from the Vale]

Just now, supernintendo chalmers said:

well, maybe not the talent you expected

It's no coincidence our closest animal relatives show quite similar behavior.

[maarsen]

2 minutes ago, supernintendo chalmers said:

well, maybe not the talent you expected

Great blow jobs require talent. Decent ones require a lack of biting. 

[Reny of Storms End]

1 hour ago, Einheri said:

Dude, I never said it's okay to discriminate against anyone or that we shouldn't combat it (and it is a fight for heart and minds, believe me, there are forces on the rise who seek to reverse the current status). I just don't think that discrimination should be the answer to discrimination even if it has some positive consequences.

To emphasize my point, let's say we rounded up all the Nazis, Fascists, Islamist, Christian Fundamentalists, armed revolution type of Anarchists and Communists, murderers, pedophiles, rapists etc etc, and then had them all shot.

Would this benefit society? Well, yea, it probably  would IMO.

Would it be right of us to do it? IMO that's a no.

First let me apologize I didn't mean to make it out that you are okay with discrimination, and if I made you feel that way it was probably due to my own failings in putting words to my own thoughts. So let me try and use a form of your example about rounding people up to be shot to express myself in a better way. 

Nazis are rounding up Jewish people and shooting them simply for being Jewish. Your answer to this problem is to combat it by educating the population on why rounding up Jewish people and shooting them for being Jewish is wrong. This is a solution that will take years to implement, and it might be multiple generations before any success is achieved. In the meantime more and more Jewish people are being rounded up and shot. So yes you obviously care, but how does your caring help the people about to be shot? It doesn't help out anyone to acknowledge how terrible something is and then tell them a solution is on the way, it'll just take some time so ride it out until then.

To put it another way, your position worries more about possible discrimination that could happen then the real discrimination that is happening. You oppose AA because you believe it could discriminate against non-minorities. Your solution is to continue to allow discrimination, while trying to teach society that discrimination is wrong. You did say you would punish those who used discriminatory hiring practices, but have offered now solution on how you would determine this. So discrimination is wrong, but we will continue to freely discriminate against you until society as a whole undergoes a dramatic change. 

To put it a third way imagine this was a discussion on healthcare in the US. In this scenario you agree there should be affordable healthcare for all, but don't think this should be achieved by taxing Americans who choose to not buy insurance. The current insurance market denies coverage to pre-existing conditions among other things. The government passes the ACA, and it includes a tax for people who choose not to purchase insurance. The point of this tax is to encourage everyone to buy coverage, and also because for the ACA to work a certain number of people must buy in (in this scenario high enrollment rates are the only way to have insurance companies concede to covering pre-existing conditions). Millions of people without healthcare now have it, including those with pre-existing conditions who could die without this law. But you hate taxes, and this one is no different even if you are also in favor of affordable healthcare. So your answer is to repeal the ACA, and replace it with a new law, exactly the same except it takes out the tax. When people ask you how you will achieve the enrollment necessary to provide affordable coverage to pre-existing conditions, you answer that we will teach people to be responsible about their health and they will buy insurance because of that. However since no one believes that now, the new ACA won't go into effect until they all do. Until that time anyone with a pre-existing condition is out of luck. 

 

 

[Corvinus85]

nevermind

[Spockydog]

Oh fuck the Trump rally just started with a terrified Melania saying the Our Father. This is like the fucking Omen.

 

[Altherion]

26 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

You keep saying this. Has it ever occurred to you that the point of, for example, fighting racism is largely to actually fight racism rather than just some kind of power play by w/e version of 'elite' puppet masters you're decrying at the moment? Do you understand the contempt for the reality of racial/gender/etc. prejudice you reveal when you (constantly) marginalize it as a game power people play? And supposing it's all a game...and supposing racism is real...wouldn't it be an awesome move for racists to move their agenda by arguing that claims of racism are just political shadow puppetry?

I have no doubt that a substantial fraction of all the groups engaged in identity politics genuinely believes that their cause is important. However, this does not prevent them from being used by the elites and in fact this kind of unwitting tool is far more useful because they don't ask for money.

10 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

It seems to me what you want is brogressivism.
Look, I am all for making the economic system work better for everyone. But, you know, that can't just include white males only in this thing. It has to include everyone, or liberalism loses its ethical base. You can't just ignore real issues that are important to minorities or women.
You keep complaining about the left doing identity politics. What you seemingly fail to acknowledge is that the people that really excel at "identity politics" and use it effectively is the right.

I do not believe that the right is better at identity politics except in the sense that it is more stealthy about using it. But yes, the Republicans have also made extensive use of it and Trump has also done so.

And yes, making the economic system work better for the working and middle classes must include all races and genders. However, it is absolutely crucial that we make it better for everyone first and address specific groups later rather than the other way around. As long as inequality is increasing, everyone is fighting over a shrinking (or at best constant) pie and any one group's gain means a loss for everyone else. It is almost impossible to get people whose economic status is already deteriorating to agree to have it deteriorate faster for the sake of people who the elites claim are even worse off (even if the claims happen to be true -- which is not always the case).

[Einheri]

40 minutes ago, Reny of Storms End said:

First let me apologize I didn't mean to make it out that you are okay with discrimination, and if I made you feel that way it was probably due to my own failings in putting words to my own thoughts. So let me try and use a form of your example about rounding people up to be shot to express myself in a better way. 

Nazis are rounding up Jewish people and shooting them simply for being Jewish. Your answer to this problem is to combat it by educating the population on why rounding up Jewish people and shooting them for being Jewish is wrong. This is a solution that will take years to implement, and it might be multiple generations before any success is achieved. In the meantime more and more Jewish people are being rounded up and shot. So yes you obviously care, but how does your caring help the people about to be shot? It doesn't help out anyone to acknowledge how terrible something is and then tell them a solution is on the way, it'll just take some time so ride it out until then.

To put it another way, your position worries more about possible discrimination that could happen then the real discrimination that is happening. You oppose AA because you believe it could discriminate against non-minorities. Your solution is to continue to allow discrimination, while trying to teach society that discrimination is wrong. You did say you would punish those who used discriminatory hiring practices, but have offered now solution on how you would determine this. So discrimination is wrong, but we will continue to freely discriminate against you until society as a whole undergoes a dramatic change. 

 

If Nazis start killing Jews then we have to deal with them swiftly and deadly, no doubt, but what we shouldn’t do it is extending this crackdown to say the Republican Party (just for the sake of the argument) because they happen to have in common with Nazis that they value conservationism.

Discrimination is wrong and a serious problem, but I don't think we should blow it out of proportions either. it is individuals who are discrimination against other individuals, i.e not all members of group X are guilty of discriminating others, and not all members of minority group Y have experienced this kind of discrimination. So, to me it seems like a huge overreaction to then go ahead and implement a law which discriminates against everyone in group X because some members of their group are dipshits.

I’m sorry that I have no better solution than fighting for people’s hearts and minds, but that is the only solution I can think without trampling on someone else (and yes, if such a law is implemented there will be people who are turned down due to factors they have no control over). That is the way I feel about this issue, and it's also the way I feel about the fact that a growing number of people here in Europe are talking about cracking down on Muslims and forcing them to stop practicing their religion because some Muslims are extremists dipshits. Now as an Atheist, I’m not the biggest fan of religions in general, I'll admit, but I would never advocate for infringing upon religious people's rights. Never. We'll have to find another way to solve those issues.

[Martell Spy]

McCain: Trump’s attacks on press are 'how dictators get started'
The Arizona senator said the nation needs a free and at times adversarial press.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/john-mccain-trump-press-235177

[Reny of Storms End]

10 minutes ago, Einheri said:

If Nazis start killing Jews then we have to deal with them swiftly and deadly, no doubt, but what we shouldn’t do it is extending this crackdown to say the Republican Party (just for the sake of the argument) because they happen to have in common with Nazis that they value conservationism.

 

Discrimination is wrong and a serious problem, but I don't think we should blow it out of proportions either. it is individuals who are discrimination against other individuals, i.e not all members of group X are guilty of discriminating others, and not all members of minority group Y have experienced this kind of discrimination. So, to me it seems like a huge overreaction to then go ahead and implement a law which discriminates against everyone in group X because some members of their group are dipshits.

 

I’m sorry that I have no better solution than fighting for people’s hearts and minds, but that is the only solution I can think without trampling on someone else (and yes, if such a law is implemented there will be people who are turned down due to factors they have no control over). That is the way I feel about this issue, and it's also the way I feel about the fact that a growing number of people here in Europe are talking about cracking down on Muslims and forcing them to stop practicing their religion because some Muslims are extremists dipshits. Now as an Atheist, I’m not the biggest fan of religions in general, I'll admit, but I would never advocate for infringing upon religious people's rights. Never. We'll have to find another way to solve those issues.

 

I appreciate where you are coming from. It's not an easy problem to solve, and it will require changing hearts and minds. I don't think you are a bad person or anything like that. I initially responded to your post because I thought you were not understanding why some boarders were opposed to you. I was hoping my own explanations might help you see why you were receiving that opposition. 

[Werthead]

30 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

Oh fuck the Trump rally just started with a terrified Melania saying the Our Father. This is like the fucking Omen.

He's standing up there spouting utter horseshit for what feels like longer than the extended cut of The Return of the King, not to mention repeating lies that have been shot down multiple times.

It's taking away from the rather cute fact that Trump clearly just wants to be loved and told he's great, and as long as people are doing that he's happy.

[Einheri]

14 minutes ago, Reny of Storms End said:

I appreciate where you are coming from. It's not an easy problem to solve, and it will require changing hearts and minds. I don't think you are a bad person or anything like that. I initially responded to your post because I thought you were not understanding why some boarders were opposed to you. I was hoping my own explanations might help you see why you were receiving that opposition. 

Appreciate the comment, man. The vast majority of boarders  have been very respectful in the way they have voiced their disagreements, and I can see where they’re coming from even if we disagree somewhat on how we should solve this issue 

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Altherion said:

And yes, making the economic system work better for the working and middle classes must include all races and genders. However, it is absolutely crucial that we make it better for everyone first and address specific groups later rather than the other way around.

I think I have at least 3 objections to this view:

1. I think it's unethical. Meaning I think it's unethical to say, "Hey women and minorities, just hang back, and we will handle these other economic issues, without addressing your issues specifically."

2. I think this economic stuff along with the minority and gender stuff are all interlinked and interlocked. The right has always taken advantage of resentments to attack economic policies they don't like. So, I think, just as a tactical matter it's prudent to work on all these issues at the same time and to make progress on all of  them at the same time.

3. And finally, why in the hell, should women voters and minority voters even agree to this arrangement? I don't think they would, and I wouldn't blame them, if they didn't. And as a white male guy, I'd feel ashamed by even asking them to. 

[Savannah]

1 hour ago, Altherion said:

 

And yes, making the economic system work better for the working and middle classes must include all races and genders. However, it is absolutely crucial that we make it better for everyone first and address specific groups later rather than the other way around. As long as inequality is increasing, everyone is fighting over a shrinking (or at best constant) pie and any one group's gain means a loss for everyone else. It is almost impossible to get people whose economic status is already deteriorating to agree to have it deteriorate faster for the sake of people who the elites claim are even worse off (even if the claims happen to be true -- which is not always the case).

That approach would result to a better functioning society. 
It would actually bring people together instead of needlessly dividing them. 

That reminds me of Einheri's doll house , in a previous post. 

[Savannah]

3 hours ago, Einheri said:

Look I self identify as a social liberal. I vote Norwegian Labor Party, which is left of Bernie Sanders.  I'm in favor of the welfare state, and I believe that people, no matter who they are or where they come from, have a right to get free education, healthcare and assistance should they lose they're jobs or if they're unable to work for whatever reason, but when it comes to factors such as gender, skin color, sexual preference, religion etc. I get uncomfortable. I feel that this shouldn't be a big deal, and I don't like the notion that it's suddenly a goal in itself to ensure that "this amount of people should be represented here and this amount of people should be represented there". I dunno, but it feels like we're viewed as nothing else than numbers/statistics, and that our own individuality and choices matter less, like we're in a doll house where some authority moves us around at whim.

There. 

Of course there's a place for individualism and that notion goes against both the individual and the community. 

 

[Relic]

8 minutes ago, Werthead said:

He's standing up there spouting utter horseshit for what feels like longer than the extended cut of The Return of the King, not to mention repeating lies that have been shot down multiple times.

It's taking away from the rather cute fact that Trump clearly just wants to be loved and told he's great, and as long as people are doing that he's happy.

A rally of reportedly 9,000 which he will turn into 90,000. Trump seems to miss the fact that there are 350 million OTHER people in the USA, and mistakes a "large" rally as a mandate from the "people". 

[MerenthaClone]

1 hour ago, Altherion said:

And yes, making the economic system work better for the working and middle classes must include all races and genders. However, it is absolutely crucial that we make it better for everyone first and address specific groups later rather than the other way around. As long as inequality is increasing, everyone is fighting over a shrinking (or at best constant) pie and any one group's gain means a loss for everyone else. It is almost impossible to get people whose economic status is already deteriorating to agree to have it deteriorate faster for the sake of people who the elites claim are even worse off (even if the claims happen to be true -- which is not always the case).

http://i.imgur.com/UBGfH43.jpg

No, we don't.  We need take care of the worst-off first and go from there.  Every single time someone has claimed that they're going to make things better for "everyone" first you start seeing that help taper off as soon as the worthies get that help.  Every fucking time.  They don't turn around and keep pushing to help other people, they stop as soon as they get what they wanted.  And those "specific groups" you claim are demanding extra help?  Maybe those specific things they're demanding are their ability to access the help in the first place:  like I've said many times, increased college tuition support doesn't fucking help people when there's institutional issues keeping some groups out of accessing that help in the first place.  

Fucking brogressive bullshit.  

 

[Altherion]

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

1. I think it's unethical. Meaning I think it's unethical to say, "Hey women and minorities, just hang back, and we will handle these other economic issues, without addressing yours specifically."

I disagree. They would still benefit and some of their issues may be addressed incidentally in the process of solving the overall problem (e.g. if a specific group is disproportionately poor, assistance to the poor in general would disproportionately benefit them without singling out an intrinsic physical property).

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

2. I think this economic stuff along with the minority and gender stuff are all interlinked and interlocked. The right has always taken advantage of resentments to attack economic policies they don't like. So, I think, just as a tactical matter it's prudent to work on all these issues at the same time and to make progress on all of  them at the same time.

Ideally, sure... but practically, there is no way to simultaneously focus on everything at once. I agree with you that everything is interlinked though.

2 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

3. And finally, why in the hell, should women voters and minority voters even agree to this arrangement? I don't think they would, and I wouldn't blame them. And as a white male guy, I'd feel ashamed by even asking them to.

Ah, but this is the beauty of it from the perspective of those implementing divide-and-conquer: why would anyone agree to an arrangement to fight for everyone when they can fight for concrete advantages for themselves instead? This is why the divisiveness is so effective.

1 hour ago, MerenthaClone said:

We need take care of the worst-off first and go from there.

This is a wonderful idea. One tiny detail though: who exactly gets to decide who is the worst-off?

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Altherion said:

I disagree. They would still benefit and some of their issues may be addressed incidentally in the process of solving the overall problem (e.g. if a specific group is disproportionately poor, assistance to the poor in general would disproportionately benefit them without singling out an intrinsic physical property)

No it's a bit unethical to sit there and not talk about issues that specifically affect them, just so white male people won't have to feel uncomfortable.

And as far as "e.g. if a specific specific group is disproportionately poor, assistance to the poor in general would disproportionately...." goes, the fact of the matter is that will likely fuel white resentment, aka "black people would just be better off if they tried harder", bullshit. So you have to explain the reasons for a specific group being poorer and try to remedy it.

And the benefits you speak of, won't be much if people don't get job opportunities because of discrimination, or there are structural factors, like poor educational opportunities or over-incarceration.

Just now, Altherion said:

Ideally, sure... but practically, there is no way to simultaneously focus on everything at once. I agree with you that everything is interlinked though.

And if you don't deal with racism and sexism, the right will just use it again to bash economic policies they don't like. It's easier to do when poverty has a female face or a minority face. I want to make it not easy to do.

Just now, Altherion said:

Ah, but this is the beauty of it from the perspective of those implementing divide-and-conquer: why would anyone agree to an arrangement to fight for everyone when they can fight for concrete advantages for themselves instead? This is why the divisiveness is so effective.

Because minority and women's right advocates, and economic progressives are natural allies? They have a set of mutual interest to advance?

Bottom line here is I'm not fan of this idea of throwing minority or womens issues under the bus. And I  think it would be a mistake to stop talking about them or try to get some traction on it.