|
Should troll Fancy Pelosi be allowed to stay? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes |
|
160 | 32.92% |
| No |
|
326 | 67.08% |
| Total: | 486 votes | ||
|
Grouchio posted:My autism loving sucks at not taking poo poo at face value Well if he'd linked sources, probably the Express article I found first, and then I looked up the recent "20 Generals sign letter to President" fooferaw, which led me to the poll itself. Maybe 60 seconds work, and in a minute more I'd realized he'd he was either citing a different poll or was wrong. Mais je suis Canadien donc je peux lire français.
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 19:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 03:50 |
|
|
Boy I'd much rather be known as the country that helped save lives around the world Chris Coons.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 19:20
|
|
|
Kraftwerk posted:1. How do you efficiently tax people in this globalized era where it’s trivial to hide your money off shore? Or create legal entities that exist outside of US tax jurisdictions despite the bulk of their revenues coming from America? It seems to me that if you raise taxes they’ll just find new ways to make their tax liabilities go to 0. At best you can try to eliminate tax credits so you aren’t paying Amazon to be rich. 1. Most of the things that make it easy to hide money are choices. There's no reason we need to recognize the ability of a Cayman islands trust to own property in the United States (or any other tax haven that hides its true owners). There's no reason we have to accept the legal fiction that IP assets are held in a wholly-owned Ireland subsidiary that charges the rest of the corporate enterprise. We have allowed these things to happen because rich people care and everyone else doesn't quite pay attention enough to realize how the cheating is happening and can stop, so the rich buy their way into these sort of loopholes. But also, at the end of the day, as long as you are getting enough money from taxation a certain level of cheating isn't an economic problem, it's a legal/political question. 2. The current thinking isn't that you prioritize full employment at all costs. It's that you stop prioritizing sub-2% inflation at all costs, and you balance keeping inflation around 2% overall, and full employment. But conducting that sort of balancing is the highly technical Fed-level economics which is the province of experts, rather than people interested in politics - the "people interested in politics" view is the more general level of "balance inflation and full employment or don't" rather than the details of how you implement that choice (which I'm not qualified to make).
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 19:23
|
|
|
So between Conor Lamb & John Fetterman, who's more likely to win the Dem primary for the U.S. Senate? Also, I just read that Alan Grayson will be simultaneously running for the U.S. Senate (against Rubio) and the U.S. House next year.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 19:43
|
|
|
Is Grayson the "Republican health plan: if you get sick die quickly" guy? Didn't he end up being some kind of abusive rear end in a top hat?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 19:44
|
|
|
Re: France, there is definitely the greatest chance in a generation of Le Pen taking power, but it's not yet a certainty. It definitely concerned me during the last election when Le Pen's fascist party had their highest showing ever and the guy who won the election was a businessman with no political experience who was a moderate that has mainly spent his time in power pushing austerity. In the last few months, Macron and his allies have basically taken up a lot of the anti-Muslim rhetoric that Le Pen's people have, presumably to blunt that line of attack going into the election. Needless to say it's very gross.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 19:54
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1388698057663975434?s=20 Wasserman, I do wonder why the DCCC would throw away TX-06 if they knew it could be a bellweather for 2022 midterms...
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 20:02
|
|
|
Gadfly posted:Hi evilweasel, thanks for your reply and the time it took you. This is a hard question to answer because marxism is such a broad brush that encompasses so many things (including dueling sub-ideologies). And as a threshold matter I also need to recognize I did a poor job distinguishing between MMT economists - who may have valuable insights into how you apply economic theory - and MMT as a model of economics for the use of people who are trying to make policy - where I think the model does very badly at having people realize what the actual choices are. And most significantly my objection is with people using MMT as the basis for their political arguments. I have a similar approach with marxism, which is why I mention that here. But to answer the Marxism question a high level: I don't wholesale reject that marxist thought has had anything useful in the 150+ years it has been around. I do generally think that people using marxist thought tend to have their arguments biased in certain ways that make it not a helpful model of economic thought. First, it's important that marxism generally consists three things, which are often not carefully separated out: (1) a value system - what kind of society we ought to strive for and have (the "ought"); (2) a theory of economics - how economic behavior actually occurs, and what policies or procedures can alter it to achieve specific ends regardless of the value of those ends (though with a heavy emphasis on achieving the ends set forth in (1); and (3) a political theory - how our political systems should be structured to achieve specific ends - again, regardless of the value of those ends, but with a heavy emphasis on achieving the ends set forth in (1). The reason I tend Each of those has a separate answer. As to the value system: most importantly, I generally think that marxist arguments often place the value system at the wrong level of abstraction. I agree that the proper societal goals are to ensure that the goods and services produced by our society are fairly shared, and that this principle has greater weight than maximizing the amount of goods and services produced by the economy as a whole. A world where 99% of people labor in poverty for the benefit of an elite 1%, but produces $5t GDP compared to a more egalitarian world where you produce $4t GDP is a worse world. But I think the proper value is in looking at the results for people - how does society treat its people, what level of living standard does it supply to those people, how fairly are those downsides shared. All of these are generally principles (the distinction between principles and rules being principles have weight - you need to balance them all). People arguing from marxist viewpoints tend to shift the moral obligations from this low-level aspect to arguing that the marxist solutions themselves are inherently good. The "the workers should own the means of production" for example - I don't agree that's a useful value. I think that's a proposal to achieve the more core values of a fairer society, that rises and falls on its ability to deliver them. In my view, a fairer society where the workers do not own the means of production is better than a less fair society where they do - and I think many people arguing from a marxist viewpoint often implicitly disagree, and argue from the premise that their solutions are inherently moral rather than their solutions are better at achieving the moral ends that I view as the correct point to place a value at. As to the economic arguments: there are too many marxist arguments and marxist critiques of capitalism to address at a high level, and again some might have valuable insights. But, generally speaking, marxist economic thought has a huge problem: history. The marxist economic predictions, and the results of marxism in action, generally do not match. There's been a hundred and fifty years of trying, and the results are not good. There are marxist rejoinders but they tend to boil down to "well it wasn't done right that time" (without a good explanation why it would be done right this time) and "well it was capitalist sabotage" which (a) well why won't that happen next time, if marxism simply can't handle capitalist sabatoge then what good is it; and (b) I'm always, in every walk of life, inherently skeptical of "it's not MY fault I failed, it is all that person's fault" arguments. But both have the same problem - that capitalist societies exist, and if you have no good solution to have a communist society in a world with any capitalist societies, what good is your theory? Marxist critiques of capitalism in the manner you described are inherently suspect to me because they generally boil down to the value level mismatch I talked about above - that they are implicitly assuming communist means are inherently good and capitalist means are inherently bad. But I reject that viewpoint: economic methods are judged by their results. Marxist methods must produce superior results, on a metric that is not "how marxist are these results" but more of a "how society cares for its weakest members" metric, to be a superior economic method. Most of the time those arguments - where someone is proposing 'capitalist' means to achieve ends that are obviously good - seek to identify an inherent contradiction in capitalism, seek to declare it unreconcilable, and that therefore capitalism can never produce the societally better ends (or, cannot produce them without worse side effects), and declare that we must therefore have communism. Frequently these arguments are superficial and the contradictions identified nonsense because what "capitalism" is identified as in these arguments bears no relationship to the capitalism being argued against. More rarely, there are genuine issues identified, but the marxist solution is not given any similar scrutiny - sometimes, problems have no good economic solutions, and the arguments rarely seek to show that there is a superior marxist solution compared to the capitalist one - it is assumed to be enough you identify problems. At the end of the day though it boils down to: where are the successful applications of marxist economic theory? We are all well aware of the...less successful...applications. We are also similarly well aware of massive failures of capitalist economic systems - but there are a lot more societies with a capitalist (as marxist thought defines it) economy that I'd be happy to live in than ones with a marxist economy. At the end of the day the view of capitalism I subscribe to is that a market is a useful tool. It is not a magical emergent behavior that always produces the right results. It does a reasonably good job of organizing economic production according to the needs and wants of the people. It has well understood flaws that require effective government intervention to avoid the market producing bad economic results - not results that are morally bad but just plain bad results regarding which goods and services are produced ("externalities" being the best-understood, but not only, one). It also, to create moral outcomes, requires an effective liberal democracy to effectively redistribute wealth because a free market system does not tend to produce a fair distribution of goods and services - it tends to produce a value-maximizing amount. I understand marxist critiques to argue, in essence, that the second point is impossible and you can never have an effective liberal democracy in a capitalist society that fairly (or relatively fairly) distributes wealth. And that gets us to point number three about what marxism is - a theory on how we should politically organize our society. I.e. not how goods and services should be allocated, but how power in society should be allocated. Marxism is correct to identify that, to a certain degree, economic and political systems are linked. Like I said above, my vision of a good capitalist society requires a liberal democracy. However, capitalism has considerably more freedom in practice with the political systems it can co-exist with than marxism does. Capitalist societies range from liberal democracies to authoritarian nightmares to all-out anarchy, and rage from countries that heavily regulate and interfere in their market economies to near-complete hands-off free market ideology. Marxism, on the other hand, by requiring a 'command economy' limits the amount of political systems it can co-exist with. In practice "the workers should own the means of production" society-wide means that the government owns the means of production. That requires a certain level of strong central control. Further, prohibiting private ownership of means of production inherently requires a certain level of the government reaching into private conduct (to make and enforce that ban). In practice, implementation of marxism has always trended very strongly towards inefficient, authoritarian governments. Again, marxists have rejoinders to this - but they generally aren't good ones. There are plenty of capitalist societies I would never want to live in - but there are plenty I would, while marxist societies I would want to live in ... maybe theres one, but I'm not aware of it. And so the confidence of Marxism that capitalism is inherently incompatible with the kinds of political societies that we would want to live in is, again, pretty damningly contradicted by reality. I don't claim to say that marxist economies are completely incompatible with a fair and free society - but simply looking at the historical record, it is much less compatible than a capitalist economy. The confidence that marxist thought has identified irreconcilable contradictions of capitalism that marxism solves is entirely unearned. So that's why I am generally highly skeptical of marxist thought. I think putting the value system at the wrong level also tends to make marxist thought dogmatic - you must demonstrate first your fidelity to the thoughts of the past and that you are refining and expanding them, not taking some good thoughts and building a new structure out of them. Das Kapital was written a hundred and fifty years ago. It was written in opposition to a world that barely exists today. It has been historically hilariously inaccurate with its beliefs of the inevitability of communism and how capitalist societies would evolve into communism. It has some good insights into flaws of economic methods practiced a hundred and fifty years ago. It is not a useful bible today. People who took those useful insights and rejected the ones that are obviously inaccurate or no longer relevant generally don't describe themselves as marxist - they're social democrats, or socialists, or something else. It's people who don't - who treat it as a psychohistory text that simply needs a little refinement and expansion - that continue to describe themselves as marxist. And that is the biggest problem I have with "marxist" thought. It's not that there's never been anything useful in Marx or subsequent thought based on his work. It's that the good stuff has been extracted and gets used elsewhere. So that is a long, meandering, unedited, and overly simplistic (because I don't think I could give the question a detailed response in less than a well-researched book, after doing a substantial amount of reading current marxist thought and addressing it specifically instead of simply recalling stuff that people who I think described themselves or their thought as marxist) answer to your question. There are certainly things in here that are poorly phrased and that people would be right to challenge me on since it's pretty much a stream of consciousness, and so for that I apologize, and there is almost certainly some straw man stuff in there I'm tilting at since I didn't, as I said, do research - this is more describing my general way of thinking in response and I'm sure there are many aspects of marxist thought I haven't even read, let alone understood. Hopefully there's anything of use in there to respond to your question! evilweasel fucked around with this message at 20:22 on May 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 20:16
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:loving traitors. i am curious when the names will be dropped of the fucks who did similar on the 6th and i don't just mean the speakers. these perfidious rat gently caress assholes were certain their coups were going to work, that's why they didn't take any precautions about being seen or outsource their treachery given that almost none of the elected officials have faced any real consequence, who's to say they were wrong
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 20:20
|
|
|
To conflate capitalism with a market economy is just such an obvious glaring fault that all I would say is read some/more Graeber
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 20:22
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:So between Conor Lamb & John Fetterman, who's more likely to win the Dem primary for the U.S. Senate?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 20:23
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/ChuckGrassley/status/1388896548227006465 New incomprehensible Grassley tweet just dropped. I don't know if I like "goggle" or "NOT HISTORY CH" better.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 20:31
|
|
|
Rea posted:https://twitter.com/ChuckGrassley/status/1388896548227006465
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 20:35
|
|
|
Feldegast42 posted:Regarding the GOP I think the next big thing to supercharge the right in this country is actually what's happening in France. If you haven been paying attention they are very quickly going full sieg heil fash, with LePen pretty far ahead in the polls and 60% of the country (according to one poll) in favor of a possible military coup being undertaken to purge Islam from the country. And the core of this movement aren't the olds or the well off either, but instead the younger generations / millennials. Didn't the right wing parties in Scandinavian countries experience a massive resurgence relatively recently due to middle-eastern immigration issues as well? The above + Intergroup Contact Theory + that research paper that found that the more multi-cultural a society is, the less it invests in community and social programs, reinforces something I've been thinking about for while... For a long time people have looked at how far behind the U.S. trails Europe and Scandinavian countries in terms of establishment of things like universal healthcare and other obviously beneficial but also not particularly selective social programs and concluded that the U.S. was "behind" or "less advanced" than those other countries. But I actually think we're ahead of them. Those other countries aren't dealing with anywhere near the level of "trying to maintain a society with a bunch of different-looking people all in one place", that we are. Lily white France and Scandinavian countries are pretty smug about how "open minded" and hyper progressive they are, and about all of their wonderful social programs just as long as the only people who have access to them look like them, but all it took was a few families with a tan showing up on their doorstep for them to dropkick their leftist values and start goosestepping up and down the street. The U.S. get's regularly pilloried for being backwards and racist, and rightly so because goddamn we absolutely are, but we're playing the game on hard mode compared to everyone else. As soon as they catch even a whiff of the bubbling chaos we somehow manage to hold together on a daily basis their spines telescope like an accordion and they start mashing the red button that says Full Fash Now. And the thing is, multiculturalism, aside from being a good thing, is also definitively the future. There's no stopping it no matter how much the white supremacists/nationalists want to. It'd be like trying to go back to hunter-gatherer societies. It's happening. So it's everyone else that hasn't even begun to figure out how to live together that are way behind the curve. -Blackadder- fucked around with this message at 21:24 on May 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 20:53
|
|
|
John Wick of Dogs posted:Is Grayson the "Republican health plan: if you get sick die quickly" guy? Didn't he end up being some kind of abusive rear end in a top hat? Yes and yes
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 21:06
|
|
|
goggle NOT HISTORY CH Yeah I'm done for today.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 22:04
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:So between Conor Lamb & John Fetterman, who's more likely to win the Dem primary for the U.S. Senate? Lamb still hasn't officially declared that he's running, though I would be more surprised if he didn't run. Malcom Kenyatta seems to be the only other candidate other than Fetterman who has enough name recognition to make a go of it, but I think Fetterman will likely end up winning the primary but there's still enough time for it to go the other way. His pro legalized weed stance helps as does him being one of the first officials in the state to call for it, so it looks less like he's jumping on the popularity bandwagon. Though as Tibalt said, it depends if the mayor/shotgun story is enough of an issue to sink Fetterman if it gets traction again. Personally, I don't think it will impact things much (Kenyatta has already tried to make hay of it to little or no real effect) and Fetterman's explanation, as groan worthy as it is, wasn't outright terrible. As far as Grayson, lol.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 22:16
|
|
|
-Blackadder- posted:Didn't the right wing parties in Scandinavian countries experience a massive resurgence relatively recently due to middle-eastern immigration issues as well? Kinda, well in Denmark the main Right wing part got just under 9% of the vote, the Conservatives got a bit under 7, and another smaller RW party got 2.5 in 2019. Although in 2015 that main RW party had 21% so better I guess? In Sweden in 2018 the right party got 17.5% while the Conservatives got 20% in 2018 the actual left party got 8%, and Green got 4%). The largest party was the Social democrats with 38%. But with how the parties ally the Red/Greens have a tiny majority of 40% and a bit while the Center-right alliance has 40% and the actual Right has their 17.5% Luckily the center-right wouldn't ally with the outright right so the Red-Greens are in charge, but realistically only laws that some of the center-right will sign off on can get passed so everything is pretty "cut social programs and do austerity" while the Red-Greens get blamed for not doing red/green stuff, so low hopes for the next election. No idea about Norway, but I haven't heard anything terrible. E: Oh I looked it up and I am totally wrong. In 2017 the Conservatives got 25%, the right got 15%, and the Christian-right got 4.2% and formed a center-right government  E2: Oh the right wing quit the government because the conservatives let an ISIS lady come home, although the Conservative-Christians remain in power as a minority gov: "On 20 January 2020, the Progress Party decided to withdraw from the government due to a decision by Solberg to repatriate a woman linked to Islamic State and her children back to Norway." E3: Although Sweden is really white, it does have a fair number of immigrants: "Every fourth (24.9%) resident in the country has a foreign background and every third (32.3%) has at least one parent born abroad. The most common foreign ancestry is Finnish." That being said, the most common non-white immigrant is Syrian at 1,8% of the population. About half of all immigrants have citizenship. Backlash to PoC immigrants have definitely caused some cuts to social programs, but these are also being cut for various capitalist reasons. The wealth gap is increasing, union membership is dropping, EU austerity etc. Trans care is also pretty bad here! Until 2012 trans people had to be sterilized before they could change their legal gender, and even now waiting lists are 2+ years to be seen which is well beyond what's meant to be a 6 month maximum time to be treated for anything
Darkrenown fucked around with this message at 22:32 on May 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 22:18
|
|
|
Capitalism and Communism are part of the same system that speak the exact same language lol if you think they're two different things. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 22:45
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Re: France, there is definitely the greatest chance in a generation of Le Pen taking power, but it's not yet a certainty. It definitely concerned me during the last election when Le Pen's fascist party had their highest showing ever and the guy who won the election was a businessman with no political experience who was a moderate that has mainly spent his time in power pushing austerity. It’s also really important to remember that the French are big on the idea of an all-encompassing, monolithic French culture. And all these Muslims (many of who hail from ex-French colonies, which is ever so awkward) going around having different cultural traditions REALLY upsets people, who don’t view their cultural chauvinism as supremacy. -Blackadder- posted:Didn't the right wing parties in Scandinavian countries experience a massive resurgence relatively recently due to middle-eastern immigration issues as well? Also, all of this. Europe’s finally getting a taste of what the US has been (poorly) handling for centuries. No wonder they don’t like it.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 22:53
|
|
|
I've posted about this before, but it kind of blew my mind when I realized that so many dystopian futures are portrayed as explicitly multicultural (Blade Runner and The Fifth Element, Shadowrun, Cyberpunk) and that the multiculturalism is implicitly part of the "dystopian" part. Star Trek is probably the only mainstream scifi I can think of that explicitly espouses multiculturalism as a good thing, and that has it's own host of issues as the Politics and SciFi thread has opened my eyes to.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 23:30
|
|
|
Agents are GO! posted:I've posted about this before, but it kind of blew my mind when I realized that so many dystopian futures are portrayed as explicitly multicultural (Blade Runner and The Fifth Element, Shadowrun, Cyberpunk) and that the multiculturalism is implicitly part of the "dystopian" part. Star Wars very deliberately portrays the Rebellion as a multi-racial, multi-ethnic concern, while the incredibly Nazi-coded Empire is pretty much all white human dudes.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 23:43
|
|
|
Most sci-fi doesn't portray multiculturalism as bad, just inevitable
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 23:43
|
|
|
Agents are GO! posted:I've posted about this before, but it kind of blew my mind when I realized that so many dystopian futures are portrayed as explicitly multicultural (Blade Runner and The Fifth Element, Shadowrun, Cyberpunk) and that the multiculturalism is implicitly part of the "dystopian" part. Cyberpunk is best understood as the dark, shadow version of neoliberalism’s promises for the liberalization of the flow of people and capital, in part involving a multicultural-but-homogeneous end-of-history Mcworld society. I don’t deny that there’s racism in the choice of non-western “alien” cultures to mix into the corporate urban hellscape, but part of it was for sure trying to show a globalized world where all people are exploited and thrown together into poverty while having their own cultures annihilated and being treated like exportable goods. There’s probably some boomer “but they won’t assimilate!” terror in there too.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 23:47
|
|
|
-Blackadder- posted:Didn't the right wing parties in Scandinavian countries experience a massive resurgence relatively recently due to middle-eastern immigration issues as well? I'm so confused by this. So do you think public healthcare and diversity are impossible? Is Europe leftist because they have public services or fascist because well, by your argument they got them by a lack of ethnic and cultural diversity that they now feel the need to violently defend? What's the path forward for America then on this theory? Do we just at some point figure it out and we can be diverse and have public services? Do we never figure it out because we're too racist to make the two work together but that somehow makes us better than Europe?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 23:49
|
|
|
Darkrenown posted:Although Sweden is really white, it does have a fair number of immigrants: "Every fourth (24.9%) resident in the country has a foreign background and every third (32.3%) has at least one parent born abroad. The most common foreign ancestry is Finnish." That being said, the most common non-white immigrant is Syrian at 1,8% of the population. About half of all immigrants have citizenship. Backlash to PoC immigrants have definitely caused some cuts to social programs, but these are also being cut for various capitalist reasons. The wealth gap is increasing, union membership is dropping, EU austerity etc. lol at “actually almost a third of Swedes have ancestry from another country, like Finland”
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 23:50
|
|
|
Kanos posted:Star Wars very deliberately portrays the Rebellion as a multi-racial, multi-ethnic concern, while the incredibly Nazi-coded Empire is pretty much all white human dudes.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 23:53
|
|
|
Agents are GO! posted:I've posted about this before, but it kind of blew my mind when I realized that so many dystopian futures are portrayed as explicitly multicultural (Blade Runner and The Fifth Element, Shadowrun, Cyberpunk) and that the multiculturalism is implicitly part of the "dystopian" part. It has been said before, but one of the central tenets of cyberpunk is that technology will not save us. It won't doom us either, but it's not going to lead to some glorious full gay space communism future. The multiculturalism isn't implicitly racist or nationalist, it's just part of that. We *will* come together, a lot of the barriers of nationality and distance *will* fall. It won't save us. Or doom us. People are people. Add chrome to them, make them AIs, make them genetically engineered supermen.....people are people. And they'll do the same stupid people poo poo they always do. And that's what will define our future, for good or for ill.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2021 00:04
|
|
|
A GIANT PARSNIP posted:lol at “actually almost a third of Swedes have ancestry from another country, like Finland” The Fins are animals. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2021 00:14
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:I'm so confused by this. So do you think public healthcare and diversity are impossible? Is Europe leftist because they have public services or fascist because well, by your argument they got them by a lack of ethnic and cultural diversity that they now feel the need to violently defend? What's the path forward for America then on this theory? Do we just at some point figure it out and we can be diverse and have public services? Do we never figure it out because we're too racist to make the two work together but that somehow makes us better than Europe? I think he's saying that a big problem with creating and maintaining public programs comes when people think that somebody else is gonna benefit from them. We've had this problem literally since we were founded, and its colored everything we've done since. Even take the big, sweeping programs of the New Deal and the GI bill: they had to be written so that non-whites didn't get things out of them. The dismantling of welfare only came after the public perception of a welfare recipient went from a poor white family to black cheaters. In this respect, we've been facing a problem that European countries are now facing and having issues with since, well, forever.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2021 00:16
|
|
|
A GIANT PARSNIP posted:lol at “actually almost a third of Swedes have ancestry from another country, like Finland” A lot of Americans make a big deal about being Irish  Finland has a totally unrelated language and a fairly different culture, then was colonised and semi-Swedenised by them.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2021 00:18
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:The Fins are animals.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2021 00:28
|
|
|
Grondoth posted:I think he's saying that a big problem with creating and maintaining public programs comes when people think that somebody else is gonna benefit from them. We've had this problem literally since we were founded, and its colored everything we've done since. Even take the big, sweeping programs of the New Deal and the GI bill: they had to be written so that non-whites didn't get things out of them. The dismantling of welfare only came after the public perception of a welfare recipient went from a poor white family to black cheaters. This take discounts the popularity of Medicare--and even Medicaid!--among people in what usnews would write off as the most racist states. Whenever I hear liberals complaining that conservatives won't back single-payer bc black people would get healthcare, rather than bc of regulatory capture between both parties, it tells me that liberals are grasping for a racist figleaf to cover their own sentiments about who "deserves" healthcare. Eg: Permanent & unlimited subsidies to private insurers have been baked into the infrastructure bill. Medicare-at-55, or even a weak-sauce public option, has not. edit bc you didn't cite Reagan as the anti-welfare racist. My prior point stands that it was Bill Clinton who used welfare reform as the linchpin of his 1992 campaign and it was Bill Clinton who passed it. Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 00:40 on May 3, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2021 00:36
|
|
|
Bill Clinton ran on "ending welfare as we know it" and he did.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2021 00:43
|
|
|
Yes, that's what I said, even before my edit.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2021 00:47
|
|
|
Sedisp posted:The problem with this reasoning is that the problems with socialism (there is not a country in earth that has ever been communist) are viewed as flaws in the system a socialist society with democratic controls shouldn't have the problems of the USSR. The rebuttal that "there's never been a communist society" as a defense of the idea of communism is not very good in my opinion. "There has never truly been a capitalist society" is something that I can imagine a libertarian saying and bemoaning, since that is also superficially true. They're both probably true for the same reasons - both have been described before they were really implemented, and the idea of "communism" and "capitalism" as ideals are measured by reality. American-style capitalism is a product of many things and exists as it does, with all of the deviations from capitalism as it has been idealized on paper, because we live in the real world, which always deviates from the idealized theory. The same is true for Soviet-style communism. Yes, it deviated significantly from the way it was envisioned because it happened in the real world. This is a difference from, say, feudalism, which we theorized about after the fact, as there were generally no economists in 1175 AD writing out the theories of "feudalism." No, our description of it is the real-world state that feudalism was in and its real-world consequences. We're not bemoaning that feudalism never lived up to some ideal state dreamt up by someone a thousand years ago. We describe it as it was.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2021 00:53
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:Whenever I hear liberals complaining that conservatives won't back single-payer bc black people would get healthcare, rather than bc of regulatory capture between both parties, it tells me that liberals are grasping for a racist figleaf to cover their own sentiments about who "deserves" healthcare. Whenever people disagree with you about the motives behind a policy, it tells you those people’s actual motives are racism? both things can be true, and more; things have more than one cause.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2021 00:53
|
|
|
-Blackadder- posted:Didn't the right wing parties in Scandinavian countries experience a massive resurgence relatively recently due to middle-eastern immigration issues as well? This is a bizarre and frankly bad post. The US deserves credit for holding together the "bubbling chaos" of minority groups? Credit for what exactly, occasionally making incremental progress towards a functional social safety net that almost the entire West has had for decades? Did you consider other counterexamples, or that the US' ethnic diversity is for the most part a relatively recent development? The US was still ~87% white as of 1970; the fraction identifying as Black has been fairly steady at 10-12% since 1900 (albeit growing slowly since 1950), so I'm not sure what kind of causal link you want to draw between the failure to implement universal healthcare in the white-dominated, pre-1970 USA, or the last 50 years with a growing latinx and other non-white population. If you don't want to consider examples like France (sizeable North African/Algerian minority) or other former British colonies like Australia, Canada and New Zealand for their lack of a comparable African-origin minority, fine, but then what does it say that Brazil has (arguably) a much more diverse population and still implemented free universal healthcare, despite being dysfunctional in other ways?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2021 01:03
|
|
|
Americans of all hues and creeds unite to get in a sick dunk on France
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2021 01:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 03:50 |
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:The Fins are animals. What the hell, dude
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2021 01:38
|
|
