Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us $3,400 per month for bandwidth bills alone, and since we don't believe in shoving popup ads to our registered users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
«151 »
  • Locked thread
site
Apr 6, 2007

Check my colors

Trans-pride worldwide

Bitch


So I'm just getting around to reading about Umberto Eco's Ur-Fascism concept and I was wondering if anyone could give me a rundown (or at least provide a link to one) of why it's full of poo poo. I've seen it criticized here on the boards in passing before so I guess there's problems with it.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

Trophy-ko says:
~death to capitalism~

Hilalry is 45


site posted:

So I'm just getting around to reading about Umberto Eco's Ur-Fascism concept and I was wondering if anyone could give me a rundown (or at least provide a link to one) of why it's full of poo poo. I've seen it criticized here on the boards in passing before so I guess there's problems with it.

It's not full of poo poo, people who decided to deploy it as a striking insight on 500 topics a day are full of poo poo.

You can think of it like how people think the constitution says we should do %some random thing that ain't even mentioned%.

icantfindaname
Jul 1, 2008



site posted:

So I'm just getting around to reading about Umberto Eco's Ur-Fascism concept and I was wondering if anyone could give me a rundown (or at least provide a link to one) of why it's full of poo poo. I've seen it criticized here on the boards in passing before so I guess there's problems with it.

Not really? It's not a complete, final description of all right-wing thought, but it is a good description of it, at least a particular strain of it

computer parts
Nov 18, 2010

PLEASE CLAP

site posted:

So I'm just getting around to reading about Umberto Eco's Ur-Fascism concept and I was wondering if anyone could give me a rundown (or at least provide a link to one) of why it's full of poo poo. I've seen it criticized here on the boards in passing before so I guess there's problems with it.

It's not, it's just used out of context by dumb people.

For example, the "enemies are simultaneously too strong and too weak" point is not exclusive to conservative thought, and many of the times it's pointed out, you need to assume that all conservatives are interchangeable members of a hive mind, instead of people that disagree on finer details.

E-Tank
Aug 4, 2011


I'm having issues convincing my mother that ISIS is not in fact, here in America and going to kill us all or things like that. Also that ISIS is in fact dying out, it's just a slow and drawn out death. Like she believes that ISIS is the biggest threat facing America at this moment.

Any suggestions on what I might use to convince her otherwise?

fade5
May 31, 2012

by exmarx


E-Tank posted:

I'm having issues convincing my mother that ISIS is not in fact, here in America and going to kill us all or things like that. Also that ISIS is in fact dying out, it's just a slow and drawn out death. Like she believes that ISIS is the biggest threat facing America at this moment.

Any suggestions on what I might use to convince her otherwise?
On the "here in America" front, the US just arrested six people who attempted to go join ISIL, so basically you can say that we're already successfully monitoring anything that could pop up:

quote:

The U.S. charged six Minnesota men on Monday in connection with attempts to join Islamic State, exposing a network of young Somali-Americans who allegedly tried to help each other get to Syria.

The case involves one of the largest groups of would-be foreign fighters charged so far amid a stepped-up effort by authorities to stop Americans from traveling to join extremist groups in Iraq and Syria. It also underscores how Westerners who have succeeded in joining the fight act as a draw on the friends they left behind.
Relatedly, point out that most of the time the story is that some idiot is trying leave the US (or whatever country) and go die in the desert fight with ISIL, rather than ISIL trying to come here to the US. On the "ISIL is dying" front, here's a new story about how ISIL has lost more than 25% of their territory that they once held:
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/04/15/m...iraq/index.html

The big answer to how that was achieved: airstrikes.
You can show her this hilariously long list of US airstrikes against ISIL, and ask her if she's heard of Kobani, and then point out/remind/explain to her that ISIL at full strength was successfully repelled from Kobani by YPG/YPJ Kurdish irregulars and US airstrikes (and FSA groups), with ISIL losing ~1200 of their fighters in a mini version of Stalingrad.

Some ISIL rear end in a top hat posted:

"I swear by God, their planes did not leave the air, day and night; they did airstrikes all day and night. They targeted everything. They even attacked motorcycles; they have not left a building standing. But by God willing we will return and we will have our revenge multiplied."
Not only has that return not happened, ISIL has been pushed even further back by literal daily US airstrikes; I did a summary on US airstrikes in Kobani (as of late February) here, and it really shows how US airpower has helped to beat back ISIL. (To be honest it's almost terrifying how effective airstrikes are.)

If you really want/need to bring the point home, show her a couple videos of US airstrikes on ISIL (maybe even the famous Tel Shaer one in my AV), to bring home the point that US air power makes ISIL a basically non-existent threat to us.

fade5 fucked around with this message at Apr 21, 2015 around 00:50

E-Tank
Aug 4, 2011


fade5 posted:

On the "here in America" front, the US just arrested six people who attempted to go join ISIL, so basically you can say that we're already successfully monitoring anything that could pop up:

Relatedly, point out that most of the time the story is that some idiot is trying leave the US (or whatever country) and go die in the desert fight with ISIL, rather than ISIL trying to come here to the US. On the "ISIL is dying" front, here's a new story about how ISIL has lost more than 25% of their territory that they once held:
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/04/15/m...iraq/index.html

The big answer to how that was achieved: airstrikes.
You can show her this hilariously long list of US airstrikes against ISIL, and ask her if she's heard of Kobani, and then point out/remind/explain to her that ISIL at full strength was successfully repelled from Kobani by YPG/YPJ Kurdish irregulars and US airstrikes (and FSA groups), with ISIL losing ~1200 of their fighters in a mini version of Stalingrad.

Not only has that return not happened, ISIL has been pushed even further back by literal daily US airstrikes; I did a summary on US airstrikes in Kobani (as of late February) here, and it really shows how US airpower has helped to beat back ISIL. (To be honest it's almost terrifying how effective airstrikes are.)

If you really want/need to bring the point home, show her a couple videos of US airstrikes on ISIL (maybe even the famous Tel Shaer one in my AV), to bring home the point that US air power makes ISIL a basically non-existent threat to us.

Thanks man, This got her thinking more about how exactly ISIS is in fact not an issue to the US. Though she's going to 'go and look things up', as she's claiming the report she heard said 'the six men captured were really going to do a terrorist plot! Not just trying to recruit others!'

Edit: Success! she admitted she was wrong, and that ISIS isn't as big of a threat as she thought.

E-Tank fucked around with this message at Apr 21, 2015 around 03:41

Volkerball
Oct 15, 2009


fade5 posted:

On the "here in America" front, the US just arrested six people who attempted to go join ISIL, so basically you can say that we're already successfully monitoring anything that could pop up:

Relatedly, point out that most of the time the story is that some idiot is trying leave the US (or whatever country) and go die in the desert fight with ISIL, rather than ISIL trying to come here to the US. On the "ISIL is dying" front, here's a new story about how ISIL has lost more than 25% of their territory that they once held:
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/04/15/m...iraq/index.html

The big answer to how that was achieved: airstrikes.
You can show her this hilariously long list of US airstrikes against ISIL, and ask her if she's heard of Kobani, and then point out/remind/explain to her that ISIL at full strength was successfully repelled from Kobani by YPG/YPJ Kurdish irregulars and US airstrikes (and FSA groups), with ISIL losing ~1200 of their fighters in a mini version of Stalingrad.

Not only has that return not happened, ISIL has been pushed even further back by literal daily US airstrikes; I did a summary on US airstrikes in Kobani (as of late February) here, and it really shows how US airpower has helped to beat back ISIL. (To be honest it's almost terrifying how effective airstrikes are.)

If you really want/need to bring the point home, show her a couple videos of US airstrikes on ISIL (maybe even the famous Tel Shaer one in my AV), to bring home the point that US air power makes ISIL a basically non-existent threat to us.

They aren't much of a threat to the US, and dude's mom was wrong, but this information is misleading. The Saudi coalition in Yemen has done well over half as many airstrikes in a month as the US has done in Iraq and Syria since October, it took a tremendous international effort to keep ISIS from overrunning Kobani, and they've been advancing elsewhere just as fast as they're being pushed back. They have the strongest presence in Damascus they've ever had, the preparation for the operation to take Mosul is just not happening, and they are moving on Ramadi right now. They're not "slowly dying." In fact, they aren't going anywhere anytime soon.

E-Tank
Aug 4, 2011


Edit: Y'know what, I'm gonna just deal with it. I love her, and that's all that matters.

E-Tank fucked around with this message at Apr 24, 2015 around 06:21

Cingulate
Oct 23, 2012



Have you considered getting a different mom?

twodot
Aug 7, 2005
A CLIP AND A MAGAZINE ARE THE SAME THING DUMBASS


In general, I don't think it's smart to chase citations for other people, some trivial searching has someone else claiming that he's talking about Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act, but even if that's right it's not obvious what part of the bill is supposed to be bad.

Jerry Manderbilt
May 31, 2012

gerrymandered the steak

So in the wake of the Baltimore Rebellion and the people concern trolling with feel-good platitudes where they invoke MLK Jr.'s name, I think we should assemble a compendium of his quotes. Here's what I have so far:

From his address at Grosse Pointe High School in suburban Detroit, March 14, 1968:

quote:

But it is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the negro poor has worsened over the last twelve or fifteen years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice and humanity.

quote:

The first thing I would like to mention is that there must be a recognition on the part of everybody in this nation that America is still a racist country. Now however unpleasant that sounds, it is the truth. And we will never solve the problem of racism until there is a recognition of the fact that racism still stands at the center of so much of our nation and we must see racism for what it is. It is the nymph of an inferior people. It is the notion that one group has all of the knowledge, all of the insights, all of the purity, all of the work, all of the dignity. And another group is worthless, on a lower level of humanity, inferior.

quote:

Secondly, we've got to get rid of two or three myths that still pervade our nation. One is the myth of time. I'm sure you've heard this notion. It is the notion that only time can solve the problem of racial injustice. And I've heard it from many sincere people. They've said to the negro and/to his allies in the white community you should slow up, you're pushing things too fast, only time can solve the problem. And if you'll just be nice and patient and continue to pray, in a hundred or two hundred years the problem will work itself out. There is an answer to that myth. It is the time is neutral. It can be used either constructively or destructively. And I'm sad to say to you tonight I'm absolutely convinced that the forces of ill will in our nation, the forces on the wrong side in our nation, the extreme righteous of our nation have often used time much more effectively than the forces of good will and it may well be that we may have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words of the bad people who will say bad things in a meeting like this or who will bomb a church in Birmingham, Alabama, but for the appalling silence and indifference of the good people who sit around and say wait on time. Somewhere we must come to see that human progress never rolls in on the wheels of inevitability, it comes through the tireless efforts and the persistent work of dedicated individuals who are willing to be co-workers with God and without this hard work time itself becomes an ally of the primitive forces of social stagnation. And so we must always help time and realize that the time is always right to do right.

quote:

Now there is another myth and that is the notion that legislation can't solve the problem that you've got to change the heart and naturally I believe in changing the heart. I happen to be a Baptist preacher and that puts me in the heart changing business and Sunday after Sunday I'm preaching about conversion and the need for the new birth and re-generation. I believe that there's something wrong with human nature. I believe in original sin not in terms of the historical event but as the mythological category to explain the universality of evil, so I'm honest enough to see the gone-wrongness of human nature so naturally I'm not against changing the heart and I do feel that that is the half truth involved here, that there is some truth in the whole question of changing the heart. We are not going to have the kind of society that we should have until the white person treats the negro right - not because the law says it but because it's natural because it's right and because the black man is the white man's brother. I'll be the first to say that we will never have a truly integrated society, a truly colorless society until men and women are obedient to the unenforceable. But after saying that, let me point out the other side. It may be true that morality cannot be legislated, but behavior can be regulated. It may be true that the law cannot change the heart but it can restrain the heartless. It may be true that the law can't make a man love me, but it can restrain him from lynching me, and I think that's pretty important also.

quote:

And so while legislation may not change the hearts of men, it does change the habits of men when it's vigorously enforced and when you change the habits of people pretty soon attitudes begin to be changed and people begin to see that they can do things that fears caused them to feel that they could never do. And I say that there's a need still for strong civil rights legislation in various areas. There's legislation in Congress right now dealing with the whole question of housing and equal administration of justice and these things are very important for I submit to you tonight that there is no more dangerous development in our nation than the constant building up of predominantly negro central cities ringed by white suburbs. This will do nothing but invite social disaster. And this problem has to be dealt with - some through legislation, some through education, but it has to be dealt with in a very concrete and meaningful manner.

From Letter from a Birmingham Jail:

quote:

You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. The purpose of our direct action program is to create a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in monologue rather than dialogue.

quote:

We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."

quote:

I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season."

Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

quote:

In your statement you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn't this like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery? Isn't this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical inquiries precipitated the act by the misguided populace in which they made him drink hemlock? Isn't this like condemning Jesus because his unique God consciousness and never ceasing devotion to God's will precipitated the evil act of crucifixion? We must come to see that, as the federal courts have consistently affirmed, it is wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest may precipitate violence. Society must protect the robbed and punish the robber.

quote:

Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever. The yearning for freedom eventually manifests itself, and that is what has happened to the American Negro. Something within has reminded him of his birthright of freedom, and something without has reminded him that it can be gained. Consciously or unconsciously, he has been caught up by the Zeitgeist, and with his black brothers of Africa and his brown and yellow brothers of Asia, South America and the Caribbean, the United States Negro is moving with a sense of great urgency toward the promised land of racial justice. If one recognizes this vital urge that has engulfed the Negro community, one should readily understand why public demonstrations are taking place. The Negro has many pent up resentments and latent frustrations, and he must release them. So let him march; let him make prayer pilgrimages to the city hall; let him go on freedom rides -and try to understand why he must do so. If his repressed emotions are not released in nonviolent ways, they will seek expression through violence; this is not a threat but a fact of history.

quote:

I have tried to say that this normal and healthy discontent can be channeled into the creative outlet of nonviolent direct action. And now this approach is being termed extremist. But though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label. Was not Jesus an extremist for love: "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." Was not Amos an extremist for justice: "Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever flowing stream." Was not Paul an extremist for the Christian gospel: "I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus." Was not Martin Luther an extremist: "Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise, so help me God." And John Bunyan: "I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a butchery of my conscience." And Abraham Lincoln: "This nation cannot survive half slave and half free." And Thomas Jefferson: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal . . ." So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice? In that dramatic scene on Calvary's hill three men were crucified. We must never forget that all three were crucified for the same crime--the crime of extremism. Two were extremists for immorality, and thus fell below their environment. The other, Jesus Christ, was an extremist for love, truth and goodness, and thereby rose above his environment. Perhaps the South, the nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists.

From a speech to the APA in 1967:

quote:

Urban riots must now be recognized as durable social phenomena. They may be deplored, but they are there and should be understood. Urban riots are a special form of violence. They are not insurrections. The rioters are not seeking to seize territory or to attain control of institutions. They are mainly intended to shock the white community. They are a distorted form of social protest. The looting which is their principal feature serves many functions. It enables the most enraged and deprived Negro to take hold of consumer goods with the ease the white man does by using his purse. Often the Negro does not even want what he takes; he wants the experience of taking. But most of all, alienated from society and knowing that this society cherishes property above people, he is shocking it by abusing property rights. There are thus elements of emotional catharsis in the violent act. This may explain why most cities in which riots have occurred have not had a repetition, even though the causative conditions remain. It is also noteworthy that the amount of physical harm done to white people other than police is infinitesimal and in Detroit whites and Negroes looted in unity.

quote:

A profound judgment of today's riots was expressed by Victor Hugo a century ago. He said, 'If a soul is left in the darkness, sins will be committed. The guilty one is not he who commits the sin, but he who causes the darkness.'

The policymakers of the white society have caused the darkness; they create discrimination; they structured slums; and they perpetuate unemployment, ignorance and poverty. It is incontestable and deplorable that Negroes have committed crimes; but they are derivative crimes. They are born of the greater crimes of the white society. When we ask Negroes to abide by the law, let us also demand that the white man abide by law in the ghettos. Day-in and day-out he violates welfare laws to deprive the poor of their meager allotments; he flagrantly violates building codes and regulations; his police make a mockery of law; and he violates laws on equal employment and education and the provisions for civic services. The slums are the handiwork of a vicious system of the white society; Negroes live in them but do not make them any more than a prisoner makes a prison. Let us say boldly that if the violations of law by the white man in the slums over the years were calculated and compared with the law-breaking of a few days of riots, the hardened criminal would be the white man. These are often difficult things to say but I have come to see more and more that it is necessary to utter the truth in order to deal with the great problems that we face in our society.

From his I Have A Dream speech itself:

quote:

There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, “When will you be satisfied?” We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality.

Jerry Manderbilt fucked around with this message at Jan 7, 2016 around 19:03

FISHMANPET
Mar 3, 2007

Sweet 'N Sour
Can't
Melt
Steel Beams


Jesus. The more things the change, the more they stay exactly the loving same.

Jerry Manderbilt
May 31, 2012

gerrymandered the steak

Added more stuff from his speech where he said "A riot is the language of the unheard." If anyone else has quotes, please post!

icantfindaname
Jul 1, 2008



If you watch TV and radio interviews with MLK from the 1960s it's amazing how much the attitudes of the interviewers towards the Civil Rights movement mirror the attitudes of people towards the protestors today. It's pretty much 100% bitching that the blacks aren't satisfied with the tiny concessions they've already been given and why won't you just shut up, go away and leave us poor white middle class folks alone ??????

icantfindaname fucked around with this message at Apr 30, 2015 around 21:47

Jerry Manderbilt
May 31, 2012

gerrymandered the steak

icantfindaname posted:

If you watch TV and radio interviews with MLK from the 1960s it's amazing how much the attitudes of the interviewers towards the Civil Rights movement mirror the attitudes of people towards the protestors today. It's pretty much 100% bitching that the blacks aren't satisfied with the tiny concessions they've already been given and why won't you just shut up, go away and leave us poor white middle class folks alone ??????

I wonder if white folks back then cited, say, Frederick Douglass the same way white folks (and some Asians) today invoke MLK's name to tut tut #BlackLivesMatter protesters.

I actually cited a MLK quote at some idiot Korean frat boy giving a useless platitude about how "violence is never the answer, I think we can all learn things from Dr. King and Gandhi". Boy, he got really mad at me and told me he didn't like my attitude. Implication about what he really feels about MLK being...

Zeitgueist
Aug 8, 2003

by Ralp


icantfindaname posted:

If you watch TV and radio interviews with MLK from the 1960s it's amazing how much the attitudes of the interviewers towards the Civil Rights movement mirror the attitudes of people towards the protestors today. It's pretty much 100% bitching that the blacks aren't satisfied with the tiny concessions they've already been given and why won't you just shut up, go away and leave us poor white middle class folks alone ??????

Yeh I've commented this several times, but surprise bigoted white nerds dont' know or care to know the history of civil rights before using them as a bludgeon to silence minority voices in the same way their grandparents did

i had a dude tell me that there were no riots during civil rights protests in the 60's the other day in response to a literal quote from MLK on rioting

Jerry Manderbilt
May 31, 2012

gerrymandered the steak

Zeitgueist posted:

Yeh I've commented this several times, but surprise bigoted white nerds dont' know or care to know the history of civil rights before using them as a bludgeon to silence minority voices in the same way their grandparents did

i had a dude tell me that there were no riots during civil rights protests in the 60's the other day in response to a literal quote from MLK on rioting

Something tells me he wouldn't care much for "peaceful" protests either and wouldn't have given two shits about how protesters like John Lewis nearly got beaten to death anyway.

FISHMANPET
Mar 3, 2007

Sweet 'N Sour
Can't
Melt
Steel Beams


So I'm a member on a local forum slash actual meatspace community. There's a particular poster there who I have trouble dealing with. I know he's a real person as people have met him, he actually believes the arguments he makes and positions he holds, he's not a troll, etc etc.

He's a grown man with a wife and child, but he seems to approach the world with the wide-eyed wonder of a child. He takes everything that everybody says at 100% face value, which is a problem when often the issues we discuss involve the sincerity of the statements made by people in the public eye. He has absolutely no grasp of nuance.

As an example, we were having a discussion about housing prices in NYC and preventing the uber rich from buying apartments and leaving them empty. Basically, I made the point that banning something like that is silly because the rich are gonna figure out a way to do what they want, and we should just tax "it" somehow (and I'm not posting this because of the content, I'm just trying to give you an idea of his reactions to things).

FISHMANPET posted:

I mean, short of full communism I'm just not sure there's anything you can actually do to keep the rich from getting what they want.
After some other posts I follow up with this

FISHMANPET posted:

I think trying to put hard limits in place via laws often just ends up shifting things around. The free market is smarter and more nimble than laws are. Look at CAFE standards and how it changed the cars that were built. The letter of the law was followed but the spirit was not. The free market decided that working around the rules was more profitable than just complying with the spirit of the law. If instead of complex CAFE standards, gas was just taxed more heavily, there may have been a different shift in vehicle production towards more fuel efficient vehicles, rather than just inventing vehicles to fit into a category that had less stringent standards.
Finally he responds:

quote:

Bullshit. First, the "free market" doesn't think and second, the free market isn't omnipotent and isn't God. The worship of the "free market" is what got us into the mess we're in.
Me again:

FISHMANPET posted:

Realizing that people respond to incentives doesn't mean worship of the free market, it's just a realistic evaluation of how people interact with rules and regulations around them.

There's no omnipotent singular "free market" yet somehow almost every car maker is selling minivans and SUVs and almost nobody is making station wagons.
And finally him again, this is actually 2 posts because he can't have 2 consective thoughts in a single post, but whatever. He's replying to two specific statements I made but you can probably figure it out

quote:

The "free market" is not "smarter" than laws because neither one thinks!

Honestly, this idea of the invisible hand is very dangerous. The "free market" is not a benevolent being out to do us good. It has in many, many, many ways done exactly the opposite.

Your outlook is not unlike those who think evolution has a "goal."

And that's somehow good for us? I'd rather have the station wagons.

The ultimate goal is to do things that are good for us, right? Making money is a side-effect. The fact that we have this backward in our society is a large part of what ills us.

So a few things. He can't figure out that when someone says "the free market" or "the government" or "rules and regulations" that of course these abstract entities aren't actual people, but they are helmed by real people. And I mentioned how CAFE standards caused the rise of "small trucks" especially SUVs and minivans as a side effect of trying to regulate instead of tax, and he somehow took that as me endorsing the rise of the minivan. If you look at the spectrum of American politics, him and I are basically at identical points at the far left. Where we differ is basically quibbling. In this case he thinks we should explicitly outlaw Pied-à-terres for the uber rich, and I think that while that's a desirable outcome, we're way better off just taxing the bad thing rather than outright banning it.

Anyway I ended with this and he never responded to it:

FISHMANPET posted:

I agree that I'd rather have the station wagons. But because CAFE standards are they way they are, car makers build minivans instead of station wagons. That's the outcome of the laws setting hard limits. Maybe we'd have different outcomes if we just applied gas taxes instead.

And saying that laws and the free market don't think is just being pointlessly pedantic. The actors that comprise the "free market" are more crafty (maybe smarter wasn't the best word) and more nimble than the people and process that comprise the "law." I'm sure the writers of CAFE standards didn't intend to destroy the station wagon and bring about the minivan and the suv, but it happened. It was an unexpected outcome. I'm sure the intention was for cars and trucks to become more fuel efficient but to hold them to different standards because they're different, but the outcome was that instead we got more "trucks" and fewer "cars."

So laws can be created with the best of intentions, but the "free market" (in the car case, auto makers, in the NYC case, the global elite) follows the letter of the law, not the spirit of the law. So is it possible to wrote a law that let's some people do a thing but not let other people do a thing, and somehow have all the desired people able to do the thing and the rest not able to do the thing? I'm not so sure it is, at least not in our country's current economic system. At the very least, to do it would be so burdensome on enforcers and good actors that the "loss" from enforcing the law would outweigh the benefits it's desired to create.

Just tax the drat things, it's way easier.

I don't know if any of this even makes any sense to anyone that hasn't read each of our thousands of posts on the particular forum, but I just don't know how to interact with this guy.

Jerry Manderbilt
May 31, 2012

gerrymandered the steak

Added two more quotes by MLK on riots to my megapost.

Buried alive
Jun 8, 2009



I..can't make heads or tails of what you two are actually arguing about. I mean, your stance seems to be something like "Regulation is ineffective because the market can work around it," with 'the market' being used as a loose substitute for private actors with lots of resources. Since regulation is ineffective, tax the hell out of things instead.

His stance seems to be something like, "You are mischaracterizing what a market is and markets aren't all that great anyway," but you aren't coming out as 'let the free market reign supreme!' so you both seem to be talking past each other. I mean..I'd ask him what he thinks you think of markets as a starting point.

Also your stance needs some nuance or it's just self-defeating. If markets are good at getting around regulation, we can't just tax stuff because taxes are also regulations. You'll have to say what's so great about taxing stuff that it's likely it will work when other forms of regulation won't. Unless you've already done that and just didn't bring it up here in which case, well, there you go.

I also have a question myself for the thread. This came across my FB: http://www.tatoott1009.com/ linked to a page about how the first person in America to own slaves was black, about how white people raiding Africa for slaves was largely a myth and really it was a lot of Africans who were responsible by taking local captive and then selling them to white traders and even so slavery wasn't all that bad because there were a lot of harshly enforced regulations on how slaves could be treated and here's this example of a bunch of white people actually getting mad at a white person and burning her mansion to the ground on account of her abusing her slaves so badly and did you know that about 1/3 of all lynchings were done to white people and on, and on and on. Then I dug a little bit and it seems like he's some kind of general conspiracy Alex Jones type and on the page where he has all this 'real history of slavery' narrative going on he links to someone else's page which BLAMES THE JEWS FOR SLAVERY AND DENIES THE HOLOCAUST. This person is actually a fairly decent acquaintance of mine and we both belong to the same club so I need to interact with this person in the future, so...wtf am I supposed to even make of this? The only thing I've done so far is ask if he actually read what he posted at all. I've never even heard the 'Well if not for AFRICA, then AFRICA wouldn't have suffered so hard during the slave trade era,' before so right now I'm just all kinds of and I hope that bit of rambling made some sense. I'm going to go play some Dark Souls 2 now.

Buried alive fucked around with this message at May 2, 2015 around 02:32

FISHMANPET
Mar 3, 2007

Sweet 'N Sour
Can't
Melt
Steel Beams


Buried alive posted:

I..can't make heads or tails of what you two are actually arguing about. I mean, your stance seems to be something like "Regulation is ineffective because the market can work around it," with 'the market' being used as a loose substitute for private actors with lots of resources. Since regulation is ineffective, tax the hell out of things instead.

His stance seems to be something like, "You are mischaracterizing what a market is and markets aren't all that great anyway," but you aren't coming out as 'let the free market reign supreme!' so you both seem to be talking past each other. I mean..I'd ask him what he thinks you think of markets as a starting point.

Also your stance needs some nuance or it's just self-defeating. If markets are good at getting around regulation, we can't just tax stuff because taxes are also regulations. You'll have to say what's so great about taxing stuff that it's likely it will work when other forms of regulation won't. Unless you've already done that and just didn't bring it up here in which case, well, there you go.

Yeah, basically my stance was tax it to the point where either NYC is no longer a good place for the global elite to park their capital (the premise being that the global elite are buying expensive units and leaving them empty). That's not good for housing affordability because we should build units that people live in (and the poor aren't going to live these units but the global elite are displacing local 100 millionaires who now are buying slightly less nice apartments displacing regular millionaires etc etc). His stance was just make it illegal to buy an apartment and not live in it, which I said is reaaaaalllllly difficult to enforce. A tax would be easier to implement (kick up the property taxes to insane rates if the value is absolute $50 million or whatever) and it either makes these uber units no longer be profitable so they aren't built and bought by the global elite, or it still makes financial sense to build and buy them, but the city gets a huge pile of money for affordable housing. There was quite a bit I cut out of mine and also other people chiming in. And I made the analogy of CAFE standards having consequences that were unintended. The goal was to lower emissions but it ended up in many ways creating a market for larger vehicles that are less fuel efficient. I think a smarter move would have been higher fuel taxes, perhaps even setting a price floor on gas, and let the market react to that. But anyway I feel pretty sound on my argument there.

My problem is with him specifically. And that sounds rude, but there's a group of like 10ish of us that know each other in real life and some of us have actually met this guy but we've basically all came to the conclusion that he's... off somehow. Which I guess is what I was trying to express. Like I said, it's hard to convey without dumping the thousands of posts of him and other people engaging with him. But I always come back to my analogy about losing station wagons, and all I can think is "He read all that, and somehow he got out of it that I'm glad there aren't station wagons anymore?" He just aproaches everything with this incredible naievete, and has absolutely no ability to grasp nuance or subtlty or be able to read between the lines or anything. He takes everything you say at absolute face value. Most discussions involve people talking past each other because he can't really properly engage with anyone. He has a wife and kids, a good engineering job, is active in the community (and this can all be independently verified), etc etc. He is for all intents and purposes a fully functional adult. Yet he seems to have a very poor grasp on communication.

Mostly I'm here to vent, but also I'm hoping there's some small chance that there's some DSM listed condition called bad-internet-debater-itis, and/or some help engaging with him.

Buried alive
Jun 8, 2009


FISHMANPET posted:

Yeah, basically my stance was tax it to the point where either NYC is no longer a good place for the global elite to park their capital (the premise being that the global elite are buying expensive units and leaving them empty). That's not good for housing affordability because we should build units that people live in (and the poor aren't going to live these units but the global elite are displacing local 100 millionaires who now are buying slightly less nice apartments displacing regular millionaires etc etc). His stance was just make it illegal to buy an apartment and not live in it, which I said is reaaaaalllllly difficult to enforce. A tax would be easier to implement (kick up the property taxes to insane rates if the value is absolute $50 million or whatever) and it either makes these uber units no longer be profitable so they aren't built and bought by the global elite, or it still makes financial sense to build and buy them, but the city gets a huge pile of money for affordable housing. There was quite a bit I cut out of mine and also other people chiming in. And I made the analogy of CAFE standards having consequences that were unintended. The goal was to lower emissions but it ended up in many ways creating a market for larger vehicles that are less fuel efficient. I think a smarter move would have been higher fuel taxes, perhaps even setting a price floor on gas, and let the market react to that. But anyway I feel pretty sound on my argument there.

My problem is with him specifically. And that sounds rude, but there's a group of like 10ish of us that know each other in real life and some of us have actually met this guy but we've basically all came to the conclusion that he's... off somehow. Which I guess is what I was trying to express. Like I said, it's hard to convey without dumping the thousands of posts of him and other people engaging with him. But I always come back to my analogy about losing station wagons, and all I can think is "He read all that, and somehow he got out of it that I'm glad there aren't station wagons anymore?" He just aproaches everything with this incredible naievete, and has absolutely no ability to grasp nuance or subtlty or be able to read between the lines or anything. He takes everything you say at absolute face value. Most discussions involve people talking past each other because he can't really properly engage with anyone. He has a wife and kids, a good engineering job, is active in the community (and this can all be independently verified), etc etc. He is for all intents and purposes a fully functional adult. Yet he seems to have a very poor grasp on communication.

Mostly I'm here to vent, but also I'm hoping there's some small chance that there's some DSM listed condition called bad-internet-debater-itis, and/or some help engaging with him.

I know it's stereotyping as all hell, but this kind of jumped out of me. If he's used to dealing with hard data, but not the interpretation of it, he just straight up might not be used to dealing with nuance. To spin off of an example from a blog (less wrong, I think) there's a huge difference between "It has been proven that P is unprovable" and "P has been proven false." Like, maybe you could try to get at the problem by having a discussion of Anscombe's quartet or something, but he might not really appreciate metaphors in which case the approach to use is probably to just use the absolute most precise and literal phrasing you can think of. Basically, pretend his understanding of concepts is about like Drax's from Guardians of the Galaxy.

Cognac McCarthy
Oct 5, 2008

It's a man's game, but boys will play


Jerry Manderbilt posted:

Added two more quotes by MLK on riots to my megapost.

Thanks for these, adding them to the OP.

tehllama
Apr 29, 2009

Hook, swing.

Has anyone made a succinct reply to why this (https://www.facebook.com/yourmajest...371014/?fref=nf) video making the rounds on facebook is profoundly racist garbage? I mean, it literally opens with "liberals are the real racists" and is your pretty standard line of white libertarian drivel, but someone in my circle of friends who usually isn't a complete loving moron shared it and I think she might listen to reasoned argument why liking it is pretty loving bad (and racist). I have a justice department report (http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cpp08.pdf) pointing out no, actually, the police are pretty racist as well as a decent Journalist Resource article (http://journalistsresource.org/stud...view-statistics) that aggregates a lot of facts. I also looked through the stuff in the OP specifically with regards to the disproportionate killing and use of force against black men, but I feel like I need a more targeted approach.

FISHMANPET
Mar 3, 2007

Sweet 'N Sour
Can't
Melt
Steel Beams


I watched about... a third of that? I mean what's the point? To be honest who cares if the symbol of the movement (hands up don't shoot) actually happened. Is it trying to make some kind of #AllLivesMatter point by saying police are awful in general instead of being awful to minorities specifically? Because that's a lovely point either way, "oh no it's fine guys cops are shitheads to EVERYONE not just black people you can go home now."

Cool Bear
Sep 2, 2012

Democrats have to decide if they love this country and choose if they want to put safety, security and diplomacy ahead of their own political games.

When you have a group that thinks all gay people deserve to be thrown off buildings, you have to swallow the red pill.


Let's look at the REALITY!!!

Blacks make up X% of our population.

Blacks get arrested, convicted, imprisoned, accused, for Y% of all bad things.

Is their Y% greater than their X%? Are they over-represented among crime statistics? Why is their race more there? Is it because all white men see black skin and think they are bad? Those white men would tell you that they only hate bad people, and that good black people are good, and bad white people are bad

and they would cruelly euthanize a bad white person just as soon as they would cruelly euthanize a bad black person.

Do black people do more bad things? Yes they do! Why? Why! I shout at my dad I shout at him that he must continue asking the question "why do they do the bad things!!! You must ask yourself dad!!! Is it because of their dna?! You cannot live in a world where you hate their DNA you cannot be like Hitler!!!!"

Volkerball
Oct 15, 2009


its because Y% of white people deserve to have crimes done on them, so more black people have to commit crimes because there are a lot more whites and not very many minoritys per capital to stab them

Cool Bear
Sep 2, 2012

Democrats have to decide if they love this country and choose if they want to put safety, security and diplomacy ahead of their own political games.

When you have a group that thinks all gay people deserve to be thrown off buildings, you have to swallow the red pill.


Volkerball posted:

its because Y% of white people deserve to have crimes done on them, so more black people have to commit crimes because there are a lot more whites and not very many minoritys per capital to stab them

*Stone face* Dad, I have done some research and I learned some things about race relations that I think will be interesting to you.

*Sarcastic smug cartoonish deliberate charicature smile* Oh yeah what's that son, I am really interested in what you learned from your internet friends?

*Monotone* Blacks commit more crimes more often because white people act like dumbasses more often. If the government outlawed several different ways of being a dumbass, then all races would be equally represented among the jail population

*Flabbergasted, falls backwards and burps drunkenly* I was wrong this whole time what have i done

Volkerball
Oct 15, 2009


the knowledge has been pooled

Cool Bear
Sep 2, 2012

Democrats have to decide if they love this country and choose if they want to put safety, security and diplomacy ahead of their own political games.

When you have a group that thinks all gay people deserve to be thrown off buildings, you have to swallow the red pill.


Volkerball posted:

the knowledge has been pooled

*Smug Dad shoving child face first into wall* Let's see what your internet friends have to say about this.

Why are blacks over-represented among the prison population? What should a liberal say when confronted with this reality?

We can say that something like "stop and frisk" causes people who have small amounts of decriminalized marijuana to be forced against their will to "display the drugs in public" and THEREBY be unlawfully charged with crimes far beyond anything they were actually guilty of.

We can say that someone with a frail little girly spinal cord SHOULD be allowed to immediately run away from the police if they make eye contact and feel the need to immediately run away from the police, but what if our Dad says "why was he running from the police!!!"

"Why did the child have a loaded weapon pointed at or near the police!?" GOOD QUESTION!!

Shame Boy
Mar 2, 2010

THE HORROR
THE HORROR



I think you should trade up for a better dad Cool Bear.

Volkerball
Oct 15, 2009


white people control the media, even BET, and so they make up the stories people follow. they only do stories on guys who its easy to argue against. like all they talk all about are guys who were shot when someone can just say "oh well he stole a candy bar and then was going to fight that cop" or "he was beating that man up, of course he shot a gun at him," and so those are the stories that white and black people talk about. the news dont talk about the people who didn't do anything to get shot though. the truth is that 93% of black people who get shot or killed are kids on the honor role who had their hands up and at their sides, and who didn't do something to get shot at by the man who also called them niggers four times first.

Cool Bear
Sep 2, 2012

Democrats have to decide if they love this country and choose if they want to put safety, security and diplomacy ahead of their own political games.

When you have a group that thinks all gay people deserve to be thrown off buildings, you have to swallow the red pill.


Volkerball posted:

white people control the media, even BET, and so they make up the stories people follow. they only do stories on guys who its easy to argue against. like all they talk all about are guys who were shot when someone can just say "oh well he stole a candy bar and then was going to fight that cop" or "he was beating that man up, of course he shot a gun at him," and so those are the stories that white and black people talk about. the news dont talk about the people who didn't do anything to get shot though. the truth is that 93% of black people who get shot or killed are kids on the honor role who had their hands up and at their sides, and who didn't do something to get shot at by the man who also called them niggers four times first.

The news will absolutely never help any information get anywhere. They are deliberately only trying to get whatever gets money for themselves, and that means showing stories which people want to see.

People must receive information from somewhere else besides their glowing box.

Maybe their glowing box can be forced to show them the real source of the problems. The real reasons why poor people do what they do. Someone can write a movie that really illustrates what it's like today to be a pissed off young minority who is smarter than everyone but who is filled with hatred and who very legitimately wants to do crimes.

It is common for movies to be written where the bad criminal Scarface gains sympathy with the audience. It is good to see the old white men whine and poop their diapeys when this happens I hate them. My dad is cool though, I think he is trolling me and my mom.

Accretionist
Nov 7, 2012



Any good articles on the origins of suicide bombings? I've got someone who I can probably get to read one article before he quits and who looks like he's simply internalized an Appeal to Ignorance of, "If not Islam, then what? Clearly still just Islam."

Cingulate
Oct 23, 2012



Accretionist posted:

Any good articles on the origins of suicide bombings? I've got someone who I can probably get to read one article before he quits and who looks like he's simply internalized an Appeal to Ignorance of, "If not Islam, then what? Clearly still just Islam."
Do you have any convictions here?

And is the question about Islam being a necessary precondition for suicide bombings (which is obviously silly), or of it being a sufficient condition?

Dr. Arbitrary
Mar 15, 2006



Bleak Gremlin

Accretionist posted:

Any good articles on the origins of suicide bombings? I've got someone who I can probably get to read one article before he quits and who looks like he's simply internalized an Appeal to Ignorance of, "If not Islam, then what? Clearly still just Islam."

I think the Tamil Tigers were among the first to use suicide vests and belts.

Accretionist
Nov 7, 2012



Cingulate posted:

Do you have any convictions here?

In a nutshell: The Sam Harris-style explanation is a 'just so' story about Islam which is about as falsifiable as astrology. He can believe it if he likes, but it's entirely unnecessary in the face of social, cultural and political factors which account for suicide attacks throughout history, including in the region today.

The problem on my end is that I haven't studied this; I've just seen various articles touching on the topic over the years. I'm not well equipped to deliver the developed, coherent alternative perspective that I think he'd find persuasive.

I'm also not sure how to address the perception of religion as an highly impactful and exogenous driver of behavior rather than something defined by its followers, the perception of varied individual motives as sufficient to account for group-level phenomena and the perception of Islam (globally) as a unitary entity.


quote:

And is the question about Islam being a necessary precondition for suicide bombings (which is obviously silly), or of it being a sufficient condition?

It's a bit nebulous. Islam is seen as both enabling and fomenting suicide attacks by way of providing a one-two punch of martyrdom in life and paradise in death.

Dr. Arbitrary posted:

I think the Tamil Tigers were among the first to use suicide vests and belts.

Special pleading takes care of that. He's talking about these suicide bombings right here, you see; the Islamic ones.


Edit: I'm thinking that this article might be the best I'll find.

Accretionist fucked around with this message at May 15, 2015 around 15:37

Cingulate
Oct 23, 2012



And you don't think that for any given islamist suicide bomber, their specific, individual religion is an important motive?

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Accretionist
Nov 7, 2012



Cingulate posted:

And you don't think that for any given islamist suicide bomber, their specific, individual religion is an important motive?

The point of contention here would be that that individual motive is a low-level factor which does not lend itself to evidencing and representing a unitary global Islam, does not explain suicide bombing and does not even fully account for the particular bombing in question.


To expand on my position a little, I'm inclined to see religion as defined/created by its followers in such a way that it's most often just after-the-fact veneer, and when talking about it, it's implicitly a shorthand reference for contextually defined factors.

For example, Christianity in the US as a political problem. This implicitly refers to extant cultural networks and institutions, political networks and institutions, certain demographic tranches, certain ideologies, certain swathes of politicos and media personalities, etc. The bulk of these things are non-transferable to other contexts and most of the remainder would take a lot of work to move. "Christianity," here is neither a reference to the bible nor a nebulous supposition as to what unitary nature to ascribe to the religion, globally.

Christianity-in-America and its, "burn the poor for fuel," types wouldn't be taken as representative of Christianity-in-Sweden or something.

But when Islam comes up? It's always, "A spectre is haunting Southwest Asia." Terrorists are just Muslims who Muslimed too hard and it's of a unitary nature and Islam by itself causes terrorism and so on. It's just way, way oversimple. Religion can be a factor, but not like this.

Feel free to jump on any problems you see!

Accretionist fucked around with this message at May 15, 2015 around 16:16

  • Locked thread
«151 »