|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-judge-rules-for-house-republicans-in-health-care-case-1463074018
So, let me get this straight. I think I have a handle on what's going on here, in a broad sense.
In 2010, the ACA was passed. Part of that included a section about reduction of costs to the poorest of the people covered in the plan. While not as good as using a single payer system, it is better than turning people away from care they need or saddling them with debt they will never be able to repay. To do this, either you have to raise prices across the board to raise funding necessary to offset the lower costs for the people who are covered and cannot afford it, or you need to have outside funding, such as subsidies from the government. Subsidies from the government were there from day 1 to accomplish this goal.
Congress has not appropriated money directly towards these subsidies from 2014 and on, however, congress did initially approve the law that infers appropriations are required, and did appropriate money prior to that for these subsidies. Why? Because the law doesn't actually require them to do so. It says that insurers must reduce prices for these people, but does not specify how to do it.
So, because the law states that insurers are required to lower the costs for the poorest, but does not actually specify that congress is required to appropriate funding towards subsidies to accomplish this goal, congress has stopped funding these subsidies, and the courts have just sided with them on this.
Instead of using a single payer system like the majority of the rest of the western world, which has shown to be more than capable of providing adequate care at much lower costs overall, and being much simpler than the giant bureaucratic mess that has been created, this mess was created to help gather enough republican support to get it passed in the first place (as a single payer system is such a dirty socialist thing and would never pass), and the rest of the republicans that do not like it are chipping away at it in every way they can to destabilize it, until it breaks and they can then blame Obama and the democrats on creating a failed experiment.....
Am I missing anything here?
|
On May 13 2016 17:45 RvB wrote:
Safe spaces are ridiculous and incredibly sad. It's censorship.
Testie is on the complete other side of the spectrum though and that's equally ridiculous. Bullying causes incredible suffering to people. In addition to that these people who are bullied impose a huge cost on society by both medical care and because a lot of them can never employ their capabilities to the fullest.
safe spaces are no answer to that though.
That's literally the opposite of the purpose of a safe space, and the misunderstanding of how a safe space theoretically should be used isn't surprising considering how frequently misused the term is.
"Advocates for Youth states on their website that a safe-space is: "A place where anyone can relax and be fully self-expressed, without fear of being made to feel uncomfortable, unwelcome or challenged on account of biological sex, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, cultural background, age, or physical or mental ability; a place where the rules guard each person's self-respect, dignity and feelings and strongly encourage everyone to respect others.[2]" ~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe-space
An ideal safe space is one where people can gather around with the understanding that everyone is speaking sincerely with a purity of motive, and in an effort to understand things they currently don't. This includes an acceptance of language and questions that may not be "politically correct", and there occurs an effort for a dialogue to clarify misconceptions. The listeners aren't to take offense at the candor of the speakers, and the speakers in turn should be looking for more information on a topic where they lack perspective.
For example, my school runs a very successful diversity and equity program, where anyone can sit in on a meeting, ask honest questions, and won't be shot down for asking them because the speaker is sincere in wanting clarity on an issue. The listeners aren't allowed to shut down a person for sounding offensive, as it's a learning experience for everyone. So hypothetically, let's say I didn't have a serious understanding of what being transgendered entails, and figured that they should just suck it up, but still wanted more perspective on the issue. I might sit in on this safe space, where I can sincerely ask "Why should transgendered people receive special treatment in regards to bathrooms? What's the big deal?" and we can have a dialogue (possibly with transgendered people or people with non-cis identities) where facts and other views are seriously being discussed. My intention is not to just mouth off in a tactless manner, and as such I'm striving for a better understanding of an issue... and it's understood by the other members of a successful safe space that I'm asking these questions because I'm curious and wish to sincerely learn, rather than just piss people off.
Another example: Every few months or so, I host a debate dinner with colleagues and friends and friends of friends. We always invite more and more people because we welcome diverse opinions, expertises, and perspectives, and we just sit around and eat, drink, and debate any topics or controversies we want to bring up (education, science, religion, politics, etc.). We agree that everyone's allowed to speak their mind and present their views, and we allow for formal debates and informal arguments to occur. We still require some level of evidence to be presented, but no one is afraid of ad hominem attacks or ostracism just because they have a minority viewpoint. We all end up learning a lot by the end of the night, and I feel like it epitomizes a successful safe space.
Unfortunately, we have some groups of people in this world who hijack the term and are crying persecution when stupid things like "Vote for Trump" are written in chalk on the sidewalk. That's not what a safe space is supposed to embody. A safe space is supposed to be a sincere open table discussion, not an opportunity to be offended or to censor someone. In theory, safe spaces are amazing; in practice, we see mixed results (although of course with media sensationalism, we hear about the absurd misuses more frequently than the successful ones).
|
The irony is that you need a safe space in college, which is by itself a safe space. SAFE space my god as if you live in Syria, give me a break, just call it a debate club.
I am triggered by the word safe space. Someone protect my feelings!
|
On May 13 2016 20:39 NukeD wrote:
The irony is that you need a safe space in college, which is by itself a safe space. SAFE space my god as if you live in Syria, give me a break, just call it a debate club.
I am triggered by the word safe space. Someone protect my feelings!
Any chance you're Sicilian? + Show Spoiler +
In all seriousness though, not every question about identity or social justice or equity is best exercised in a debate club; keep in mind that some debates care less about truth and more about the concept of successful argumentation as well.
And no one is mentioning Syria; to discount prejudice and persecution in one country because it's not as bad as in another country is an awful comparison.
|
The whole safe spaces are censorship debate amuses me because it simply amounts to moderated discussion with established rules. Apparently being told you have to wait your turn to talk and some topics off limits really offends some people.
|
So, to take a break from Testie's disgusting social darwinism/spencerism, here's a nice Op-Ed from Gen. Petraeus:
David Petraeus: Anti-Muslim bigotry aids Islamist terrorists
[...] I have grown increasingly concerned about inflammatory political discourse that has become far too common both at home and abroad against Muslims and Islam, including proposals from various quarters for blanket discrimination against people on the basis of their religion.
Some justify these measures as necessary to keep us safe — dismissing any criticism as “political correctness.” Others play down such divisive rhetoric as the excesses of political campaigns here and in Europe, which will fade away after the elections are over.
I fear that neither is true; in fact, the ramifications of such rhetoric could be very harmful — and lasting.
As policy, these concepts are totally counterproductive: Rather than making our country safer, they will compound the already grave terrorist danger to our citizens. As ideas, they are toxic and, indeed, non-biodegradable — a kind of poison that, once released into our body politic, is not easily expunged.
Setting aside moral considerations, those who flirt with hate speech against Muslims should realize they are playing directly into the hands of al-Qaeda and the Islamic State. The terrorists’ explicit hope has been to try to provoke a clash of civilizations — telling Muslims that the United States is at war with them and their religion. When Western politicians propose blanket discrimination against Islam, they bolster the terrorists’ propaganda.
At the same time, such statements directly undermine our ability to defeat Islamist extremists by alienating and undermining the allies whose help we most need to win this fight: namely, Muslims. [...]
Source
|
On May 13 2016 21:56 Plansix wrote:
The whole safe spaces are censorship debate amuses me because it simply amounts to moderated discussion with established rules. Apparently being told you have to wait your turn to talk and some topics off limits really offends some people.
Agreed; it's also astonishing to me how the persecutors play the victim card because they're merely asked to be more tactful or empathetic, whereas the actual victims are told to "suck it up". And then people roll their eyes when the concept of "social privilege" comes up. Sigh.
|
This reminds me of when my high school proffesor talked about why roman empire evetually fell apart. It was not because of an outside source but from the inside. The empire was too diversified, had to many different ethniticities that eventually Roman identity faded and the empire naturally dwindled to a point where one man could march in it and declare it ceases to exist. On the other hand acording to historians, Romans giving counquered nations a lot of their freedoms is in their opinion what enabled the empire to last over a thousand years. So how much of this is true I have no idea, I got it from my history teacher but it is kind of relevant to what is happening today. I see no problem with a culture and a nation defending its own values and demanding immigrants to inherit those values if they wish to live or benefit of that country.
|
First off, getting banned for being a "tactless jerk" and simply putting a worldview out there? Really? It's not even necessarily mine. I've been bullied plenty, even by the staff on this site publicly shaming me. They thought it was a great idea at the time, and I can't deny that what they wrote wasn't accurate or funny.
I didn't say I subscribed to the worldview, I said it most certainly exists. I said it exists and many of you jumped at how offensive that worldview was to you. I've seen even worse and more disgusting worldviews than that. Hell, you can see entire countries with worse worldviews than that.
There are plenty of stupid rich kids I've met that are surprisingly anarchists. The fact that they were born rich and somehow think anarchy is a good idea just shows how spoiled they are. "Your father and mother worked all their life to be successful and somehow you think undoing that with anarchy is a good idea?" Their opinion needs to be degraded and shamed and challenged at every turn. May the best challenge each other, and may the best ideas win. That many people see us as what we are, an extension of the animal kingdom who've evolved throughout the years we still have animal instincts in us. We just have the ability to overcome them on many levels.
It may surprise you, but there's worse worldviews than social Darwinism. There are many benefits to infighting, bullying, competition (not in the perceived everyone gangs up on the autistic kid in school and bullies him kind of way) but people bullying each other. Is there a better way to go about it? Maybe. But there's also great benefits to these things where you mold strong people who've been challenged constantly. And those people have evolved and grown and gotten skill sets that help them thrive.
|
On May 13 2016 22:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2016 21:56 Plansix wrote:
The whole safe spaces are censorship debate amuses me because it simply amounts to moderated discussion with established rules. Apparently being told you have to wait your turn to talk and some topics off limits really offends some people. Agreed; it's also astonishing to me how the persecutors play the victim card because they're merely asked to be more tactful or empathetic, whereas the actual victims are told to "suck it up". And then people roll their eyes when the concept of "social privilege" comes up. Sigh.
The entire world of academic debate and discussion is based around consensus terms and topics, along with healthy moderation. There is no way to dig deep into a specific topic if anyone is allowed to pull in any point that want and force the discussion to be about that. Or if the moderator couldn’t instantly shoot down someone trying to bring back previously discussed talking points.
But apparently the dinner table is the land of censorship now, because of that old saying that you don’t talk about politics or religion there.
Edit: and we have arrived, with claims of shaming and oppression for having an “opinion”. Because apparently just calling the totally unoriginal and well debated idea of social Darwinism shit is this high level version of bullying. Because someone disagreeing with you is bullying.
|
On May 13 2016 21:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2016 20:39 NukeD wrote:
The irony is that you need a safe space in college, which is by itself a safe space. SAFE space my god as if you live in Syria, give me a break, just call it a debate club.
I am triggered by the word safe space. Someone protect my feelings! Any chance you're Sicilian? + Show Spoiler + In all seriousness though, not every question about identity or social justice or equity is best exercised in a debate club; keep in mind that some debates care less about truth and more about the concept of successful argumentation as well. And no one is mentioning Syria; to discount prejudice and persecution in one country because it's not as bad as in another country is an awful comparison.
Hahaha true, I went overboard with that word. Just as I repeated it in my head i got gradually more anoyed with it.
The problem with that word for me is that it implies that it is unsafe to discuss those things elsewhere which is just not true.
|
https://www.yahoo.com/news/fearing-trump-democrats-pressure-sanders-exit-074218940--election.html
Sanders would then become head budget commission as compensation.
To soon!
The democratic establishment "they just don't get it" as the americans like to say.
Think the sanders supporters,or sandinistas as some people like to call them are not ready yet to embrace Clinton.
Far from actually,the recent wins have given them new hope and energy.
I also think sanders can shoot for more seeing the huge amount of support he clearly has,he could and should go for vp alongside Clinton, still the best option overall for the democrats in my opinion.
But to now try force sanders out and claim all his supporters for Clinton,that just wont work.
It is to soon and it will backfire,leading to more resistance to the establishment.
Off course they have to unite rather sooner then later, but this is to soon and the compensation sanders will get is to little.
Game on
|
On May 13 2016 22:47 NukeD wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2016 21:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 13 2016 20:39 NukeD wrote:
The irony is that you need a safe space in college, which is by itself a safe space. SAFE space my god as if you live in Syria, give me a break, just call it a debate club.
I am triggered by the word safe space. Someone protect my feelings! Any chance you're Sicilian? + Show Spoiler + In all seriousness though, not every question about identity or social justice or equity is best exercised in a debate club; keep in mind that some debates care less about truth and more about the concept of successful argumentation as well. And no one is mentioning Syria; to discount prejudice and persecution in one country because it's not as bad as in another country is an awful comparison. Hahaha true, I went overboard with that word. Just as I repeated it in my head i got gradually more anoyed with it. The problem with that word for me is that it implies that it is unsafe to discuss those things elsewhere which is just not true.
Yeah, I think that that's a testament to the hijacking of the term for less-than-noble purposes, unfortunately.
|
On May 13 2016 23:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2016 22:47 NukeD wrote:On May 13 2016 21:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 13 2016 20:39 NukeD wrote:
The irony is that you need a safe space in college, which is by itself a safe space. SAFE space my god as if you live in Syria, give me a break, just call it a debate club.
I am triggered by the word safe space. Someone protect my feelings! Any chance you're Sicilian? + Show Spoiler + In all seriousness though, not every question about identity or social justice or equity is best exercised in a debate club; keep in mind that some debates care less about truth and more about the concept of successful argumentation as well. And no one is mentioning Syria; to discount prejudice and persecution in one country because it's not as bad as in another country is an awful comparison. Hahaha true, I went overboard with that word. Just as I repeated it in my head i got gradually more anoyed with it. The problem with that word for me is that it implies that it is unsafe to discuss those things elsewhere which is just not true. Yeah, I think that that's a testament to the hijacking of the term for less-than-noble purposes, unfortunately.
Hijacking terms to create strawman arguments against them is the nature of the modern internet. Much like the term triggered or anything else. People find a couple examples of bad actors using the word and then create this elaborate narrative around how it is used. Outrage culture at its finest.
http://www.fastcoexist.com/3059742/social-network-algorithms-are-distorting-reality-by-boosting-conspiracy-theories
It goes beyond that with social media, where a lot of the least factual information is filtered to the top and shown to everyone. So even if you want to try and become informed on something like “safe spaces” any effort to do so will require you to filter through a lot of bad information. And this has had real impacts on modern politics.
|
On May 13 2016 22:45 SK.Testie wrote:
First off, getting banned for being a "tactless jerk" and simply putting a worldview out there? Really? It's not even necessarily mine. I've been bullied plenty, even by the staff on this site publicly shaming me. They thought it was a great idea at the time, and I can't deny that what they wrote wasn't accurate or funny.
1. Not all bullying is accurate, and by definition, none of it is deserved and it shouldn't be seen as funny (or else it wouldn't be "bullying"). If you have two buddies making fun of each other, that's not bullying and there's a level of reciprocation and an implicit agreement between each other. If one person is ostracizing someone else for being different or physically attacking someone/ infringing upon their freedoms, then that's bullying. Bullying involves a bully and a victim, and a power differential at that.
2. You're not "simply putting a worldview out there" as if it were an innocent thought with no ramifications.
When you say things like: If you can't handle ignorant jerks, which will always exist, do you even deserve to live among the strong? then you're basically telling people who are depressed or feel inferior or bullied victims to just kill themselves, and suicide is a real problem. Maybe not for you, maybe not for me, but for some group of people because of the genetic or environmental hand they were dealt. And we shouldn't be overgeneralizing and saying "Well I got over it, so you should too."
|
Better for us to focus on developing thick skin than to tell others to be nice. Because we control one and not the other
|
The republicans,they will unite behind trump.
Within 1-2 weeks tops is my guess.
Americans like winners and they like winning. Trump my have lost a few times in his live but he has been an absolute winner in the primarys. He also gives the republicans the best change of gaining the presidency,a far better change then any other possible republican candidate.
The alternative is to break up the party wich would be disastrous in the long run. A very conservative right wing establishment party that will never be able to get more then 25% of the votes, And a populist right wing movement,wich support will depend on economic conditions and isues like immigration. This would concede the presidency to the democrats for at least a few terms. In other words,an absolute disaster.
A trump presidency would also by no means spell disaster. He will depend on his advisors,many of who will come from the establishment, he will also need the support of the house and senate on many isues. There is only so much a president can do wrong before other people with bureaurocratic power will intervene. The republican party could even afford to impeach trump when thing go very bad, and emerge as a moral winner who stepped in to stop things from going completely wrong. This would then also prevent a candidate similar to trump for a very long time,giving the establishment firm control again.
The republicans will unite behind trump,because it seems to be the only feasonable option.
Its a great game,one of the best irl.
|
On May 13 2016 23:23 biology]major wrote:
Better for us to focus on developing thick skin than to tell others to be nice. Because we control one and not the other
Better for us to focus on developing thick skin and teaching acceptance and showing compassion, because you're not the only one responsible for being a part of a community.
|
On May 13 2016 23:23 biology]major wrote:
Better for us to focus on developing thick skin than to tell others to be nice. Because we control one and not the other
FYI, a lot of people I know who advocate for safe spaces for discussions already have a strong thick skin. They are very good at dealing with asshole and jerks. My Muslim friends tolerate people saying shit I would never put up with, ever. The reason those rules exist is to boot assholes and say “you violated the rules and are holding back the discussion.” Often people who complain about safe spaces dislike being told they don’t add anything to the discussion and mostly detract from it.
And on the topic of think skin, I would say that people claiming they are being bullied by safe spaces should take their own advice. But from experience, there is nothing more thin skinned than someone on the internet telling people to toughen up.
|
Have you ever asked your Muslim friends directly why despite having all the information of the world at their fingertips that they subscribe to a horrible set of ideas? Ideas that desperately need to be challenged? They weren't born Muslim after all. They were programmed Muslim.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
