EPTHow you treat people you disagree with (and how you conceive of people you disagree with) is key to win any argument really and that's why the illiberal progressive left is losing this fight.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 6921
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
thePunGun
598 Posts
How you treat people you disagree with (and how you conceive of people you disagree with) is key to win any argument really and that's why the illiberal progressive left is losing this fight. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3261 Posts
On February 19 2017 08:06 LegalLord wrote: A few general points that must be fulfilled by an economic policy I would approve of: 1. A focus on developing a robust internal economy which is capable of surviving any global trade shocks. That is, the US doesn't need to be able to supply everything for itself at every point in time, but it should be such that if that were to be necessary, it would be able to do so. The US isn't a peasant nation with a lack of resources, but it certainly is one that can be remarkably short-sighted on ensuring that it is capable of producing everything it needs to. Ramping up production isn't particularly hard, but starting up a new industry is. To accomplish this goal, selective protectionism is a tool that could be worth using. 2. An emphasis on providing high-quality work to less skilled workers. The wealth of the US has not decreased - the country is wealthier than it was back when "everybody had a middle class income." The problem, on the one hand, is that a lot of the unskilled/semiskilled work is best done by robots or cheap slave labor rather than "middle class" Americans. But on the other hand, a lot of the time that's just an excuse for company owners to make more $$$. This doesn't mean that old jobs need to be preserved if it's just an illusion that the old factory jobs are coming back. But I do think that there should be deliberate effort - in the form of large infrastructure development - put towards ensuring that the communities in which the WWC "losers" live have plenty of high-quality, productive jobs. 3. Access to free education and healthcare for all, and a greater focus on providing practical training for semiskilled workers. An ability to be able to gain a quality education and deal with health issues without them leading to absurd debt traps is a necessity in the modern world. Both have ballooned into unsustainable generators of debt that make life terrible for all those involved and reduce the effective income of everyone. Easier to live on $30k/yr, no debt, than on $50k/yr with $200k debt. And there is absolutely no necessity for these programs to come with such a price tag, other than that governments feel the need to cut government spending. 4. An end to the H1-B and other forms of skilled slave labor. In its place, there should be a program that awards foreign skilled highly talented laborers the means to work in the US with the same legal rights as an American worker. If there is a dearth of such people available, then that requirement should not be a problem. And as a corollary, the education system especially at the graduate level should heavily favor local students over internationals and not be built as a cash cow for the universities (private universities excepted). 5. Fewer, or at least better-considered, free trade deals. As they are, free trade deals have a tendency to cripple less effective domestic industries in favor of foreign companies flooding the market. NAFTA for example killed Mexican farmers because of US food supply. If such scenarios cannot be prevented, then it's best just not to have them. That's a good simple summary of where I'd like economic policy to go. In the interest of narrowing the scope I'll I'll ignore points 1) and 4) because they don't really directly relate to helping the ailing working class. It's interesting thaf points 2) and 3) are basically what Democrats have said all along - social programs to help out the unemployed, education to bring them back into the work force in a more relevant industry. The problem generally is that "more high-quality, high-paying jobs for everyone" is hardly a goal anyone disagrees with, it's just not clear how to achieve it. Like, take a coal mining town. Sure, the kid from October Sky makes it out building rockets once in a while, but generally speaking you've got a lot of guys in dead-end mining jobs. The work sucks, there are horrible health problems associated with a life in the mines, but at least you can support your family. If that industry is dying, those jobs aren't gonna be there. So your 50+ year old miner is gonna, what, go back to school and become a civil engineer? Program an app that gets big on the app store? Start playing video games and streaming on Twitch? Because practically speaking, to get off of that system and integrate into a more modern economy, you're going to need some combination of a) the aptitude to get educated and learn another job, b) the youth and financial stability for it to make sense to spend years in education before you get a better job, and c) the willingness to move to where you can find jobs in your new industry. In all likelihood you'll need all three. In that context I get why a West Virginia miner would vote for politicians who will keep his dying industry on life support as long as possible. It's an increasingly irrelevant industry, and keeping it alive is a complete hair-of-the-dog solution, but the alternative is going to involve a lot of change, a lot of turmoil, and a lot of bitter pills you might have to swallow (going back to school, going on welfare, moving away from your home town, etc.). I know you're a bit of an environmentalist so I don't think the environmental cost to keeping that industry alive will escape you. How do you think the case could be made to those voters that modernizing the economy really would be better for them? | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5296 Posts
On February 19 2017 15:33 thePunGun wrote: i think there's a little more than that. You have to debate a troll like Milo and disarm him with reason and facts rather than censoring him. That's the main problem with the progressive left, they are intolerant towards anyone who doesn't share their beliefs. How you treat people you disagree with (and how you conceive of people you disagree with) is key to win any argument really and that's why the illiberal progressive left is losing this fight. the tools and means to hold a successful debate on things favors the progressive left and both sides know it. as such, the left starts from the get go with snobbery and elitism and the right rejects everything they have to say(they don't even listen) because their arguments are perceived as coming from fake science enforced by power(fake science = correlations with varying levels of freedom/interpretation pushed as causation by means of having power). the right is waiting for now, trying to push its correlations to causation level through power then debate. | ||
|
Slaughter
United States20254 Posts
On February 19 2017 15:33 thePunGun wrote: You have to debate a troll like Milo and disarm him with reason and facts rather than censoring him. That's the main problem with the progressive left, they are intolerant towards anyone who doesn't share their beliefs. How you treat people you disagree with (and how you conceive of people you disagree with) is key to win any argument really and that's why the illiberal progressive left is losing this fight. I don't know what they are losing against...people like Milo? He is a niche mouth piece grasping at as much notoriety as he can. I wouldn't consider the people who are fans of his or just agree heavily with him a large number. The thing about Milo is...he constructs really shallow arguments really only meant to appeal to people who already agree with him, like was mentioned before they don't really stand up under scrutiny. He uses these arguments combined with his charisma to please those people while doing his best to trigger those who disagree with him. He isn't going to convince anyone who isn't already in his corner. What he can do is play victim when things like Berkeley or his banning from twitter happen and get middle ground people going "omg mah free speech is under attack" even if its not. He is just a useful idiot for righties to use to upset people on the left then laugh to themselves about libtards getting triggered. Basically kind of what Maher does to the right except Maher doesn't parade himself as a journalist. | ||
|
Slaughter
United States20254 Posts
On February 19 2017 16:21 xM(Z wrote: i think there's a little more than that. the tools and means to hold a successful debate on things favors the progressive left and both sides know it. as such, the left starts from the get go with snobbery and elitism and the right rejects everything they have to say(they don't even listen) because their arguments are perceived as coming from fake science enforced by power(fake science = correlations with varying levels of freedom/interpretations pushed as causation by means of having power). the right is waiting for now, trying to push its correlations to causation level through power then debate. What are you going on about. | ||
|
Zealos
United Kingdom3576 Posts
On February 19 2017 15:33 thePunGun wrote: You have to debate a troll like Milo and disarm him with reason and facts rather than censoring him. That's the main problem with the progressive left, they are intolerant towards anyone who doesn't share their beliefs. How you treat people you disagree with (and how you conceive of people you disagree with) is key to win any argument really and that's why the illiberal progressive left is losing this fight. Who's this progressive left person you talk about? Sounds like s/he's not very open to debate? Just out of interest, should we be tolerant of any and all views? Regardless of how disgusting they may be? | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5296 Posts
| ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12365 Posts
On February 19 2017 16:21 xM(Z wrote: i think there's a little more than that. the tools and means to hold a successful debate on things favors the progressive left and both sides know it. That's an interesting idea, I'd like to dig a little deeper. Why do the tools favor us? | ||
|
thePunGun
598 Posts
On February 19 2017 16:32 Zealos wrote: Who's this progressive left person you talk about? Sounds like s/he's not very open to debate? Just out of interest, should we be tolerant of any and all views? Regardless of how disgusting they may be? Mainly social justice zealots, who'd rather punch people in the face or pepper spray them, than having a civilized debate. Aristotle once said that "any virtue taken to extreme produces a vice" and that's when ideas become ideologies. The foundation of civilization is tolerance and an open mind for others/their ideas. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On February 19 2017 16:05 ChristianS wrote: In the interest of narrowing the scope I'll I'll ignore points 1) and 4) because they don't really directly relate to helping the ailing working class. It's interesting thaf points 2) and 3) are basically what Democrats have said all along - social programs to help out the unemployed, education to bring them back into the work force in a more relevant industry. Yes, it doesn't escape my attention that my policies should mostly align with the Democrats. They do, however, lose me on their support for people like Hillary Clinton, who I find disgusting for what should be quite well-described reasons by now (only one I will mention, to avoid mentioning again, is blatant and unpleasant identity politics games). I could get behind certain establishment Democrats easily enough, but Clinton isn't one of them. And the more leftist ones like Sanders, I disagree with them on their more aggressive disdain for wealthy people. Because let's face it, people who do important things absolutely should become wealthy for it, and huge tax rates (>50%) do nothing towards that end. On February 19 2017 16:05 ChristianS wrote: The problem generally is that "more high-quality, high-paying jobs for everyone" is hardly a goal anyone disagrees with, it's just not clear how to achieve it. Not in ways that people would find painless, I'll tell you that much. It requires structural changes. On February 19 2017 16:05 ChristianS wrote: Like, take a coal mining town. Sure, the kid from October Sky makes it out building rockets once in a while, but generally speaking you've got a lot of guys in dead-end mining jobs. The work sucks, there are horrible health problems associated with a life in the mines, but at least you can support your family. If that industry is dying, those jobs aren't gonna be there. So your 50+ year old miner is gonna, what, go back to school and become a civil engineer? Program an app that gets big on the app store? Start playing video games and streaming on Twitch? That's not even the full story. The other side of it is that, even if some kids go to college and make it out, they're going to leave their small town and move elsewhere. And that is, to some extent, inevitable. People have to move to find work once in a while, and modern advances in transportation make that a more acceptable proposition (it's no longer "say goodbye to your family forever" anymore). But the way it is nowadays, people tend to be forced into a few key cities unless they want to have zero choices for jobs. And megacity life... well, it's not everyone's cup of tea. Let's just say some people aspire to more than just living in a 1-bedroom apartment (with $4k rent) and having every single disincentive to have a family, hobbies, etc. Nor is it a good thing for that to be the norm for any number of reasons. To stop that, the only real sensible solution is to develop more infrastructure closer to the more landlocked regions of the country. An underdeveloped central region is one of the biggest problems of the US. On February 19 2017 16:05 ChristianS wrote: Because practically speaking, to get off of that system and integrate into a more modern economy, you're going to need some combination of a) the aptitude to get educated and learn another job, b) the youth and financial stability for it to make sense to spend years in education before you get a better job, and c) the willingness to move to where you can find jobs in your new industry. In all likelihood you'll need all three. University education should be a one-time deal. No sane human can go through something like a science, engineering, math, medical, etc., highly rigorous education and be expected to go back to school later in life. Some are forced to by necessity of being trapped in a terrible job market but it absolutely cannot be a norm. Of course, continued self-education is an expectation here. Semi-skilled trade education, that's a different story. Expecting semiskilled workers to take some 1-2 month courses (which can be online) with exams, and gain some practical training in fields that are needed... is not much different than certification programs. It's a perfectly acceptable thing to expect people to learn that. On February 19 2017 16:05 ChristianS wrote: In that context I get why a West Virginia miner would vote for politicians who will keep his dying industry on life support as long as possible. It's an increasingly irrelevant industry, and keeping it alive is a complete hair-of-the-dog solution, but the alternative is going to involve a lot of change, a lot of turmoil, and a lot of bitter pills you might have to swallow (going back to school, going on welfare, moving away from your home town, etc.). In some cases it is necessary to realize that the world is constantly changing, and that what used to work will not work forever. But the political class is far from blameless here. Much noise is made of our "crumbling infrastructure" and "middle class" but little is done in the way of actually making structural changes to their benefit. Keeping coal on life support is a stopgap at best, yes. But if I were in the place of those WV coal miners, I don't think I'd trust my politicians to do anything more than prop up a stopgap long enough for me to work into retirement. Our modern political system is quite fucked and I don't think that has escaped anyone's attention. On February 19 2017 16:05 ChristianS wrote: I know you're a bit of an environmentalist so I don't think the environmental cost to keeping that industry alive will escape you. How do you think the case could be made to those voters that modernizing the economy really would be better for them? I wouldn't call myself that much of an environmentalist really. I'm certainly not a "green" fanatic. But I do have a chemical engineering degree (among others), and I remember my formal education / earlier work experience well enough to know that the risk to the environment is scientifically sound and nontrivial. I take a sort of "clean up your house or you're going to live in a mountain of shit" approach to it. But no, coal is definitely not the future. It's a fossil fuel, and one of the dirtier ones at that. We don't need it and we shouldn't use it. I am really opposed to climate change denialism on the grounds that it props up these industries. How to make the case? It's a tough case to make, in part because what needs to change is a truly grand nationwide project, and in part because partisanship has reached the level where a foreign nation can release private emails from one of two major parties and it ends up being treated as a partisan issue (the FP implications here are a completely different discussion for that matter). Politicians get about zero trust from their electorate, generally with good reason, and that level of partisanship is genuinely destructive for making progress. The only way forward that I can see is if we get a truly transformative president - an FDR for the 21st century, who will reconcile the realities of an increasingly global world but severe crises of wealth inequality within the first world. Both parties are stuck with some of the worst nominees they have had in a long time. Europe is no better in that regard - UK lost a PM, Hollande is a national disgrace whose career is done after May, Merkel is a weakened leader, Renzi resigned after the referendum, EU leaders (Juncker and friends) are not known for being loved, and in general everywhere else in Europe they replace leaders far too frequently. I foresee a decade of crisis and instability before a 21st century Western world can finally start to develop. Although these days, between demographics crises and China growth, Asia is where people concentrate their efforts, that might be premature. Europe and the US still have some of the most valuable cards in play for the future - advanced technology, investment money, world-class education, and so on. In a highly technological world those can easily be more valuable than mere labor force. But that advantage can be severely undermined by a combination of poorly conceived FP and short-sighted domestic economic policy, that allows crisis to develop and undermine the entire advantage that allowed those countries to gain power in the first place. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5296 Posts
On February 19 2017 16:44 Nebuchad wrote: power for 8 years(arguable if it was 100% power but for the sake of argument) plus own values and priorities, makes you inclined to spend money on research/programs which enforce your standards/views. That's an interesting idea, I'd like to dig a little deeper. Why do the tools favor us? | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12365 Posts
On February 19 2017 17:01 xM(Z wrote: power for 8 years(arguable if it was 100% power but for the sake of argument) plus own values and priorities, makes you inclined to spend money on research/programs which enforce your standards/views. What is that even supposed to have to do with debating people. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5296 Posts
On February 19 2017 17:08 Nebuchad wrote: give an example of a debatable topic then; maybe make a summary on the sides.What is that even supposed to have to do with debating people. | ||
|
Slaughter
United States20254 Posts
| ||
|
ChristianS
United States3261 Posts
Take programming, for instance. It's been talked about as a good solution to the ailing rural America problem. It's portable, so you don't need to move to the city. It's growing, so there will be plenty of jobs in the foreseeable future. And it's an industry that's had quite a lot of college-less successes, so you might not need a degree in it to succeed. But are you really gonna take a bunch of miners in WV, put them in a room a couple nights a week learning C# or something, and then toss them into the job market competing with Palo Alto kids who grew up surrounded by tech people and learned their first programming language at 13? Programming takes aptitude, a lot kf technical familiarity, and a lot of interest in your work. You can take all of the boys in a town and send them into a coal mine, and they'll be able to more or less do the work. You can't put them all in front of computers and expect them all to be able to write programs or make websites or whatever. If they had the interest and aptitude, there are already all kinds of deals on websites like techspot.com that will sell you $946547 worth of educational materials for $.20, but a lot of them simply won't be cut out for that kind of work. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18839 Posts
| ||
Falling
Canada11378 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18839 Posts
| ||
|
thePunGun
598 Posts
Don't get me wrong, I agree with many of his views and I loved religulous... but sometimes he invites guests just shove his own agenda down their throats without giving them a fighting chance. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
| ||
