|
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. |
re: lmui
the general damage (not even sure how you'd define damage in this context) would indeed be largely limited to the next 2; it could easily amount to tens or hundreds of billions of dollars in "damage" using some definitions of that, more typical definitions would probably range in the single digit to tens of billions.
some damage comes from budget uncertainty and the need to plan aronud that (and/or stuff gettnig randomly defunded in the middle resulting in inefficiencies)
I remember when we had the best SC candidate the country had to offer; the republicans decided to be horrible scum and ignore the constitution because they want to win regardless of the damage it does to the country, so he's not on the court.
|
On November 30 2017 08:02 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2017 07:59 Sermokala wrote:On November 30 2017 07:15 Lmui wrote:For the US budget, if it passes in the current state, what damage can be done by 2018? If the elections in 2018 flip Congress/Senate, what would be the implications for budgets going forward? On another note, I'm pretty happy to be Canadian with SC justices who are the best the country has to offer, not a political appointment. http://www.fja-cmf.gc.ca/scc-csc/nominee-candidat-eng.html All Supreme Court Justices need to submit questionnaires to be considered for appointment, and Sheilah Martin was chosen. Reading over the answers is pretty humbling, considering the road she took to get to where she is. What do you think budgets are? Do you think that they're somehow binding decrees that will go on for ten years at a time? The 2018 congress will create a budget for the 2019 year the same as the 2016 congress is now getting to their budget for 2018. The numbers get made to look huge because they're projected out to ten years at a time. they almost never get there without the other party getting in power and having the opportunity to change it. On November 30 2017 07:50 kollin wrote:On November 30 2017 07:46 Danglars wrote:On November 30 2017 07:37 kollin wrote:On November 30 2017 07:22 Danglars wrote:On November 30 2017 06:07 Doodsmack wrote:On November 30 2017 04:37 Danglars wrote:On November 30 2017 04:26 Doodsmack wrote:On November 30 2017 03:18 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Not perfect (at least in this exchange), just acceptable and "deserved" based on parallels.
I'm just curious which Democrats (if any) are less bad than Trump in someone like Danglars eyes. I'm also curious if there is anyone outside of the Republican party (based on current/past positions) that they could vote for if it was a choice between them and Trump?
“No more appropriate” is close enough to “perfect.” It was a very thorough endorsement. Language, my dear. It was poetic justice that Trump followed him. But to advance the appropriate follow up given Obama’s flaws, maybe you actually read why I thought it was appropriate that such a man succeeded such a predecessor? Leave the generalization-and-scoot to ChristianS. I actually said what it was in parallels and complements that I thought highly appropriate. You don’t have to misuse the word to pretend something was left unsaid. To say that there is "no more appropriate" a response to Obama than Trump is a thorough endorsement of Trump. You weren't talking about "parallels," you were talking about a response. It is pretty clearly the language you used and it's impossible to square it with your lip service criticism of Trump. Yeah ... umm not when you think Obama was pretty awful lol. Alternatively, not when you realise that what both of them represented to people was an outsider that provided hope for change. I think that is the clearest connection between Trump and Obama - Hillary was much more a return to Bush and to Bill and to being the policeman of the world. Yeah, you can examine it on multiple levels. I particularly like how each uses speech with their political base. Obama, of course, probably being the most articulate president since Kennedy while Trump is a slavering baboon. Obama had some serious speech pattern issues when he was off a teleprompter. It doesn't hurt him that trumps transcripts are literally incomprehensible. Thats why I don't get why the US even uses 10 year projections. Why go past 1 year? Reality is way to fluid to work with 10 year projections on budgets.
Its an easy marketing trick both sides use to blow the changes out of proportion. Gotta score those points.
|
On November 30 2017 07:23 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2017 06:37 KwarK wrote:On November 30 2017 05:48 mozoku wrote:On November 30 2017 02:39 KwarK wrote:On November 30 2017 02:31 xDaunt wrote:On November 30 2017 02:25 IyMoon wrote:On November 30 2017 02:24 xDaunt wrote:On November 30 2017 02:17 kollin wrote:On November 30 2017 01:19 Danglars wrote:On November 30 2017 00:47 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
Quite the distance between the amount of times you're annoyed that their grievances are being dismissed and the amount of times you'd advocate for policies that would actually address their grievances (cause you know, that'd be Socialism). Imagine my shock that a liberal thinks conservative (or in Trump’s case, nationalist populist) policies don’t help Americans. Nationalism is anathema to helping anyone in the long term. You have it backwards. Nationalism is the solution to helping everyone long term. If you truly believe that your liberal ideals are superior, then you should actively promote and support those ideals, with the goal of supplanting all "lesser" competitors. pretty sure mass Nationalism has led to some really really shitty things in history The problem with y'all on the Left is that you have lost sight of nationalism's better points because you have been brainwashed into falsely equating nationalism with Nazism. Not really. National traits that are worthy spread by their own merits and inherent virtue. National defects spread through blind devotion to the nation as an ideal. Nationalism is the latter. That should be obvious to anyone from starting axioms. I don't need nationalism to appreciate my country's contribution to democracy and justice, democracy and justice speak for themselves. I do need nationalism to ignore my country's contribution to the post-colonial tragedies around the world. And this is why broad statements without defined terms like kollin made lead to horrible discussions. Words like nationalism and capitalism mean different things to different people. Would you agree with the statement "The value of my countryman's life is worth more than a foreigner's."? Is someone immoral for doing so? Isn't the statement a form of nationalism? If we're talking intrinsic value of a human life then no, I wouldn't agree with that statement. If we're talking about the economic value they contribute to society then maybe, the UK is pretty high up there in terms of GDP per capita, but I suspect economic output isn't what you meant by value. Consider the inverse. If I were to accept your proposition that Brits are more valuable that non Brits, where do I place Canadians in this equation? Are they honorary Brits? What about French Canadians? Clearly they're more valuable than the French, but how much more valuable? I'll need to construct an exchange rate. And that's before we get into relative scarcity. I'd rather kill one Australian than ten Indians, but would I rather kill all the Australians or one fifth of the Indians? The ratio is the same, but do the Australians increase in value as they get in short supply? Nationalism leads you down some strange paths. I think he's talking about "you care more about people close to you" and just used the term value for that. I care more about my family getting sick than about my neighbors getting sick, I tend to care more about my neighbors getting sick than about some random guy from the same city I've never met. Someone getting murdered who's from the same city as me still affects me more (mentally speakig) than someone from another country. So if he insists on the word value I'd disagree. If I'm on a sinking boat, I can swim and there are people around me who can't I'm not going to go around and search for specifically another German person because I think his or her life is more valuable than someone elses. The idea that my empathy for other people is based on said person's value, however you may define that, is just wrong from the get-go. Yes, the degree of my empathy may change depending on how close I perceive him to me, otherwise I wouldn't be able to get out of bed every morning with all the shit that happens all across the world. Just imagine how horrible it would be if you felt like your Mom/Dad died everytime you read the news and hear about someone dying. But that's not a judgement based on value or anything like that.
This is closer to the angle I was getting at. It's not true that empathy and value (not in the economic sense) can be easily separated though.
"America First" literally is the nationalism described here. Suppose there's a war that would save 100 American lives and cost 100 foreign lives. Strictly speaking, the only non-nationalist position would be to have to no preference in this situation. In practice, the vast majority of of Americans (including those who, like myself, closer themselves "globalists") would support the war. In a literal sense, that is "America First." This is by no means limited to America either.
Nationalism doesn't exist as a binary because pretty much nobody is a strict "non-nationalist" in practice. In reality, there's probably an implied countryman:foreigner life value ratio you could work out for each person if you asked the perfect set of questions and received honest answers. What we call a "nationalist" is someone who has a high such ratio, and a "globalist" has a low such ratio.
Obviously, extremely high nationalism probably leads to scenarios like WW2, but there's a lot of room between 1 and Hitler that isn't evil. Figuring out where that line is a tough question and even figuring out where Trump is on the continuum is a difficult and complicated question on its own. It's not as simple as "nationalism is anathema to helping anytime in the long-term." Or "nationalism is evil/bad."
|
On November 30 2017 08:49 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2017 07:23 Toadesstern wrote:On November 30 2017 06:37 KwarK wrote:On November 30 2017 05:48 mozoku wrote:On November 30 2017 02:39 KwarK wrote:On November 30 2017 02:31 xDaunt wrote:On November 30 2017 02:25 IyMoon wrote:On November 30 2017 02:24 xDaunt wrote:On November 30 2017 02:17 kollin wrote:On November 30 2017 01:19 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Imagine my shock that a liberal thinks conservative (or in Trump’s case, nationalist populist) policies don’t help Americans. Nationalism is anathema to helping anyone in the long term. You have it backwards. Nationalism is the solution to helping everyone long term. If you truly believe that your liberal ideals are superior, then you should actively promote and support those ideals, with the goal of supplanting all "lesser" competitors. pretty sure mass Nationalism has led to some really really shitty things in history The problem with y'all on the Left is that you have lost sight of nationalism's better points because you have been brainwashed into falsely equating nationalism with Nazism. Not really. National traits that are worthy spread by their own merits and inherent virtue. National defects spread through blind devotion to the nation as an ideal. Nationalism is the latter. That should be obvious to anyone from starting axioms. I don't need nationalism to appreciate my country's contribution to democracy and justice, democracy and justice speak for themselves. I do need nationalism to ignore my country's contribution to the post-colonial tragedies around the world. And this is why broad statements without defined terms like kollin made lead to horrible discussions. Words like nationalism and capitalism mean different things to different people. Would you agree with the statement "The value of my countryman's life is worth more than a foreigner's."? Is someone immoral for doing so? Isn't the statement a form of nationalism? If we're talking intrinsic value of a human life then no, I wouldn't agree with that statement. If we're talking about the economic value they contribute to society then maybe, the UK is pretty high up there in terms of GDP per capita, but I suspect economic output isn't what you meant by value. Consider the inverse. If I were to accept your proposition that Brits are more valuable that non Brits, where do I place Canadians in this equation? Are they honorary Brits? What about French Canadians? Clearly they're more valuable than the French, but how much more valuable? I'll need to construct an exchange rate. And that's before we get into relative scarcity. I'd rather kill one Australian than ten Indians, but would I rather kill all the Australians or one fifth of the Indians? The ratio is the same, but do the Australians increase in value as they get in short supply? Nationalism leads you down some strange paths. I think he's talking about "you care more about people close to you" and just used the term value for that. I care more about my family getting sick than about my neighbors getting sick, I tend to care more about my neighbors getting sick than about some random guy from the same city I've never met. Someone getting murdered who's from the same city as me still affects me more (mentally speakig) than someone from another country. So if he insists on the word value I'd disagree. If I'm on a sinking boat, I can swim and there are people around me who can't I'm not going to go around and search for specifically another German person because I think his or her life is more valuable than someone elses. The idea that my empathy for other people is based on said person's value, however you may define that, is just wrong from the get-go. Yes, the degree of my empathy may change depending on how close I perceive him to me, otherwise I wouldn't be able to get out of bed every morning with all the shit that happens all across the world. Just imagine how horrible it would be if you felt like your Mom/Dad died everytime you read the news and hear about someone dying. But that's not a judgement based on value or anything like that. This is closer to the angle I was getting at. It's not true that empathy and value (not in the economic sense) can be easily separated though. "America First" literally is the nationalism described here. Suppose there's a war that would save 100 American lives and cost 100 foreign lives. Strictly speaking, the only non-nationalist position would be to have to no preference in this situation. In practice, the vast majority of of Americans (including those who, like myself, closer themselves "globalists") would support the war. In a literal sense, that is "America First." This is by no means limited to America either. Nationalism doesn't exist as a binary because pretty much nobody is a strict "non-nationalist" in practice. In reality, there's probably an implied countryman:foreigner life value ratio you could work out for each person if you asked the perfect set of questions and received honest answers. What we call a "nationalist" is someone who has a high such ratio, and a "globalist" has a low such ratio. Obviously, extremely high nationalism probably leads to scenarios like WW2, but there's a lot of room between 1 and Hitler that isn't evil. Figuring out where that line is a tough question and even figuring out where Trump is on the continuum is a difficult and complicated question on its own. It's not as simple as "nationalism is anathema to helping anytime in the long-term." Or "nationalism is evil/bad."
Thats fairy tale talk.
In reality you end up with the War on Terror and 7000 American dead with almost nothing to show for it except for rich military contractors.
|
America first is literally the slogan of the American Nazi Party leading up to WW2. Anyone claiming that "its crazy that people bring up Nazis when we talk about Nationalism" has has a poor understanding of history. Which is fine to a point, but its fucking stupid to claim the left keeps bringing it up when the President ran on the slogan used by the US Nazi Party.
I also love the term "globalist" because it is one step away from rootless cosmopolitan. Next think you know they will be talking about foreign influences changing the culture of the "(American)people's community."
|
On November 30 2017 08:49 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2017 07:23 Toadesstern wrote:On November 30 2017 06:37 KwarK wrote:On November 30 2017 05:48 mozoku wrote:On November 30 2017 02:39 KwarK wrote:On November 30 2017 02:31 xDaunt wrote:On November 30 2017 02:25 IyMoon wrote:On November 30 2017 02:24 xDaunt wrote:On November 30 2017 02:17 kollin wrote:On November 30 2017 01:19 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Imagine my shock that a liberal thinks conservative (or in Trump’s case, nationalist populist) policies don’t help Americans. Nationalism is anathema to helping anyone in the long term. You have it backwards. Nationalism is the solution to helping everyone long term. If you truly believe that your liberal ideals are superior, then you should actively promote and support those ideals, with the goal of supplanting all "lesser" competitors. pretty sure mass Nationalism has led to some really really shitty things in history The problem with y'all on the Left is that you have lost sight of nationalism's better points because you have been brainwashed into falsely equating nationalism with Nazism. Not really. National traits that are worthy spread by their own merits and inherent virtue. National defects spread through blind devotion to the nation as an ideal. Nationalism is the latter. That should be obvious to anyone from starting axioms. I don't need nationalism to appreciate my country's contribution to democracy and justice, democracy and justice speak for themselves. I do need nationalism to ignore my country's contribution to the post-colonial tragedies around the world. And this is why broad statements without defined terms like kollin made lead to horrible discussions. Words like nationalism and capitalism mean different things to different people. Would you agree with the statement "The value of my countryman's life is worth more than a foreigner's."? Is someone immoral for doing so? Isn't the statement a form of nationalism? If we're talking intrinsic value of a human life then no, I wouldn't agree with that statement. If we're talking about the economic value they contribute to society then maybe, the UK is pretty high up there in terms of GDP per capita, but I suspect economic output isn't what you meant by value. Consider the inverse. If I were to accept your proposition that Brits are more valuable that non Brits, where do I place Canadians in this equation? Are they honorary Brits? What about French Canadians? Clearly they're more valuable than the French, but how much more valuable? I'll need to construct an exchange rate. And that's before we get into relative scarcity. I'd rather kill one Australian than ten Indians, but would I rather kill all the Australians or one fifth of the Indians? The ratio is the same, but do the Australians increase in value as they get in short supply? Nationalism leads you down some strange paths. I think he's talking about "you care more about people close to you" and just used the term value for that. I care more about my family getting sick than about my neighbors getting sick, I tend to care more about my neighbors getting sick than about some random guy from the same city I've never met. Someone getting murdered who's from the same city as me still affects me more (mentally speakig) than someone from another country. So if he insists on the word value I'd disagree. If I'm on a sinking boat, I can swim and there are people around me who can't I'm not going to go around and search for specifically another German person because I think his or her life is more valuable than someone elses. The idea that my empathy for other people is based on said person's value, however you may define that, is just wrong from the get-go. Yes, the degree of my empathy may change depending on how close I perceive him to me, otherwise I wouldn't be able to get out of bed every morning with all the shit that happens all across the world. Just imagine how horrible it would be if you felt like your Mom/Dad died everytime you read the news and hear about someone dying. But that's not a judgement based on value or anything like that. This is closer to the angle I was getting at. It's not true that empathy and value (not in the economic sense) can be easily separated though. "America First" literally is the nationalism described here. Suppose there's a war that would save 100 American lives and cost 100 foreign lives. Strictly speaking, the only non-nationalist position would be to have to no preference in this situation. In practice, the vast majority of of Americans (including those who, like myself, closer themselves "globalists") would support the war. In a literal sense, that is "America First." This is by no means limited to America either. Nationalism doesn't exist as a binary because pretty much nobody is a strict "non-nationalist" in practice. In reality, there's probably an implied countryman:foreigner life value ratio you could work out for each person if you asked the perfect set of questions and received honest answers. What we call a "nationalist" is someone who has a high such ratio, and a "globalist" has a low such ratio. Obviously, extremely high nationalism probably leads to scenarios like WW2, but there's a lot of room between 1 and Hitler that isn't evil. Figuring out where that line is a tough question and even figuring out where Trump is on the continuum is a difficult and complicated question on its own. It's not as simple as "nationalism is anathema to helping anytime in the long-term." Or "nationalism is evil/bad."
so, what ratio do you find acceptable? what's the point at which it becomes unacceptable?
(setting aside the question that most people's ethical views would say it depends on the causation/reasoning/why each person died, which would apply a heavy weighting to each death, either multiplying or dividing its value depending on which way you do it)
|
|
|
United States24715 Posts
I think the most concerning thing to me about the Robert Mueller investigation is that his name is spelled Mueller but pronounced Muller.
More seriously, I think a lot of the erratic behavior from the president is simply trouble coping with something, and investigations are a likely cause of that... don't even need to be suffering from dementia for that, but it still doesn't speak well to your mental faculties.
|
On November 30 2017 09:18 micronesia wrote:
I think the most concerning thing to me about the Robert Mueller investigation is that his name is spelled Mueller but pronounced Muller.
More seriously, I think a lot of the erratic behavior from the president is simply trouble coping with something, and investigations are a likely cause of that... don't even need to be suffering from dementia for that, but it still doesn't speak well to your mental faculties.
Agreed. People who are beyond their stress limits tend to lash out in ways that make them feel powerful, understanding a situation, or have control of a situation. I think Flynn represents a legitimate threat to Trump's family and he's shitting bricks, which basically ends up radicalizing himself even further. Emotional turmoil is the #1 way to radicalize someone.
|
On November 30 2017 07:22 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2017 06:07 Doodsmack wrote:On November 30 2017 04:37 Danglars wrote:On November 30 2017 04:26 Doodsmack wrote:On November 30 2017 03:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 30 2017 03:08 Doodsmack wrote:On November 30 2017 02:53 Danglars wrote:On November 30 2017 02:10 Doodsmack wrote:On November 30 2017 00:39 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2017 23:47 brian wrote:
[quote]
and sincerely, this is the best possible outcome you think? imo that’s very embarrassing.
best outcome would’ve been maybe a president with enough integrity to have american identity politics. and again, you know, qualified, at a minimum. we could ask for more too, but apparently we are setting our bar low enough to trip over. to call that ‘best’? hah.
i hate actually saying this because it’s already been said a dozen times, but the only way your post makes any sense as a real belief is starting with the position of being totally drowning in white grievance. that your definition of ‘best’ is ‘taking back the country from minorities and women’ has just got to be a joke. ur trolllin me. fk you got me. Not best possible outcome. My primary vote was for the person I thought was the best possible outcome. Trump wasn’t even in my top half of acceptable candidates from the 17 (?). Trump was more of the deserved successor with all the parallels and complements. If you talk about problems in largely white and rural communities, coastal elites and mass media dismiss it as “white grievance.” Well, look whose chickens came home to roost. I feel sorry for the country, but I don’t have the least bit of pity for that sort of person/viewpoint. At some point you should just admit that you support Donald Trump. What's the reason for reluctance? I consider it possible to support and oppose political figures based on their policy priorities and policy compromises. Trump will continue to be more of an oppose for me than support, but there are these dunderhead resisters out there that call it impossible. The whole thing about a perfect response to Obama amounts to a full throated endorsement though. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. Not perfect (at least in this exchange), just acceptable and "deserved" based on parallels. I'm just curious which Democrats (if any) are less bad than Trump in someone like Danglars eyes. I'm also curious if there is anyone outside of the Republican party (based on current/past positions) that they could vote for if it was a choice between them and Trump? “No more appropriate” is close enough to “perfect.” It was a very thorough endorsement. Language, my dear. It was poetic justice that Trump followed him. But to advance the appropriate follow up given Obama’s flaws, maybe you actually read why I thought it was appropriate that such a man succeeded such a predecessor? Leave the generalization-and-scoot to ChristianS. I actually said what it was in parallels and complements that I thought highly appropriate. You don’t have to misuse the word to pretend something was left unsaid. To say that there is "no more appropriate" a response to Obama than Trump is a thorough endorsement of Trump. You weren't talking about "parallels," you were talking about a response. It is pretty clearly the language you used and it's impossible to square it with your lip service criticism of Trump. Yeah ... umm not when you think Obama was pretty awful lol.
The whole argument that Trump is only doing what Obama did ("capitalizing" on what Obama did) fails miserably as an excuse for Trump, I hope you know. A pretty flagrant false equivalency.
|
On November 30 2017 07:18 Nevuk wrote:Brietbart thinks Trump's tweets today went too far (they have an OP ed, I won't like to Brietbart) and Matt Lauer is worse than I even imagined , JFC Show nested quote +
As the co-host of NBC’s “Today,” Matt Lauer once gave a colleague a sex toy as a present. It included an explicit note about how he wanted to use it on her, which left her mortified.
On another day, he summoned a different female employee to his office, and then dropped his pants, showing her his penis. After the employee declined to do anything, visibly shaken, he reprimanded her for not engaging in a sexual act.
His office was in a secluded space, and he had a button under his desk that allowed him to lock his door from the inside without getting up. This afforded him the assurance of privacy. It allowed him to welcome female employees and initiate inappropriate contact while knowing nobody could walk in on him, according to two women who were sexually harassed by Lauer. variety.com
Lauer is a real treasure. I’m not really surprised, though. Pretty much any guy who rises to that level of wealth and power is suspect on this stuff. This is just what dudes do.
|
On November 30 2017 08:49 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2017 07:23 Toadesstern wrote:On November 30 2017 06:37 KwarK wrote:On November 30 2017 05:48 mozoku wrote:On November 30 2017 02:39 KwarK wrote:On November 30 2017 02:31 xDaunt wrote:On November 30 2017 02:25 IyMoon wrote:On November 30 2017 02:24 xDaunt wrote:On November 30 2017 02:17 kollin wrote:On November 30 2017 01:19 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Imagine my shock that a liberal thinks conservative (or in Trump’s case, nationalist populist) policies don’t help Americans. Nationalism is anathema to helping anyone in the long term. You have it backwards. Nationalism is the solution to helping everyone long term. If you truly believe that your liberal ideals are superior, then you should actively promote and support those ideals, with the goal of supplanting all "lesser" competitors. pretty sure mass Nationalism has led to some really really shitty things in history The problem with y'all on the Left is that you have lost sight of nationalism's better points because you have been brainwashed into falsely equating nationalism with Nazism. Not really. National traits that are worthy spread by their own merits and inherent virtue. National defects spread through blind devotion to the nation as an ideal. Nationalism is the latter. That should be obvious to anyone from starting axioms. I don't need nationalism to appreciate my country's contribution to democracy and justice, democracy and justice speak for themselves. I do need nationalism to ignore my country's contribution to the post-colonial tragedies around the world. And this is why broad statements without defined terms like kollin made lead to horrible discussions. Words like nationalism and capitalism mean different things to different people. Would you agree with the statement "The value of my countryman's life is worth more than a foreigner's."? Is someone immoral for doing so? Isn't the statement a form of nationalism? If we're talking intrinsic value of a human life then no, I wouldn't agree with that statement. If we're talking about the economic value they contribute to society then maybe, the UK is pretty high up there in terms of GDP per capita, but I suspect economic output isn't what you meant by value. Consider the inverse. If I were to accept your proposition that Brits are more valuable that non Brits, where do I place Canadians in this equation? Are they honorary Brits? What about French Canadians? Clearly they're more valuable than the French, but how much more valuable? I'll need to construct an exchange rate. And that's before we get into relative scarcity. I'd rather kill one Australian than ten Indians, but would I rather kill all the Australians or one fifth of the Indians? The ratio is the same, but do the Australians increase in value as they get in short supply? Nationalism leads you down some strange paths. I think he's talking about "you care more about people close to you" and just used the term value for that. I care more about my family getting sick than about my neighbors getting sick, I tend to care more about my neighbors getting sick than about some random guy from the same city I've never met. Someone getting murdered who's from the same city as me still affects me more (mentally speakig) than someone from another country. So if he insists on the word value I'd disagree. If I'm on a sinking boat, I can swim and there are people around me who can't I'm not going to go around and search for specifically another German person because I think his or her life is more valuable than someone elses. The idea that my empathy for other people is based on said person's value, however you may define that, is just wrong from the get-go. Yes, the degree of my empathy may change depending on how close I perceive him to me, otherwise I wouldn't be able to get out of bed every morning with all the shit that happens all across the world. Just imagine how horrible it would be if you felt like your Mom/Dad died everytime you read the news and hear about someone dying. But that's not a judgement based on value or anything like that. This is closer to the angle I was getting at. It's not true that empathy and value (not in the economic sense) can be easily separated though. "America First" literally is the nationalism described here. Suppose there's a war that would save 100 American lives and cost 100 foreign lives. Strictly speaking, the only non-nationalist position would be to have to no preference in this situation. In practice, the vast majority of of Americans (including those who, like myself, closer themselves "globalists") would support the war. In a literal sense, that is "America First." This is by no means limited to America either. Nationalism doesn't exist as a binary because pretty much nobody is a strict "non-nationalist" in practice. In reality, there's probably an implied countryman:foreigner life value ratio you could work out for each person if you asked the perfect set of questions and received honest answers. What we call a "nationalist" is someone who has a high such ratio, and a "globalist" has a low such ratio. Obviously, extremely high nationalism probably leads to scenarios like WW2, but there's a lot of room between 1 and Hitler that isn't evil. Figuring out where that line is a tough question and even figuring out where Trump is on the continuum is a difficult and complicated question on its own. It's not as simple as "nationalism is anathema to helping anytime in the long-term." Or "nationalism is evil/bad."
I disagree, I don't think the two are related at all.
I feel more empathy towards someone closer to me because it's easier to realize how close that person is to me. Basicly "man, that could have happened to me or my sister". I don't value his or her life more because he's from the same city, from the same country or whatever else.
I do not feel more empathy towards someone closer to me because he's more important to me, aside from really close people (family etc).
Like I already said in my example with the sinking boat. Neither would I prioritize trying to save people who are Germans just because I'm German myself, nor would I advise that to anyone around. I would obviously prioritize people I personally know, like my family or friends over people I don't know. Also, I would prioritize kids over adults and stuff like that but that's my sense of morality (I guess?) and has nothing to do with how much someone is "worth" to me. And I'm not trying to spin this into "omg, how dare you put a value on peoples life" or anything Like that. I know what you mean with that.
But to answer your previous question, I would consider people who actively go out of their way to try and save someone they think is the same nationality as themselves over someone else as immoral. Very much so.
//edit: or well, let me rephrase that part. Perhaps not immoral. If you're trying to save someone you're obviously not immoral even if you're trying to pick favorites for whatever reason. 1 person saved in that example above is clearly better than 0 people saved no matter what the reason. But I'd probably call you stupid for wasting time like that//
I'd personally argue that for everyone but the (mentally) closest people you have it's a mentality of "you have to start somewhere". This goes for the boat that's sinking as I'd just grab the next person next to me who can't swim and try and help him/her no matter who it is as well as us helping people in everyday life with social expenses etc. They just happen to be fellow Germans/people living in Germany because I'm in Germany.
It's not that I care more for the people who were born in the same country as I was, it's just a practical "you have to start somewhere" so might as well start next to me while acknowledging that with the taxes Germany collects on a yearly basis we proooobably can't save the entire world from *insert random issue*.
//There's probably a shitload of other stuff that goes into this like the fact that doing something yourself or close to where you are is a lot easier than sending a bucket of money to Africa and hoping they use it in a proper way with, at the very least, less options to check wether your money is spend the way you want it to be spend.
So tl;dr: No I disagree and do think the two are seperate for but the closest of relatives/friends
|
On November 30 2017 09:43 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2017 07:18 Nevuk wrote:Brietbart thinks Trump's tweets today went too far (they have an OP ed, I won't like to Brietbart) and Matt Lauer is worse than I even imagined , JFC
As the co-host of NBC’s “Today,” Matt Lauer once gave a colleague a sex toy as a present. It included an explicit note about how he wanted to use it on her, which left her mortified.
On another day, he summoned a different female employee to his office, and then dropped his pants, showing her his penis. After the employee declined to do anything, visibly shaken, he reprimanded her for not engaging in a sexual act.
His office was in a secluded space, and he had a button under his desk that allowed him to lock his door from the inside without getting up. This afforded him the assurance of privacy. It allowed him to welcome female employees and initiate inappropriate contact while knowing nobody could walk in on him, according to two women who were sexually harassed by Lauer. variety.com Lauer is a real treasure. I’m not really surprised, though. Pretty much any guy who rises to that level of wealth and power is suspect on this stuff. This is just what dudes do.
There are plenty of male public figures, celebrities, and rich people who don't do this stuff though... This isn't the norm.
|
in which trump accidentally tweets at some poor, random lady named theresa may and not the prime minister
|
Why is 'America First' Donald Trump involved in British inner security?
|
On November 30 2017 09:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2017 09:43 xDaunt wrote:On November 30 2017 07:18 Nevuk wrote:Brietbart thinks Trump's tweets today went too far (they have an OP ed, I won't like to Brietbart) and Matt Lauer is worse than I even imagined , JFC
As the co-host of NBC’s “Today,” Matt Lauer once gave a colleague a sex toy as a present. It included an explicit note about how he wanted to use it on her, which left her mortified.
On another day, he summoned a different female employee to his office, and then dropped his pants, showing her his penis. After the employee declined to do anything, visibly shaken, he reprimanded her for not engaging in a sexual act.
His office was in a secluded space, and he had a button under his desk that allowed him to lock his door from the inside without getting up. This afforded him the assurance of privacy. It allowed him to welcome female employees and initiate inappropriate contact while knowing nobody could walk in on him, according to two women who were sexually harassed by Lauer. variety.com Lauer is a real treasure. I’m not really surprised, though. Pretty much any guy who rises to that level of wealth and power is suspect on this stuff. This is just what dudes do. There are plenty of male public figures, celebrities, and rich people who don't do this stuff though... This isn't the norm.
If we take Xdaunt's statement in teh most charitable light, I think he means that the world we live in has allowed powerful men to abuse women. So they do. Not that men are ingrained to do these things on a biological level.
|
Which is true, all positions of power and even Congress still are enabling abuse of power -> sexual harassment. Its no surprise that Moore is doubling down, Franken is weathering the storm, and a whole host of other politicians aren't resigning but merely "retiring". Because its shown time and time again that there's little consequence over the long run and images can be rehabilitated.
|
It's instinctual to try to fuck everything that moves and that is mildly attractive. Some people just don't have self-control, and have never been given a reason to learn it.
|
On November 30 2017 09:36 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2017 07:22 Danglars wrote:On November 30 2017 06:07 Doodsmack wrote:On November 30 2017 04:37 Danglars wrote:On November 30 2017 04:26 Doodsmack wrote:On November 30 2017 03:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 30 2017 03:08 Doodsmack wrote:On November 30 2017 02:53 Danglars wrote:On November 30 2017 02:10 Doodsmack wrote:On November 30 2017 00:39 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Not best possible outcome. My primary vote was for the person I thought was the best possible outcome. Trump wasn’t even in my top half of acceptable candidates from the 17 (?). Trump was more of the deserved successor with all the parallels and complements.
If you talk about problems in largely white and rural communities, coastal elites and mass media dismiss it as “white grievance.” Well, look whose chickens came home to roost. I feel sorry for the country, but I don’t have the least bit of pity for that sort of person/viewpoint. At some point you should just admit that you support Donald Trump. What's the reason for reluctance? I consider it possible to support and oppose political figures based on their policy priorities and policy compromises. Trump will continue to be more of an oppose for me than support, but there are these dunderhead resisters out there that call it impossible. The whole thing about a perfect response to Obama amounts to a full throated endorsement though. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. Not perfect (at least in this exchange), just acceptable and "deserved" based on parallels. I'm just curious which Democrats (if any) are less bad than Trump in someone like Danglars eyes. I'm also curious if there is anyone outside of the Republican party (based on current/past positions) that they could vote for if it was a choice between them and Trump? “No more appropriate” is close enough to “perfect.” It was a very thorough endorsement. Language, my dear. It was poetic justice that Trump followed him. But to advance the appropriate follow up given Obama’s flaws, maybe you actually read why I thought it was appropriate that such a man succeeded such a predecessor? Leave the generalization-and-scoot to ChristianS. I actually said what it was in parallels and complements that I thought highly appropriate. You don’t have to misuse the word to pretend something was left unsaid. To say that there is "no more appropriate" a response to Obama than Trump is a thorough endorsement of Trump. You weren't talking about "parallels," you were talking about a response. It is pretty clearly the language you used and it's impossible to square it with your lip service criticism of Trump. Yeah ... umm not when you think Obama was pretty awful lol. The whole argument that Trump is only doing what Obama did ("capitalizing" on what Obama did) fails miserably as an excuse for Trump, I hope you know. A pretty flagrant false equivalency.
Woah woah woah. Right before you try to summarize several points into one, remember that it's only a paragraph long. You are talented enough to give a full response rather than circle the last sentence in a thick sharpie and go off running.
|
On November 30 2017 09:56 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2017 09:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 30 2017 09:43 xDaunt wrote:On November 30 2017 07:18 Nevuk wrote:Brietbart thinks Trump's tweets today went too far (they have an OP ed, I won't like to Brietbart) and Matt Lauer is worse than I even imagined , JFC
As the co-host of NBC’s “Today,” Matt Lauer once gave a colleague a sex toy as a present. It included an explicit note about how he wanted to use it on her, which left her mortified.
On another day, he summoned a different female employee to his office, and then dropped his pants, showing her his penis. After the employee declined to do anything, visibly shaken, he reprimanded her for not engaging in a sexual act.
His office was in a secluded space, and he had a button under his desk that allowed him to lock his door from the inside without getting up. This afforded him the assurance of privacy. It allowed him to welcome female employees and initiate inappropriate contact while knowing nobody could walk in on him, according to two women who were sexually harassed by Lauer. variety.com Lauer is a real treasure. I’m not really surprised, though. Pretty much any guy who rises to that level of wealth and power is suspect on this stuff. This is just what dudes do. There are plenty of male public figures, celebrities, and rich people who don't do this stuff though... This isn't the norm. If we take Xdaunt's statement in teh most charitable light, I think he means that the world we live in has allowed powerful men to abuse women. So they do. Not that men are ingrained to do these things on a biological level.
Actually, I think that the urge is biological and natural, which is then tempered by social norms and expectations. Men who hold power just have an easier time doing this stuff, plus tons more opportunities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
