|
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. |
On January 11 2018 12:06 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2018 12:02 Gahlo wrote:On January 11 2018 11:58 Danglars wrote:On January 11 2018 11:47 Herpin_Along wrote:On January 11 2018 05:49 Danglars wrote:
And one lawyer on it (thread)
And they say Trump is uniquely dangerous to the constitutional process. He's practically a bit player in this drama if you ask me. Did.....did you just quote a dude with a twitter name that basically says "jews are not equal"? You're presuming quite a bit from that emoji. That's time better spent reading the thread and commenting as others have. Also picked up by NRO. (Josh Blackman wrote a separate piece). It's almost like words and symbols have meanings. Internet poster: This emoji is intended to read "jews are not equal" Gahlo: Any skepticism in this case is an assault on the meaning of words and symbols. Has Trump taught you to assume antisemitism/alt-right radicalism in quoted tweets from someone right-of-center?
So anything you say is open to free interpretation and it is your fault for conveying poorly, not on the receiver for how they are supposed to interpret it.
|
Canada11409 Posts
There are two reasons for the triple parenthesis- one is the alt right branch that has a thing against the Jews- it's an identifier for anyone of Jewish descent or else signifying that they think they are being influenced or under control of the Jews.
The second reason was in reaction to this- twitter media personalities that have Jewish descent that wear the Jewish warning sign ironically or else proudly (or perhaps both).
|
It’s about as stupid as the summaries suggest. But I always support reading the primary source material.
|
On January 10 2018 19:28 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2018 14:54 mozoku wrote:
Even if you want to redistribute wealth/income, it takes about 5 minutes of thinking about the inefficiencies of price controls in a competitive market to realize that raising the minimum wage is a pretty terrible way to do it.
Most minimum wage employees are (or were) primarily in retail, manufacturing, and food service. Good luck arguing those industries are taking in excess profits in the current economy. It also takes 5 minutes to realise that retails aren't just going to roll over and die. Raising minimum wages increases prices, but it also increases spendings, which is an economical benefit to everyone (or, as the republicans love to say: Gets the economy going). It's literally a winwin which have been thoroughly studied and proven.But of course when you live in a society which doesn't care about things like "scientific studies" or "evidence based" it gets a lot more difficult to convince people of this.
They (physical) retail sector is already shrinking without minimum wage increase--the Amazon effect. Do you pay any attention whatsoever to business trends?
Have you actually looked at any research on the effect of minimum wage increases? It's (in)famously inconclusive (as I would have predicted), so I'm scratching my head on how you're trying to pulling the "BAM! SCIENCE!" card on me.
I've posted my opinions on empirical economics before--it's my view, being a statistician and having worked in economics in the past, that quantitative empirical economics is, in many cases, a fool's errand (at least in the present day). This is especially true as it applies to government policy in developed economies. Economics data is, nearly by definition, entirely observational and the product of an immensely complex data generating process. Moreover, the observed variation between economic policies of developed countries is relatively small, and it's intuitively obvious that the effects of small changes in tax policies and minimum wages on the economy are dwarfed by factors such as demographics, culture, international trade, and technology, in addition the the idiosyncratic nature of every local (whether it be municipality, regional, or federal) economy.
As with other posters here, your understanding of how good science works seems quite poor. Good science, and effective use of it, isn't running a bunch of hypothesis tests, publishing the "significant" ones, then blindly applying whatever you happen to read in the resulting journals. While I've certainly slanted the wording in that description somewhat, the first two clauses are not an entirely inaccurate representation of the status quo of many fields, and the last clause is what you and other posters in this thread seem to be advocating for.
A more appropriate way to analyze the minimum wage literature would be to:
1) Look at relevant theory--in competitive markets, deadweight loss is established and uncontroversial economic theory.
2) Examine if the theory's assumptions are met (i.e. competitive markets)--certainly approximately true in retail, food service, and manufacturing.
3) Adjust your prior--well-studied theory tells us that minimum wages should be net harmful to laborers under current conditions. This should be our tentative (and admittedly uncertain) belief before seeing empirical evidence.
4) Update your belief based on evidence--the evidence is, as stated above, famously inconclusive. I can't claim to have done much in-depth examination of minimum wage papers personally, but I do remember reading the news about conflicting Berkeley and U of Washington papers on its effect in Seattle, and my recollection was that neither paper seemed particularly strong but the Berkeley paper was particularly weak.
With no theoretical justification and with my cursory understanding of the research, I feel zero discomfort in my position that I have no reason thus far to believe an increase in minimum wage is good for laborers (i.e. increases total wage earnings of the pre-intervention minimum wage earners group, not just those who have still have jobs after the increase; after being controlled for confounding factors--the impossible task in empirical analysis of economic policy decisions).
I'd love to hear how you have come to the conclusion that minimum wages are case-closed win-win though. My guess is that you have nowhere near the evidence required to support that position, and are pulling the somewhat common play here of selectively remembering a couple papers/correlations that agreed with your position (and neither have read nor understood), and accusing anyone who doesn't share your opinion as "anti-science" or "anti-evidence."
|
On January 11 2018 12:48 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2018 12:06 Danglars wrote:On January 11 2018 12:02 Gahlo wrote:On January 11 2018 11:58 Danglars wrote:On January 11 2018 11:47 Herpin_Along wrote:Did.....did you just quote a dude with a twitter name that basically says "jews are not equal"? You're presuming quite a bit from that emoji. That's time better spent reading the thread and commenting as others have. Also picked up by NRO. (Josh Blackman wrote a separate piece). It's almost like words and symbols have meanings. Internet poster: This emoji is intended to read "jews are not equal" Gahlo: Any skepticism in this case is an assault on the meaning of words and symbols. Has Trump taught you to assume antisemitism/alt-right radicalism in quoted tweets from someone right-of-center? So anything you say is open to free interpretation and it is your fault for conveying poorly, not on the receiver for how they are supposed to interpret it.
No. I’m not going to stop you if you like slander-first ask-questions-later. Hell, I won’t stop you from bandwagoning in general. I’ll just poke fun at you if you rush to judgement. That ones on you.
|
On January 11 2018 12:55 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2018 12:48 Gahlo wrote:On January 11 2018 12:06 Danglars wrote:On January 11 2018 12:02 Gahlo wrote:On January 11 2018 11:58 Danglars wrote:On January 11 2018 11:47 Herpin_Along wrote:Did.....did you just quote a dude with a twitter name that basically says "jews are not equal"? You're presuming quite a bit from that emoji. That's time better spent reading the thread and commenting as others have. Also picked up by NRO. (Josh Blackman wrote a separate piece). It's almost like words and symbols have meanings. Internet poster: This emoji is intended to read "jews are not equal" Gahlo: Any skepticism in this case is an assault on the meaning of words and symbols. Has Trump taught you to assume antisemitism/alt-right radicalism in quoted tweets from someone right-of-center? So anything you say is open to free interpretation and it is your fault for conveying poorly, not on the receiver for how they are supposed to interpret it. No. I’m not going to stop you if you like slander-first ask-questions-later. Hell, I won’t stop you from bandwagoning in general. I’ll just poke fun at you if you rush to judgement. That ones on you.
Somebody walks into a room with a Swastika shirt, what's your first thought?
|
Any wagers on whether Thomas Crown is Sneaky?
|
|
|
On January 11 2018 12:59 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2018 12:55 Danglars wrote:On January 11 2018 12:48 Gahlo wrote:On January 11 2018 12:06 Danglars wrote:On January 11 2018 12:02 Gahlo wrote:On January 11 2018 11:58 Danglars wrote:On January 11 2018 11:47 Herpin_Along wrote:Did.....did you just quote a dude with a twitter name that basically says "jews are not equal"? You're presuming quite a bit from that emoji. That's time better spent reading the thread and commenting as others have. Also picked up by NRO. (Josh Blackman wrote a separate piece). It's almost like words and symbols have meanings. Internet poster: This emoji is intended to read "jews are not equal" Gahlo: Any skepticism in this case is an assault on the meaning of words and symbols. Has Trump taught you to assume antisemitism/alt-right radicalism in quoted tweets from someone right-of-center? So anything you say is open to free interpretation and it is your fault for conveying poorly, not on the receiver for how they are supposed to interpret it. No. I’m not going to stop you if you like slander-first ask-questions-later. Hell, I won’t stop you from bandwagoning in general. I’ll just poke fun at you if you rush to judgement. That ones on you. Somebody walks into a room with a Swastika shirt, what's your first thought?
I tend to think a Swastika is a bit more well known then ((())), and that people aren't literally being taught about it in highschool. It's definitely possible he just didn't know, to put aside the morality of quoting someone who might be a bad person in order to make a point.
|
United States43538 Posts
I don't think Danglars necessarily knew he was retweeting someone with a Nazi sounding name, anymore than Trump knew that he was retweeting Nazi propaganda when Trump did it. It's just a part of the circles and the politics they run in. It's not a deliberate act, they just tend to overlap a lot.
|
On January 11 2018 12:59 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2018 12:55 Danglars wrote:On January 11 2018 12:48 Gahlo wrote:On January 11 2018 12:06 Danglars wrote:On January 11 2018 12:02 Gahlo wrote:On January 11 2018 11:58 Danglars wrote:On January 11 2018 11:47 Herpin_Along wrote:Did.....did you just quote a dude with a twitter name that basically says "jews are not equal"? You're presuming quite a bit from that emoji. That's time better spent reading the thread and commenting as others have. Also picked up by NRO. (Josh Blackman wrote a separate piece). It's almost like words and symbols have meanings. Internet poster: This emoji is intended to read "jews are not equal" Gahlo: Any skepticism in this case is an assault on the meaning of words and symbols. Has Trump taught you to assume antisemitism/alt-right radicalism in quoted tweets from someone right-of-center? So anything you say is open to free interpretation and it is your fault for conveying poorly, not on the receiver for how they are supposed to interpret it. No. I’m not going to stop you if you like slander-first ask-questions-later. Hell, I won’t stop you from bandwagoning in general. I’ll just poke fun at you if you rush to judgement. That ones on you. Somebody walks into a room with a Swastika shirt, what's your first thought?
A white person with a MAGA hat walks into a room. White supremacist by default or no?
|
On January 11 2018 12:39 Nixer wrote:
While at a glance it looks very much questionable as an username, he's had ≠ (not equal) as an username before this one , and there's no anti-semitic content or sentiment uttered by him in his twitter feed or his blog. Any that I can find at the very least. If anything it's the opposite.
I don't see a problem here, although I did just spend like 30 minutes of my life researching someones online presence.
(((How I naively thought people would react, if they even noticed the name)))
|
On January 11 2018 13:32 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2018 12:59 Gahlo wrote:On January 11 2018 12:55 Danglars wrote:On January 11 2018 12:48 Gahlo wrote:On January 11 2018 12:06 Danglars wrote:On January 11 2018 12:02 Gahlo wrote:On January 11 2018 11:58 Danglars wrote:On January 11 2018 11:47 Herpin_Along wrote:Did.....did you just quote a dude with a twitter name that basically says "jews are not equal"? You're presuming quite a bit from that emoji. That's time better spent reading the thread and commenting as others have. Also picked up by NRO. (Josh Blackman wrote a separate piece). It's almost like words and symbols have meanings. Internet poster: This emoji is intended to read "jews are not equal" Gahlo: Any skepticism in this case is an assault on the meaning of words and symbols. Has Trump taught you to assume antisemitism/alt-right radicalism in quoted tweets from someone right-of-center? So anything you say is open to free interpretation and it is your fault for conveying poorly, not on the receiver for how they are supposed to interpret it. No. I’m not going to stop you if you like slander-first ask-questions-later. Hell, I won’t stop you from bandwagoning in general. I’ll just poke fun at you if you rush to judgement. That ones on you. Somebody walks into a room with a Swastika shirt, what's your first thought? A white person with a MAGA hat walks into a room. White supremacist by default or no?
You show me yours and I'll show you mine.
|
United States43538 Posts
On January 11 2018 13:32 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2018 12:59 Gahlo wrote:On January 11 2018 12:55 Danglars wrote:On January 11 2018 12:48 Gahlo wrote:On January 11 2018 12:06 Danglars wrote:On January 11 2018 12:02 Gahlo wrote:On January 11 2018 11:58 Danglars wrote:On January 11 2018 11:47 Herpin_Along wrote:Did.....did you just quote a dude with a twitter name that basically says "jews are not equal"? You're presuming quite a bit from that emoji. That's time better spent reading the thread and commenting as others have. Also picked up by NRO. (Josh Blackman wrote a separate piece). It's almost like words and symbols have meanings. Internet poster: This emoji is intended to read "jews are not equal" Gahlo: Any skepticism in this case is an assault on the meaning of words and symbols. Has Trump taught you to assume antisemitism/alt-right radicalism in quoted tweets from someone right-of-center? So anything you say is open to free interpretation and it is your fault for conveying poorly, not on the receiver for how they are supposed to interpret it. No. I’m not going to stop you if you like slander-first ask-questions-later. Hell, I won’t stop you from bandwagoning in general. I’ll just poke fun at you if you rush to judgement. That ones on you. Somebody walks into a room with a Swastika shirt, what's your first thought? A white person with a MAGA hat walks into a room. White supremacist by default or no?
No, could be wearing it ironically. But if I were asked to bet on it then I'd bet yes.
I don't think moderates appreciate how difficult it is for modern conservatives espousing modern conservative beliefs to not accidentally come across as white supremacists. That's a form of moderate privilege. Like I can just say shit like "I think Brexit is being executed poorly" and not worry about whether that's a Pol Pot quote. Whereas conservatives can't even retweet infographics about black on black violence from the President of the United States without a risk of it being actual honest to God Nazi propaganda from a Hitler loving SS wannabe. They can't say "America First!" without people wondering if they're deliberating echoing the American WWII Nazi party or if the overlap is incidental. They can't go to Nazi rallies, even if they're good people, without ending up photographed saluting a Swastika on the internet.
I can browse twitter happily enough without ever worrying that I might find myself supporting the gulag. A lot of people just don't have that kind of luxury, they'll innocently be repeating the tweets of someone they agree with only to find out that the person's username implies that they're an antisemite. We need to be more sympathetic to that shit and recognize that the majority of conservatives are not Nazis, they just agree with Nazis.
|
On January 11 2018 12:39 Nixer wrote:
While at a glance it looks very much questionable as an username, he's had ≠ (not equal) as an username before this one , and there's no anti-semitic content or sentiment uttered by him in his twitter feed or his blog. Any that I can find at the very least. If anything it's the opposite.
I don't see a problem here, although I did just spend like 30 minutes of my life researching someones online presence.
Thank you. That answers my question pretty well.
There are two ways of being unequal after all: superior or inferior. Or maybe he's saying inequality echoes throughout history.
|
On January 11 2018 13:48 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2018 13:32 Danglars wrote:On January 11 2018 12:59 Gahlo wrote:On January 11 2018 12:55 Danglars wrote:On January 11 2018 12:48 Gahlo wrote:On January 11 2018 12:06 Danglars wrote:On January 11 2018 12:02 Gahlo wrote:On January 11 2018 11:58 Danglars wrote:On January 11 2018 11:47 Herpin_Along wrote:Did.....did you just quote a dude with a twitter name that basically says "jews are not equal"? You're presuming quite a bit from that emoji. That's time better spent reading the thread and commenting as others have. Also picked up by NRO. (Josh Blackman wrote a separate piece). It's almost like words and symbols have meanings. Internet poster: This emoji is intended to read "jews are not equal" Gahlo: Any skepticism in this case is an assault on the meaning of words and symbols. Has Trump taught you to assume antisemitism/alt-right radicalism in quoted tweets from someone right-of-center? So anything you say is open to free interpretation and it is your fault for conveying poorly, not on the receiver for how they are supposed to interpret it. No. I’m not going to stop you if you like slander-first ask-questions-later. Hell, I won’t stop you from bandwagoning in general. I’ll just poke fun at you if you rush to judgement. That ones on you. Somebody walks into a room with a Swastika shirt, what's your first thought? A white person with a MAGA hat walks into a room. White supremacist by default or no? No, could be wearing it ironically. But if I were asked to bet on it then I'd bet yes. I don't think moderates appreciate how difficult it is for modern conservatives espousing modern conservative beliefs to not accidentally come across as white supremacists. That's a form of moderate privilege. Like I can just say shit like "I think Brexit is being executed poorly" and not worry about whether that's a Pol Pot quote. Whereas conservatives can't even retweet infographics about black on black violence from the President of the United States without a risk of it being actual honest to God Nazi propaganda from a Hitler loving SS wannabe. They can't say "America First!" without people wondering if they're deliberating echoing the American WWII Nazi party or if the overlap is incidental. They can't go to Nazi rallies, even if they're good people, without ending up photographed saluting a Swastika on the internet. I can browse twitter happily enough without ever worrying that I might find myself supporting the gulag. A lot of people just don't have that kind of luxury, they'll innocently be repeating the tweets of someone they agree with only to find out that the person's username implies that they're an antisemite. We need to be more sympathetic to that shit and recognize that the majority of conservatives are not Nazis, they just agree with Nazis.
You've taken smug condescension to a brand new level, well done.
|
United States43538 Posts
In other news Trump has announced that Norway is buying the F-52, a fictional aircraft from the Call of Duty franchise. What this means for Norway's fictional enemies is unclear but it will certainly be a boon for fictional manufacturing jobs in America.
Not really news, just another day, another gaffe.
|
They ordered 52 f-35s, I'd say this is the most manufactured drama of all time.
|
On January 11 2018 15:06 bo1b wrote:
They ordered 52 f-35s, I'd say this is the most manufactured drama of all time.
Did you miss the Obama presidency?
A Republican congressmen said a tan suit was a metaphor for his lack of seriousness, and people said the same for Michelle wearing a sleeveless dress.
|
My apologies, I forgot Obama eating dijon mustard on his burger and the drama that unfolded.
It seems more dramatic to me I suppose, under the previous administration it was really just Fox in the main promoting that sort of garbage, now it seems like it's everyone else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
