|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On January 29 2019 20:28 Sr18 wrote:
Thanks for the explanation GreenHorizon. I know understand the point you are trying to make. I'm not sure if I agree though. How to prove that only exploited people riot? What do you consider to be exploitation in this context?
I'm not sure that it matters? That was the point of asking for an example in the first place. I think we already agreed that there are currently no exploitation-free riots so there's no evidence we could have one. They exist in theory but not the real world so far as we know.
My argument is that reducing exploitation reduces riots and is the least bad option. Perhaps there are some aspects of exploitation that have more dramatic effects than others on such a reduction (for example: you probably get a more significant impact raising wages from <$1/hr to $10/hr then you get from the next $10/hr dollars in wages) but it doesn't really matter what kind of exploitation it is to the original point.
The larger point is that the reason people want to defend the use of oppressive crackdowns with teargas is because the people who make the teargas and the people the teargas is protecting don't put reducing the exploitation on the table until they have to move from teargas to guns or worse.
|
On January 29 2019 20:15 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2019 20:02 Neneu wrote:
You are mistaking correlation for causation. You can't say that because the rioters have been exploited in their lives, they are rioting because they have been exploited. You could make the exact same argument with watching TV or wearing pants. You may be right that without exploitation there will still be riots, but a 100% correlation between exploitation and riots, and a 0% correlation with non-exploited people rioting does support my argument, while not proving it conclusively.
If you consider 100% of the population is exploited, then the correlation is immediate and inconclusive. If you consider any riot where at least 1 person has been exploited at some point correlates the riot with exploitation, the 100% correlation is a fun play with numbers.
I propose that any riot where at least 1 rioter is not exploited based on some random criteria (let's say shoe size) is not correlated to exploitation.
Another way to say that is (sorry I don't know European geography well) if you live in a shithole apartment in Baltimore, you're statistically far more likely to riot than if you live in a mansion in Beverly Hills.
According to https://www.indeed.com/q-Riot-l-Beverly-Hills,-CA-jobs.html there are 129 riot jobs opened in Beverly Hills, but I would agree with that one. Question is: if we relocate everyone in Beverly Hills, what is the new rioting likelyhood distribution and does the average actually change?
Your point seems to be that the need to riot, driven by income inequalities, would disappear and therefore riots would do the same. Opposing idea is that regardless of inequalities we identify today, our successors will always find something to be mad about (religion, politics, skin color or shoe size, altitude of the randomly attributed house on the hill ...).
Today's focus and trigger may well be income/wealth inequalities and reducing them should be one of our goals, but expecting that solving those inequalities would make everyone happy ever after sounds very optimistic. We humans are very good at creating categories and very fast at identifying "us" and "them".
|
On January 29 2019 21:36 Oshuy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2019 20:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 29 2019 20:02 Neneu wrote:
You are mistaking correlation for causation. You can't say that because the rioters have been exploited in their lives, they are rioting because they have been exploited. You could make the exact same argument with watching TV or wearing pants. You may be right that without exploitation there will still be riots, but a 100% correlation between exploitation and riots, and a 0% correlation with non-exploited people rioting does support my argument, while not proving it conclusively. If you consider 100% of the population is exploited, then the correlation is immediate and inconclusive. If you consider any riot where at least 1 person has been exploited at some point correlates the riot with exploitation, the 100% correlation is a fun play with numbers. I propose that any riot where at least 1 rioter is not exploited based on some random criteria (let's say shoe size) is not correlated to exploitation. Show nested quote +Another way to say that is (sorry I don't know European geography well) if you live in a shithole apartment in Baltimore, you're statistically far more likely to riot than if you live in a mansion in Beverly Hills. According to https://www.indeed.com/q-Riot-l-Beverly-Hills,-CA-jobs.html there are 129 riot jobs opened in Beverly Hills, but I would agree with that one. Question is: if we relocate everyone in Beverly Hills, what is the new rioting likelyhood distribution and does the average actually change? Your point seems to be that the need to riot, driven by income inequalities, would disappear and therefore riots would do the same. Opposing idea is that regardless of inequalities we identify today, our successors will always find something to be mad about (religion, politics, skin color or shoe size, altitude of the randomly attributed house on the hill ...). Today's focus and trigger may well be income/wealth inequalities and reducing them should be one of our goals, but expecting that solving those inequalities would make everyone happy ever after sounds very optimistic. We humans are very good at creating categories and very fast at identifying "us" and "them".
Your first point is why I suggested we could and should test it.
That is to say if there's a correlation between shoe size and rioting we should be able to make predictions and observe if they match reality, then speculate as to why. So I would suspect there is some correlation, I'd bet there are very few baby sized shoes at riots, but I wouldn't suggest that's because they are on the lower scale of exploitation (perhaps they are) but because of other circumstances that come with having a baby sized shoe. Again we can't conclude which is true, just which one is more reasonable and matches more demonstrated examples (which is tough given our limited data).
I'm so slow it took me a second to get the riot joke lol. but no I wasn't suggesting relocating everyone to beverly hills is a viable solution to rioting for all of the obvious reasons. I was trying to make a simpler analogy for those who may be confused about the general point.
It's more complex than income inequality, that was just an example I presume people are both familiar with and generally receptive of addressing (or at least they think they are like they think they are against oppressive crackdowns with teargas).
I would agree that exploitation would need to be addressed on every axis including but not limited to race, religion, sex, gender, skin, geography, etc... in order to reach an ideal situation though.
I'm not exactly sure what you're intending to argue in that the end seems to be in favor of my point that reducing exploitation is the least bad option, even compared to the contending position of oppressive crackdowns and teargas.
So the dispute isn't whether or not riots and exploitation are related, they are. I think we all agree while not conclusively causational the relationship between exploitation and rioting is stronger than something like shoe size (accounting for the baby shoe scenario)
The crux of the debate is whether oppressive crackdowns with teargas or reducing exploitation is the least bad option. I must say I'm finding the case for the former almost altogether lacking despite the unanimity of it's acceptance. In addition I'm concluding the assertion that folks would justify oppressive crackdowns with teargas demonstrated and the indignation at the accusation to be unfounded.
|
On January 29 2019 21:58 GreenHorizons wrote:
The crux of the debate is whether oppressive crackdowns with teargas or reducing exploitation is the least bad option. I must say I'm finding the case for the former almost altogether lacking despite the unanimity of it's acceptance. In addition I'm concluding the assertion that folks would justify oppressive crackdowns with teargas demonstrated and the indignation at the accusation to be unfounded.
You are submitting a choice between on one hand looking for root causes (that you identify as exploitation),then addressing them and on the other the tools used to address an occurring riot.
The first one is a long term goal to a set of complex issues and (to me) a never ending roadmap of adaptation to the current context, which will always keep a fringe of unrest. The second one is an immediate response to a problem during its occurrence.
In an ideal world, you manage to find good enough solutions to the current issues that the riots never happen. Knowing that such a dream situation isn't practical, you still need to address the riots when they occur. The question on tear gas is rather : what tools do we allow once the riots start.
The issues I have with anti riot weapons are only when an oppressive power decides there is no need to work on issues because the tools to punish and repress civil unrest exist and/or when citizens accept a situation they probably shouldn't because of their fear of retaliation. This is when you enter a reform vs revolution or riot vs civil war territory.
|
On January 29 2019 22:33 Oshuy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2019 21:58 GreenHorizons wrote:
The crux of the debate is whether oppressive crackdowns with teargas or reducing exploitation is the least bad option. I must say I'm finding the case for the former almost altogether lacking despite the unanimity of it's acceptance. In addition I'm concluding the assertion that folks would justify oppressive crackdowns with teargas demonstrated and the indignation at the accusation to be unfounded. You are submitting a choice between on one hand looking for root causes (that you identify as exploitation),then addressing them and on the other the tools used to address an occurring riot. The first one is a long term goal to a set of complex issues and (to me) a never ending roadmap of adaptation to the current context, which will always keep a fringe of unrest. The second one is an immediate response to a problem during its occurrence. In an ideal world, you manage to find good enough solutions to the current issues that the riots never happen. Knowing that such a dream situation isn't practical, you still need to address the riots when they occur. The question on tear gas is rather : what tools do we allow once the riots start. The issues I have with anti riot weapons are only when an oppressive power decides there is no need to work on issues because the tools to punish and repress civil unrest exist and/or when citizens accept a situation they probably shouldn't because of their fear of retaliation. This is when you enter a reform vs revolution or riot vs civil war territory.
I reject the proposition that an ideal world need be achieved to eliminate the alleged need for teargas. Moreover we needn't eliminate the use of teargas altogether in order for it not to be the least bad option for reducing the negative consequences of rioting (which I presume teargas is supposed to be for) or the likelihood a riot happens in the first place.
I believe we've established (given our limited available data without comprehensive gathering) that while teargas is occasionally used at riots occasionally not borne out of rather straightforward exploitation, it's far more frequently used against people we would all agree are clearly at least marginally exploited.
The issues you have with anti-riot weapons are their existence and use. That manifests in trying to arbitrarily draw the line at when or what weapons indicate to you that the oppressive crackdowns to protect the ownership class have crossed a line regarding using them on people who are righteously rejecting their exploitation and/or when people have accepted a level of exploitation they shouldn't.
In this context my argument is that teargas is indicative that the people it's being used to protect have already crossed that line.
Which means the counterargument is that they haven't, that people should accept a society that needs to use teargas even if that means an innocent person has to lose an eye, kids have to hurt, and completely uninvolved, or even allied people must be harmed as well
Which may very well be true but then it only proves the original assertion and that the indignation at the presumption was unwarranted.
I think when the universal reaction to the suggestion that teargas shouldn't be used is that the person saying that is living in a fantasy and that it could be worse than teargas, those people have already conceded far too much exploitation and are prepared to defend even more.
|
On January 29 2019 22:55 GreenHorizons wrote:
I reject the proposition that an ideal world need be achieved to eliminate the alleged need for teargas.
There is no need for one specific weapon or another. I consider riots to be inevitable because citizens will always identify an issue on which to focus their unrest (living in France helps getting to that opinion) and I believe there is a need to protect the population against the rioters.
Given those assumptions, the only choice is in the selection of the weapons you authorize, teargas if one of the choices.
On January 29 2019 22:55 GreenHorizons wrote:The issues you have with anti-riot weapons are their existence and use.
No, I have no issue with their existence and use: I do not manage to imagine a long term stability without rioting and I consider the defense of the population to be one of the mandates of the state, therefore I admit their neccessity. I also consider there is a limit to be set on their use, like with any tool.
In this context my argument is that teargas is indicative that the people it's being used to protect have already crossed that line.
Which only means you either set the line at a different place or have a different estimate of the situation needed for a riot to occur, and that you envision different weapons.
|
On January 29 2019 23:33 Oshuy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2019 22:55 GreenHorizons wrote:
I reject the proposition that an ideal world need be achieved to eliminate the alleged need for teargas. There is no need for one specific weapon or another. I consider riots to be inevitable because citizens will always identify an issue on which to focus their unrest (living in France helps getting to that opinion) and I believe there is a need to protect the population against the rioters. Given those assumptions, the only choice is in the selection of the weapons you authorize, teargas if one of the choices. Show nested quote +On January 29 2019 22:55 GreenHorizons wrote:The issues you have with anti-riot weapons are their existence and use. No, I have no issue with their existence and use: I do not manage to imagine a long term stability without rioting and I consider the defense of the population to be one of the mandates of the state, therefore I admit their neccessity. I also consider there is a limit to be set on their use, like with any tool. Show nested quote +In this context my argument is that teargas is indicative that the people it's being used to protect have already crossed that line. Which only means you either set the line at a different place or have a different estimate of the situation needed for a riot to occur, and that you envision different weapons.
I don't accept riots as inevitable. I view them as a result of conditions we control. Riots that need teargas aren't just people getting upset, the examples of riots on the lower end of being related to exploitation were sports riots and as I've been looking most of those don't require teargas. If we reduce the major lanes of exploitation like wealth and racial inequality there may be riots but that is less bad than developing and producing more palatable weapons for oppressive crackdowns and as is the case in many riots not require them at all.
I'd note the inhumane perception of weapons of oppression is part of what makes protesting or rioting work. If they had a gun that shot a signal into your brain that made you dance like MJ they could oppress the shit out of people.
The assertion that there's just always going to be riots isn't supported by the riots we currently see. But even if we grant the assertion that we can't stop riots, we still have to cover why teargas is less bad than not only addressing exploitation, but also just not using it.
EDIT: What the argument your presenting feels like to me is that you're comfortable with the current level/arrangement (give or take a bit) of exploitation and that those that disagree (by way of "riot") deserve the teargas to bring it back to the original point, this was what they meant when they said there would be practically universal support for the oppressive crackdowns.
|
GreenHorizons, from reading your posts it appears that you believe a large portion of the western population is being exploited, presumably by those more wealthy than they are. You also seem to conclude that because of this exploitation, the majority of riots are justified.
These assumptions don't seem to be shared by the other posters, eventhough you seem to think that they are. Personally, I think you need be using a rather loose and creative definition of exploitation to come to the conclusion that the average westerner is being exploited. There aren't many (if any) places or periods in history where life was better. I'd even say that the average rioter is likely to have the best life of all the people in his lineage.
Because of our differing view of how exploited the average rioter is, we also differ in our assessment of how beneficial limiting exploitation would be for reducing the number of riots. I don't think it would do much, as exploitation is not a prime cause of riots.
But perhaps when you say exploitation, you really mean inequality. That would make more sense, as jealousy can feed malcontent, which can make people more prone to riot.
|
On January 30 2019 00:07 Sr18 wrote:
GreenHorizons, from reading your posts it appears that you believe a large portion of the western population is being exploited, presumably by those more wealthy than they are. You also seem to conclude that because of this exploitation, the majority of riots are justified.
These assumptions don't seem to be shared by the other posters, eventhough you seem to think that they are. Personally, I think you need be using a rather loose and creative definition of exploitation to come to the conclusion that the average westerner is being exploited. There aren't many (if any) places or periods in history where life was better. I'd even say that the average rioter is likely to have the best life of all the people in his lineage.
Because of our differing view of how exploited the average rioter is, we also differ in our assessment of how beneficial limiting exploitation would be for reducing the number of riots. I don't think it would do much, as exploitation is not a prime cause of riots.
But perhaps when you say exploitation, you really mean inequality. That would make more sense, as jealousy can feed malcontent, which can make people more prone to riot.
I don't think that they are, the point of this exercise was to demonstrate that they don't.
I'm curious what you think the prime cause of riots is and from what do you draw this belief?
I do see exploitation and inequality as inextricably connected but not quite interchangeable.
You also mentioned "in the west" I would just add that generally "in the east" they are already at the gun stage or beyond.
|
On January 30 2019 00:03 GreenHorizons wrote:
I don't accept riots as inevitable. I view them as a result of conditions we control.
Last post for me, starting to be repetitive. Main thing is that we disagree on the inevitability.
Riots that need teargas aren't just people getting upset, the examples of riots on the lower end of being related to exploitation were sports riots and as I've been looking most of those don't require teargas.
I tend to see teargas as the default, it is most definitely used in sports riots (at least in France). If teargas not used then it is not a riot but a pacific protest.
But even if we grant the assertion that we can't stop riots, we still have to cover why teargas is less bad than not only addressing exploitation, but also just not using it.
Adressing the issue and using it are both needed, that is the point. It is not a matter of chosing between improving the situation and protecting the citizen, we must work on both.
Issues need to be addressed (long term an ever changing) and tools to protect the population against the rioters are required (immediate and to me inevitable).
EDIT: What the argument your presenting feels like to me is that you're comfortable with the current level/arrangement (give or take a bit) of exploitation and that those that disagree (by way of "riot") deserve the teargas to bring it back to the original point, this was what they meant when they said there would be practically universal support for the oppressive crackdowns.
This is a complete misunderstanding on your part. I consider the two problems to be separate.
On one hand there are issues (among which whatever you put under the tag exploitation) that need addressing and that should be the first rule of the government and/or the first drive of the voters.
I would agree that progress on any issue, as long as the tradeoff isn't worse and the gain is perceived by the population, has a high chance of lowering the number of riots in the short term.
To me, there will still be riots in any case however and the government also has a duty to protect the population against the rioters. This protection needs tools, among which we have teargas today.
|
On January 30 2019 00:59 Oshuy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2019 00:03 GreenHorizons wrote:
I don't accept riots as inevitable. I view them as a result of conditions we control. Last post for me, starting to be repetitive. Main thing is that we disagree on the inevitability. Show nested quote +Riots that need teargas aren't just people getting upset, the examples of riots on the lower end of being related to exploitation were sports riots and as I've been looking most of those don't require teargas. I tend to see teargas as the default, it is most definitely used in sports riots (at least in France). If teargas not used then it is not a riot but a pacific protest. Show nested quote +But even if we grant the assertion that we can't stop riots, we still have to cover why teargas is less bad than not only addressing exploitation, but also just not using it. Adressing the issue and using it are both needed, that is the point. It is not a matter of chosing between improving the situation and protecting the citizen, we must work on both. Issues need to be addressed (long term an ever changing) and tools to protect the population against the rioters are required (immediate and to me inevitable). Show nested quote +EDIT: What the argument your presenting feels like to me is that you're comfortable with the current level/arrangement (give or take a bit) of exploitation and that those that disagree (by way of "riot") deserve the teargas to bring it back to the original point, this was what they meant when they said there would be practically universal support for the oppressive crackdowns. This is a complete misunderstanding on your part. I consider the two problems to be separate. On one hand there are issues (among which whatever you put under the tag exploitation) that need addressing and that should be the first rule of the government and/or the first drive of the voters. I would agree that progress on any issue, as long as the tradeoff isn't worse and the gain is perceived by the population, has a high chance of lowering the number of riots in the short term. To me, there will still be riots in any case however and the government also has a duty to protect the population against the rioters. This protection needs tools, among which we have teargas today.
It may be different in Europe but they usually aren't using teargas to protect people but to harm people and protect property in the US. So I disagree that it's a governments obligation to protect people that obligates them to teargas them.
But I think this means we've determined the original poster/point was accurate, that there's universal support (among the centrists they were referencing) for oppressive crackdowns with teargas as "necessary". Be they legitimate riots or rowdy sport fans
|
Probably the saddest part about the Brexit saga is that labour had decided to put a guy in charge who is so utterly unpalatable to the electorate at large that the UK is going to head into Tory no-deal brexit instead of having a reasonable labour government that could actually negotiate something that doesn't suck.
|
You know, if you want neoliberal politics maybe go and blame parties like the libdems for not delivering anything anyone would ever want instead of demanding workers parties to fuck over workers and drive them into the grip of the far-right.
How is it going for the German SPD? 15% and dropping a percent every month? So reasonable, much appreciated by the electorate!
|
Given that the three winners of the last few years of German politics are the Greens, who have become a more moderate party, the FDP, and the AfD, yes the answer isn't to run a Corbynite in Germany. The SPD has a much simpler problem first and foremost, their entire caste of politicians sucks. Replace Nahles, Schulz and Stegner with someone who is actually taken seriously and then we can talk about a program.
People are perfectly fine with 'neoliberal' candiates in Germany, that's 90% of the party spectrum by the sort of catch-it-all derogatory definition you're going for here
|
On February 10 2019 06:03 Nyxisto wrote:https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1094287716412522496Probably the saddest part about the Brexit saga is that labour had decided to put a guy in charge who is so utterly unpalatable to the electorate at large that the UK is going to head into Tory no-deal brexit instead of having a reasonable labour government that could actually negotiate something that doesn't suck.
Strange, I didn't believe Europeans know or care who Jeremy Corbyn is until you posted. Going to the actual poll taker, I can't find how any information that correlates exactly to what was written in the twitter. What is "-52" anyways? I wonder who funds this "aggregator".
In any case Corbyn's growing unpopularity is due to his handing of brexit as opposition leader, not due to any of his general policies.
|
On February 10 2019 09:09 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2019 06:03 Nyxisto wrote:https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1094287716412522496Probably the saddest part about the Brexit saga is that labour had decided to put a guy in charge who is so utterly unpalatable to the electorate at large that the UK is going to head into Tory no-deal brexit instead of having a reasonable labour government that could actually negotiate something that doesn't suck. Strange, I didn't believe Europeans know or care who Jeremy Corbyn is until you posted. Going to the actual poll taker, I can't find how any information that correlates exactly to what was written in the twitter. What is "-52" anyways? I wonder who funds this "aggregator". In any case Corbyn's growing unpopularity is due to his handing of brexit as opposition leader, not due to any of his general policies.
I'd guess that "net approval" means "Approve"% - "Not approve"%. Which can easily be negativ or -52, for example in the case of 20% approve, 72% not approve (I don't know the actual numbers, i am illustrating a point here)
Of course, i also do not know where that information is from or whether it is legit, but just because you are not sure what something means does not mean it is nonsense.
Edit: A short google lead to this:
https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/jeremy-corbyns-satisfaction-ratings-fall-historic-low
And they seem to be a superficially legit polling company.
|
On February 10 2019 06:57 Nyxisto wrote:
Given that the three winners of the last few years of German politics are the Greens, who have become a more moderate party, the FDP, and the AfD, yes the answer isn't to run a Corbynite in Germany. The SPD has a much simpler problem first and foremost, their entire caste of politicians sucks. Replace Nahles, Schulz and Stegner with someone who is actually taken seriously and then we can talk about a program.
People are perfectly fine with 'neoliberal' candiates in Germany, that's 90% of the party spectrum by the sort of catch-it-all derogatory definition you're going for here
Candidates of the SPD are only half the story. Schulz had a real shot, but his train crashed when instead of doubling down on his vague social promises, he started showcasing that he wouldn't change anything in regares to Hartz4 or taxes. That and the far-right media bias like the TV duell with Mrs. Merkel that was solely about refugees.
|
On February 10 2019 10:14 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2019 09:09 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On February 10 2019 06:03 Nyxisto wrote:https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1094287716412522496Probably the saddest part about the Brexit saga is that labour had decided to put a guy in charge who is so utterly unpalatable to the electorate at large that the UK is going to head into Tory no-deal brexit instead of having a reasonable labour government that could actually negotiate something that doesn't suck. Strange, I didn't believe Europeans know or care who Jeremy Corbyn is until you posted. Going to the actual poll taker, I can't find how any information that correlates exactly to what was written in the twitter. What is "-52" anyways? I wonder who funds this "aggregator". In any case Corbyn's growing unpopularity is due to his handing of brexit as opposition leader, not due to any of his general policies. I'd guess that "net approval" means "Approve"% - "Not approve"%. Which can easily be negativ or -52, for example in the case of 20% approve, 72% not approve (I don't know the actual numbers, i am illustrating a point here) Of course, i also do not know where that information is from or whether it is legit, but just because you are not sure what something means does not mean it is nonsense. Edit: A short google lead to this: https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/jeremy-corbyns-satisfaction-ratings-fall-historic-lowAnd they seem to be a superficially legit polling company. I didn't say ipsos-mori wasn't a legit polling company. I was talking about the EuropeElects aggregator itself. The actual polling company has like 20 pages of tables and graphs. But I can see now where they got the -52 from anyways thanks.
|
There's a new trend in my country where companies (mostly medium sized ones) offer employees a split salary, which is the minimum salary in the paperwork submitted to the gov with the difference to the real salary paid on a cryptocurrency card to minimize tax without the traces left by cash. Have you guys encountered this plague as well?
|
That sounds super illegal and like something that you don't get away with for a long period of time. I really can't see a government tolerating such utterly open tax fraud, or being incompetent enough not to notice something that so many people would need to know about. It only needs one prospective hire (not even an employee) to talk to the government about it to make the whole thing blow up.
Also, no, never encountered something like that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
