US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1178

On March 04 2019 19:38 Nebuchad wrote:


Do you often watch John Oliver? Notice how this segment is built, and compare it to segments where he makes actual good points, like the one on psychics last week. Usually he presents the issue in a structured way that is compelling, with a presentation of his thesis in the beginning; everything is designed to get the point across. This time, talking about the issues that come with automation, he doesn't even genuinely bring up what these issues are until 10 minutes into the conversation, when he's already made all the points in favour of automation that he wants to make. For the first 10 minutes of the presentation, the theme is "automation is not as bad as they said, look!", and there is some misdirection involved (for example, talking about banking jobs being replaced before you mention truckers allows you to sidestep the fact that there is a 0% chance that enough jobs related to automatic driving will be created to replace all those truckers; and talking about how we used to have a bunch of farmers, but then we needed more workers so now we don't have all these farmers anymore ignores that the driving force that caused people to become something else than farmers, namely capitalists, is now the driving force that will drive the decrease in available jobs). Then after 10 minutes, the real issues with automation are finally brought up, and this part of the presentation is way less optimistic, as it should be. Then we end up with some Trump bashing to lift our spirits up because, well, Trump is doing bad things as usual, it's something that we can always feel reassured about isn't it.

This way of structuring the presentation is designed not for clarity, but to keep you from realizing that in this piece where he supposedly defends automation to some extent, the only solution that he has brought up for the actual problem of automation, reconversion, is kind of nonsense, as shown by the trucker that he quoted in his own segment talking about how that's just not going to happen for most of them. Not to mention that this ignores all of the second hand jobs, truck stop restaurants and the like, that are built around the trucking industry and are also doomed to disappear.

The reason why I'm bringing liberalism into this is because liberalism wants you to reach the conclusion that you have reached: "It sucks that some people and communities will have their life damaged badly by automation. But that’s the world changing, liberalism or not." This is sad, but there's nothing that we can do. It's actually not true that there's nothing that we can do, what's true is that liberalism can't do anything. If you don't worship the free market, there are lots of possible solutions that you can work towards, and lots of bandaids that you can apply in the meantime. You mentioned increasing the social security net, and that's an idea. Basic income is another. Also we could ditch capitalism but that's just you and me =) Anyway, none of these are liberal ideas, as they involve the government taking precedence over the free market, and as such, none of them made their way to John Oliver's segment. I will grant you that I wouldn't expect ditching capitalism to make it to the segment; but basic income should definitely be mentioned in any serious and unbiased analysis of automation made in today's situation.

On March 04 2019 18:02 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Not only being critical of Israel has absolutely nothing to do with open borders, but it also has nothing to do with anti semitism either.

It just happens that authentic anti semites use the anti sionist banner to camouflage their racism and that proponents of Israel accuses of anti semitism everyone who criticizes them. It’s become really hard to even talk about Israel without being caught in that toxic crossfire.

On March 04 2019 16:50 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:

Israel is a religious ethnostate with strong borders (wall).Israel being a nation state created for Jewish people is part of Israel basic law.

So why are people surprised when the left is so against Israel.Of course the open borders crowd doesn’t like them.Hell look at Corbyn in the UK.Every week some new story in the papers about how he’s an antisemite.

On March 04 2019 21:32 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:

So basically no different to the left trotting out racist, sexist, homophobic at anyone who disagrees with them the past 5 or so years.I mean Sanders called Trump homophobic a couple of weeks ago, around the same time Trump launched his campaign to decriminalise homosexuality worldwide.It's all a bit tired isn't it?

I'm aware that not all jews are Zionists and you can disagree with Zionism but not Jews but it's been interesting to see the left be caught up in being called anti-semitic for opposing Zionism and what is happening to the Palestinian people.A taste of their own medicine perhaps.As for my Corbyn comments earlier personally i think the BBC/Guardian are undermining him because he is anti EU.The BBC with an agenda? who would have thunk it.If it turns Corbynites against the BBC & Guardian then keep going i say.

On March 04 2019 19:55 Velr wrote:
UBI is just another form of strong social security net. I really don't get what makes it fundamentally better/diffrent from other Systems that don't let people starve. Aside from being, in theory, easier to implement.
I'm not against it, I just don't see why so many people get such a hard on for it.

Some people/communities will get hurt by automation no matter what, others will benefit greatly. Keeping horrible jobs just for the sake of it, can't be the solutio no matter what.

On March 05 2019 01:20 ticklishmusic wrote:


One issue with UBI IMO is that unless executed carefully, it becomes just another element of a really patchwork social safety net. It seems like you need to basically do zero-based budgeting and and re evaluate/ overhaul the social safety net in its entirety to figure out exactly how much UBI really makes sense, and how much of the existing programs need to even exist and whom to serve in a world with UBI.

Otherwise UBI kind of can become an excuse to cut various programs willy nilly, a lot easier to argue disability isn't really necessary since John-who-lost-both-arms-in-a-construction-accident is already getting UBI.

On March 05 2019 01:32 Gorsameth wrote:
Ideally you would indeed cut other programs entirely and replace the whole system with UBI.
If the state pays every citizen enough to live off of you don't need additional safety nets and those who want to earn more can work to do so.

But true UBI is pretty pie in the sky stuff at this point. Worth exploring but not ready for large scale implementation.

On March 05 2019 01:42 JimmiC wrote:
No way it is happening the US first, or anytime soon. Over here in NA we have a very set everyone has to work a job for at least 40 hours a week but more preferred and it is really how we value people. I think that even if you took away all the costs and it was affordable a lot of people would have issues with "free loaders" not having to work. Which is to bad because I think Automation could free up so much time for people to pursue arts, music, whatever it is they truly love if they had a basic income. And those that wanted more stuff, and had the skills/intelligence to work still could.

On March 05 2019 01:32 Gorsameth wrote:
Ideally you would indeed cut other programs entirely and replace the whole system with UBI.
If the state pays every citizen enough to live off of you don't need additional safety nets and those who want to earn more can work to do so.

But true UBI is pretty pie in the sky stuff at this point. Worth exploring but not ready for large scale implementation.

On March 05 2019 02:17 ticklishmusic wrote:
I generally enjoy working. Plus, my lifestyle honestly requires a lot more money than UBI would provide.

On March 05 2019 00:44 Ayaz2810 wrote:
Oh wow. Fox News literally state media at this point. I wonder if anything crossed the line into illegality.

"A pair of Fox insiders and a source close to Trump believe that Ailes informed the Trump campaign about Kelly’s question. Two of those sources say that they know of the tipoff from a purported eyewitness. In addition, a former Trump campaign aide says that a Fox contact gave him advance notice of a different debate question, which asked the candidates whether they would support the Republican nominee, regardless of who won. The former aide says that the heads-up was passed on to Trump..."

“Good reporting, kiddo. But Rupert [Murdoch] wants Donald Trump to win. So just let it go.”

https://www.thedailybeast.com/fox-news-got-stormy-daniels-story-before-trumps-election-spiked-it-report?source=articles&via=rss

In January, during the longest government shutdown in America’s history, President Donald Trump rode in a motorcade through Hidalgo County, Texas, eventually stopping on a grassy bluff overlooking the Rio Grande. The White House wanted to dramatize what Trump was portraying as a national emergency: the need to build a wall along the Mexican border. The presence of armored vehicles, bales of confiscated marijuana, and federal agents in flak jackets underscored the message.

But the photo op dramatized something else about the Administration. After members of the press pool got out of vans and headed over to where the President was about to speak, they noticed that Sean Hannity, the Fox News host, was already on location. Unlike them, he hadn’t been confined by the Secret Service, and was mingling with Administration officials, at one point hugging Kirstjen Nielsen, the Secretary of Homeland Security. The pool report noted that Hannity was seen “huddling” with the White House communications director, Bill Shine. After the photo op, Hannity had an exclusive on-air interview with Trump. Politico later reported that it was Hannity’s seventh interview with the President, and Fox’s forty-second. Since then, Trump has given Fox two more. He has granted only ten to the three other main television networks combined, and none to CNN, which he denounces as “fake news.”

Hannity was treated in Texas like a member of the Administration because he virtually is one. The same can be said of Fox’s chairman, Rupert Murdoch. Fox has long been a bane of liberals, but in the past two years many people who watch the network closely, including some Fox alumni, say that it has evolved into something that hasn’t existed before in the United States. Nicole Hemmer, an assistant professor of Presidential studies at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center and the author of “Messengers of the Right,” a history of the conservative media’s impact on American politics, says of Fox, “It’s the closest we’ve come to having state TV.”

Hemmer argues that Fox—which, as the most watched cable news network, generates about $2.7 billion a year for its parent company, 21st Century Fox—acts as a force multiplier for Trump, solidifying his hold over the Republican Party and intensifying his support. “Fox is not just taking the temperature of the base—it’s raising the temperature,” she says. “It’s a radicalization model.” For both Trump and Fox, “fear is a business strategy—it keeps people watching.” As the President has been beset by scandals, congressional hearings, and even talk of impeachment, Fox has been both his shield and his sword. The White House and Fox interact so seamlessly that it can be hard to determine, during a particular news cycle, which one is following the other’s lead. All day long, Trump retweets claims made on the network; his press secretary, Sarah Sanders, has largely stopped holding press conferences, but she has made some thirty appearances on such shows as “Fox & Friends” and “Hannity.” Trump, Hemmer says, has “almost become a programmer.”

On March 04 2019 20:25 farvacola wrote:
A federal jobs guarantee is significantly better than a UBI in practically every way. I haven’t been impressed with what I’ve seen of Yang’s take, he seems to be championing something he doesn’t really understand.

On March 05 2019 02:17 KwarK wrote:

Alaska has had a form of UBI, funded by nationalized resources, for decades.