Hello TLers! Have you ever been steamed after a forum discussion and wished you could have that discussion instead of typing furiously at your keyboard?
Good news! I am recruiting TL friends to hash out discussions in greater nuance than is possible through text alone.
Many of our discussions will revolve around political philosophy, but we will also touch on sports, culture and just about any other topic you can think of. I have reached out to several of your favorite posters from the Politics and Health & Fitness threads to join us and hope more will want to join us.
So come join us at
Our inaugural stream will be tonight at 12PM Eastern, 11PM Central, 10PM Mountain. See you there!
On July 25 2019 07:39 Jerubaal wrote: Hello TLers! Have you ever been steamed after a forum discussion and wished you could have that discussion instead of typing furiously at your keyboard?
Good news! I am recruiting TL friends to hash out discussions in greater nuance than is possible through text alone.
Many of our discussions will revolve around political philosophy, but we will also touch on sports, culture and just about any other topic you can think of. I have reached out to several of your favorite posters from the Politics and Health & Fitness threads to join us and hope more will want to join us.
On July 26 2019 02:49 Paljas wrote: I would pay real money to listen to a debate from certain US politics regulars
Exactly what I was thinking, put that shit on TV.
On July 26 2019 02:49 Paljas wrote: I would pay real money to listen to a debate from certain US politics regulars
I'm thinking it's either pay me exorbitantly (this would probably be pocket change [like 10% of your entertainment budget] between a few dozen of you really lol) or it's a socialist operation, either would be acceptable to me
EDIT: I promise it would be more entertaining and informative than whatever people are currently listening to on their commutes/jogs/whatever.
Well, if you have a subject or position you'd like to discuss, let me know. We mostly discussed the Mueller stuff last time. I'd be sincerely interested if anyone had an opposing viewpoint on that.
It could be dialectical in the sense that someone could come on one time and present their arguments and the next time someone else could rebut. if people were feeling brave, we could try simultaneously, but I'd prefer it not devolve into a shitshow. I'd like to think I could be a reasonable interlocutor.
On July 29 2019 08:34 Jerubaal wrote: Well, if you have a subject or position you'd like to discuss, let me know. We mostly discussed the Mueller stuff last time. I'd be sincerely interested if anyone had an opposing viewpoint on that.
It could be dialectical in the sense that someone could come on one time and present their arguments and the next time someone else could rebut. if people were feeling brave, we could try simultaneously, but I'd prefer it not devolve into a shitshow. I'd like to think I could be a reasonable interlocutor.
Sounds interesting definitely, I’d be game for a US politics discussion for sure, I feel the audial format is a mite more civilised than the purely textual form, especially if GH was on could be especially interesting!
But yeah fire me a PM if you have a topic of a week coming up or whatever and I’d be happy to give my vague angle and you could decide if it’s worth having me on or not. I’m the type of person who is paralysed by too much choice :p
The plan right now is that, since last time was dominated by discussion of the Mueller Report, this will be xDaunt discussing nationalism (whatever that means), since that seems to be the topic du jour. I'm hoping the following week somebody- perhaps GH or Wombat- will step up and give a response to that. Hopefully that will start the ball rolling somewhat.
If people want to come on together or individually or have a topic to discuss, let me know. I'm curious if anyone has a reaction to the Mueller discussion. Personally, I'd also like a discussion on the future of liberalism.
On August 07 2019 13:02 IgnE wrote: I saw his explanation. What about it?
There's nothing contradictory (beyond the norm of white club) about Bill Ayers being (partially, it's not like he get's the cops called on em if he hangs out in starbucks) excluded and Jay-Z/Beyonce being proximal to/perpetuating/benefiting from it
Well if whiteness is not essential to white club then why call it white club?
Well let me be clearer: I don’t think any analytical power is gained by saying that there’s an “exclusionary social group” based in some vague notions of “whiteness” that exercises “power” and where you can be invited in even if you don’t have white skin, because of course.
On August 07 2019 13:15 IgnE wrote: Nah I don’t think it is. But just to be clear, are you saying that Jay Z and Beyonce perform some fantastical form of whiteness?
I mean it is to this manifestation imo, but it's not like you couldn't replace "whiteness" with some other grouping "feature" filling the same role in an alternate timeline (though I'm sure it would bring along it's own nuance).
As for Beyonce and Jay? I feel like the simple answer is "yes", but that's going to be problematic/insufficient if your sincerely confused about my position and not doing this more as an exploratory exercise.
Not to be self serving, but I don't think the point of this thread is to be a repeat of the Politics thread. These posts are giving me all sorts of great questions, especially for GH. I'd rather, however, we focus these discussions towards the show. Feel free to come on, preferably or give me questions/comments about other guests.
My intent is to try to suss out somethings that can't be done just in text, and we can't do that if we keep going back to the posts.
Yes, I’ve seen it. My point is that if white club is just a set of behaviors and values, that is only tied to skin color through historically contingent circumstances the key one being that in America for a very long time only people with brown skin color were slaves, then calling it white club both 1) reproduces its contingent ties to skin color and 2) misunderstands its most socially important features in 2019 — certain standards of wealth, conduct, interests, and speech, none of which are intrinsically tied to skin color anymore, except via its contingent and stochastically predictive empirical relationships to those things.
I mean more than “white voice” maybe we should think about how “acting white” is used among youths. Calling it “white club” implies that the main criticism is simply that it is not racially representative, rather than that its networks of values, behaviors, ambitions, etc. are actually bad in themselves. To avoid simply being a reductive criticism of empirical racial representation, we would need to get a better handle on what the thing itself actually is. What’s so bad about “acting white”? Anything?
On August 07 2019 13:58 IgnE wrote: Yes, I’ve seen it. My point is that if white club is just a set of behaviors and values, that is only tied to skin color through historically contingent circumstances the key one being that in America for a very long time only people with brown skin color were slaves, then calling it white club both 1) reproduces its contingent ties to skin color and 2) misunderstands its most socially important features in 2019 — certain standards of wealth, conduct, interests, and speech, none of which are intrinsically tied to skin color anymore, except via its contingent and stochastically predictive empirical relationships to those things.
I mean more than “white voice” maybe we should think about how “acting white” is used among youths. Calling it “white club” implies that the main criticism is simply that it is not racially representative, rather than that its networks of values, behaviors, ambitions, etc. are actually bad in themselves. To avoid simply being a reductive criticism of empirical racial representation, we would need to get a better handle on what the thing itself actually is. What’s so bad about “acting white”? Anything?
I'm torn between your and Jer's arguments on this thread but I frankly think you're making a sophisticated "stupID-pol" argument that I'm not very interested in entertaining at the moment.
My presumption is that you'd prefer "American club", as that's what you used previously?
On August 07 2019 13:59 IgnE wrote: Jerubaal, every great podcast has a discussion thread
The irony is that 2/3 of the participants in the most recent podcast are participating in this discussion, and the third is quite literally banned from taking part in it.
I understand discussing a podcast called TL Forum Podcast on the TL Forum. I just can't reconcile a discussion with a (stupidly) limited contributors.
On August 07 2019 13:58 IgnE wrote: Yes, I’ve seen it. My point is that if white club is just a set of behaviors and values, that is only tied to skin color through historically contingent circumstances the key one being that in America for a very long time only people with brown skin color were slaves, then calling it white club both 1) reproduces its contingent ties to skin color and 2) misunderstands its most socially important features in 2019 — certain standards of wealth, conduct, interests, and speech, none of which are intrinsically tied to skin color anymore, except via its contingent and stochastically predictive empirical relationships to those things.
I mean more than “white voice” maybe we should think about how “acting white” is used among youths. Calling it “white club” implies that the main criticism is simply that it is not racially representative, rather than that its networks of values, behaviors, ambitions, etc. are actually bad in themselves. To avoid simply being a reductive criticism of empirical racial representation, we would need to get a better handle on what the thing itself actually is. What’s so bad about “acting white”? Anything?
I'm torn between your and Jer's arguments on this thread but I frankly think you're making a sophisticated "stupID-pol" argument that I'm not very interested in entertaining at the moment.
My presumption is that you'd prefer "American club", as that's what you used previously?
well if we are talking about nationalism in the context of the US then that seems like a fine term. “American” functions like an empty signifier, the point de capiton, in a way that “white club” does not.
On August 07 2019 13:58 IgnE wrote: Yes, I’ve seen it. My point is that if white club is just a set of behaviors and values, that is only tied to skin color through historically contingent circumstances the key one being that in America for a very long time only people with brown skin color were slaves, then calling it white club both 1) reproduces its contingent ties to skin color and 2) misunderstands its most socially important features in 2019 — certain standards of wealth, conduct, interests, and speech, none of which are intrinsically tied to skin color anymore, except via its contingent and stochastically predictive empirical relationships to those things.
I mean more than “white voice” maybe we should think about how “acting white” is used among youths. Calling it “white club” implies that the main criticism is simply that it is not racially representative, rather than that its networks of values, behaviors, ambitions, etc. are actually bad in themselves. To avoid simply being a reductive criticism of empirical racial representation, we would need to get a better handle on what the thing itself actually is. What’s so bad about “acting white”? Anything?
I'm torn between your and Jer's arguments on this thread but I frankly think you're making a sophisticated "stupID-pol" argument that I'm not very interested in entertaining at the moment.
My presumption is that you'd prefer "American club", as that's what you used previously?
well if we are talking about nationalism in the context of the US then that seems like a fine term. “American” functions like an empty signifier, the point de capiton, in a way that “white club” does not.
White club is bigger than US nationalism. US nationalism is inextricable from white club. I think white club is a great way to describe the grouping of people it's intended to.
On August 07 2019 13:59 IgnE wrote: Jerubaal, every great podcast has a discussion thread
The irony is that 2/3 of the participants in the most recent podcast are participating in this discussion, and the third is quite literally banned from taking part in it.
I understand discussing a podcast called TL Forum Podcast on the TL Forum. I just can't reconcile a discussion with a (stupidly) limited contributors.
He has had 2 pod casts, he has reached out to others about participating. If you wish there be more people on the podcast be one. Jer has been in no way exclusive. The idea is over time it will grow, instead of being negative without purpose, maybe just help out, or stay out.
I second IgnE's call for you to go on with GH.
I think the message he gives with tone is quite different than what a bunch of people read through his posts. I'm not completed yet so I have not posted but of what I made it through very interesting.
I take very little advice from people that can offer up such false apologies, and deflecting to the wisdom of crowds, rather than simply saying you got him wrong on tone and substance. Either personally apologize for getting his message and tone all wrong, or "stay out." Essentially saying a bunch of people got it wrong, to defend yourself, is the mark of cowardice.
Hello friends. The next stream will be tomorrow at 3 EDT/2 CDT/1 MDT. JimmiC has been so kind as to provide questions regarding Trump, with discussion of recent news, tariffs, Democrats.
Good episode. I echo many of the same thoughts. Hopefully today’s partisanship starts to subside in the face of the facts, including Barr & Durham’s investigations, and perhaps with the aid of a Trump re-election.
On August 12 2019 10:11 JimmiC wrote: Thanks for doing that and I appreciate you asking me for some questions. One of the things I have always liked about xDaunt is he doesn't pull punches and answers true to how feels. I never feel like he is asking questions to set something else up or not being genuine. So while I disagree on much I really enjoy knowing not only what people who think different think, but also why they think that.
Couple of notes. My question about Trumps family appointments was in regards to Nepotism. I think it is extremely dangerous president to set to pick family for any posts, because whether or not they do a good job, or have done a good job in the past everyone knows that is not the reason they got it. It is anti hardwork, anti-"American dream" to get high postings because of who your daddy is. I also think you guys undersold Kushner's position in importance especially when you consider the diplomat situation and the strategic importance of the middle east. It is also extremely troubling how intertwined Kushner's family business dealings is with that part of the world. There is really no way for that not to impact what he does and the person there should only be interested in what is best for America and its people. I do understand that he needed ally's and people he can trust. But I think it is a little damning of him as human if the only people he can trust are family. This is a guy who should have been hobnobbing with the best and the brightest his whole life. He should have a endless supply of trusted associates that are more capable, more qualified, and not related.
As a non Dem or Rep, hearing xD say that Trump is no worse for appointing criminals is pretty disappointing, because frankly I don't care. Being as bad, is just being bad, especially given xD's opinion on the Dems. The one thing I was hopeful with Trump given his cleaning the swamp talk and being an outsider was that he would appoint fresh corrupted people. Not that he would appoint different, or rehash corrupted people. When you look at Epstein and xDaunt's opinion that Trump hated him and was some crusader for justice as much as he could be, why would you appoint the guy who was neck deep in the swamp and played ball on the Epstein plea deal? That is not cleaning it out, it rewarding people who "play the game".
Speaking of horrible appointments and gross swamp people Elliott Abrams should have never been appointed to anything, he should be in jail. When I look at what Trump does compared to what he says, his version of the swamp is people who don't agree with him, and people who corrupt for his enemies. He is completely fine with people who are corrupt and goals align with his. He rewards those people.
There's a lot to unpack here. First, we'd have to actually establish that Trump actually hired worse people than his predecessors. It also seems that people only become scum and criminals after they join Trump. While I think it's probably overblown in the context of the "why Trump was elected", there's a huge feeling on the right, not undeservedly I think, that there are different rules for different people. This leads people to dismiss infractions as being politically motivated. They can also rationalize it as "the other side does it so why can't we?". Sorry, the Democrats were the ones who lowered the bar first, mocking the Right for having problems with Kennedy and Clinton, and, while I'm not sure either R or D presidents are necessarily more corrupt, there's not doubt the investigative focus has fallen much more heavily on Rs than Ds. I know Alinsky's Rules for Radicals says to mock your opponents' criticisms then criticize them for the same thing you mocked them for, but that's not how the world works. If Democrats want Republicans to start holding to a higher standard, they have to start proving that they are going to honor that standard themselves.
Finally, as I said in the stream, politics is the ultimate practical affair. Critics of Trump have tried to make this an all or nothing affair. They read a laundry list of alleged offenses and demand that you defend yourself for supporting Trump and make you an accessory. This is done to simply shame people out of participating in discourse. The accusations are also not made in a "Trump should do this" manner, but it is suggested that the only remedy is for the Republicans to simply surrender the government to the Democrats.
Omar is the one of 4 that was a immigrant. So while I also think that is super offense the more ridiculas part was that the other 3 were as "American" and the Donald. Second to Jer's point, he has had tons of white people disagree with him and he didn't tell them to go back to their countries, I didn't make it about colour Trump did when he said it to 4 women who just none of happened to be white? Come on man, why has he not told Bernie to go back to his country? While I agree that race is often brought in where it doesn't or shouldn't matter, it is offensive to logic to act like race didn't matter in this comment. It was the reason he made the comment. There is no reason other then tribalism induced blindness when only one of the 4 is a immigrant their commonality is not white. If Trump had said "your policy sucks" your point would make sense, but he said "go back to your country" which made it about race. He was playing identity politics not me. And you can criticize their policy and not be racist, what you can't do is single out 4 non white women and tell them specifically to go back to their countries, when that is not something you would say or have said to anyone white. It is really blowing my mind that you guys don't realize that Trump made this about race because of his comment, they didn't make it about race by being of colour. If Trump actually hated identity politics, he wouldn't do it himself, he is just using the other end of identity politics, which happens to the end where a lot of the racists hang out.
You're right, it does have something to do with race. As I said in the stream, these 3(4) women have weaponized their gender, ethnicity and religion. They endlessly carp as if their entire existence is being constantly put upon by the racist, sexist Islamophobes that apparently are the majority of Americans. They act as if they are oppressed when they are, in fact, privileged. AOC wouldn't get nearly the attention she does if she was a white man, or be tolerated by the leadership. Likewise, no white man would have the stones, let alone be assured that the Dems would be too gutless to rebuke, to say the things that Ilhan Omar has said. In light of all this, I think his criticism, if inexpertly put, valid. Namely, why would they stay in a country that was so abhorrent to them? Because they are full of bullshit, that's why.
Moreover, I feel like the hoopla was more about the phrase he used than the actual content of the statement. The Left is very good at this and they sucker in a lot of moderate liberals by making certain phrases (and, thereby, thoughts) verboten.
It feels quite ridiculous to explain this, but I am of the opinion that you should judge people as individuals, not as members of groups. I don't see how you can say that these women and others aren't engaging in their own form of nationalism. Like most things, virtue is a mean in nationalism. Too much makes you intolerant and pugnacious. Too little leaves you adrift and identity-less. Likewise with immigration.
Was interesting to hear your take on his economics and I agree it will be looked back on, I think that he has supercharged the economy and accumulated to much debt and it is going to end poorly, but time will tell.
Like I said, some of his policies seem like most super obvious things. You can't sit and complain about American companies going overseas when the U.S. had the highest corporate income tax in the world. So Trump fixed that. I think many economists have huge ideological blindspots. Our history textbooks are extremely anti-tariff. Considering you'll get called a Nazi in some places for liking Hayek, I can easily see that they have huge blindspots. That said, economics is one of the most opaque fields. I don't know if the tariffs will work, but I think that was important because- like Warren and Bernie say- the economy should work for the benefit of the American people. If we are going to set up our system like it was and ignore China's skullduggery, we shouldn't be surprised that when American companies leave. Unlike them and most Republicans, though, Trump actually did something.
I keep thinking about that Orwell quotation, which I think was in somebody's profile: Sometimes the first duty of intelligent men is the restatement of the obvious. That's how I feel about a lot of Trump's actions: The wall. The Tariffs. Is it 100% the best policy choices? I don't know. But what it does is assert that the U.S. should take control of the situation, instead of just being told we're bigots and isolationist xenophobes for not accepting it.
I don't think he is intelligent, maybe slightly above average but no where close to "genius" , however, there is no doubt that he a genius in self promotion. Even before presidency he found ways to inflate his persona in the media. Fame was always his goal, which is not true of many rich people, and he managed to become the most famous person in the world. Getting fame he is amazing at, business he is below average. He just got given a shit ton and than abused estate tax laws (well broke them) and bankruptcy laws to stay rich.
Yeah, I don't know if I could assess his intelligence, but I don't think the comparison to an idiot savant is too far astray. I don't believe in the 4D chess stuff. Like I said, I think he is a being of pure id. But, again, it seems like the obvious choices that everyone else is too scared or blind to make.
The comments on the "media" being out to get him and look bad. The reality is if you are talking CNN and MSN, you are correct. If you are talking Fox you are completely wrong. What is going on with most of the media is the states is a lack objectivity. It has gone full Tribal and so whatever media a person listens too their message is completely different. The news now a days is more propaganda than news, and this is one of the situations where "both sides" is appropriate because smart media exec's who care about profit over truth have realized if they play to one side or the other they will make mad cash. If CNN bought Fox or vice versa they would likely keep the same bent on each because it is so damn profitable. And that is even before you get into all the "independent Journalists" who are mostly guys making shit up that is hard to prove wrong and acting as if they "know" it when they just think it or just realize that if they say it with enough confidence some people will believe. And the more controversial the more clicks.
This is a hard one to discuss because it does depend a great deal on your personal perception. Even if we say everyone is equally tribal, though, almost all of them are left leaning. Fox isn't even relevant. We all know most of the media is not going to do the Republicans any favors, but they were at least malleable. Reagan and the Bushes were able to get their message out. I blamed Romney for not using the media to his advantage. Of course their default state was going to be to dog him and softball Obama, but if he had manipulated their natural proclivities, he could have gotten some useful press. That isn't happening anymore. It's wall to wall anti Trump. We literally had 6 weeks in a row where we had a REAL FAKE NEWS story every week (Covington kids, Smollett, etc.) with the intent to smear not only Trump but defame the half the country.
A huge part of this cultural war isn't even Republican vs Democrat. It's about entrenched interests, many in the media, who think themselves the gatekeepers of society. That's why you're seeing even ostensibly Right leaning media members like the WSJ and Andrew Neil turn into partisan hacks.
I also do not believe he would make far more money, first I think he is not a good business man, but beyond that we are not talking about salary, we are talking about the connections and corruption, and I think everyone but Carter took advantage of this and made themselves shit tons of money from being president. Trump is going to do that as big as he can, because that is who he is. I would say it is insulting to perhaps your own intellect to say that of course he is a Narcissists and a sociopath earlier (like all of them are as you say) and then think that he is not doing things as president that are in his self interest. Of course he is, as stated by you that is. He wants to be as rich as possible and famous as possible, he is not making a altruistic decision, let alone a whole presidency based upon it.
Thanks for going through that boys.
Donald Trump is a tool. That's what he is; he is the instrument of particular policies and attitudes. The goal of the Donald Trump administration should not be for people to like him or make him look good. If he goes on to make millions on his book tours or whatever, I couldn't care less. Again, if you think this is a grift, I'd like to know which action he's taken that's a grift. Nothing he's done is particularly novel and there are lots of other people who agree with him. I don't think he's taken any actions like you see in a spy thriller where he increases the surtax in license plates to devalue bat guano, thereby enriching his shares of Chiquita bananas.
Also, like Bush, he gets called an idiot and an evil genius in the same breath.
You had a little audio problem there with xDaunt. To hear him, I have to put the volume such that Jerubaal is a foghorn. Still, good discussion and good perspectives to bounce off of.
*this problem starts several minutes in, just load the video. Any in-broadcast check to make sure it isn’t on xDaunts end or let him know to fix a loose mic cable, or whatever, would be helpful.
Good discussion on tariffs. The US consumer is eating the tariffs. It's worth discussing if the side benefits are worth it. xDaunt hit the main contentions. I'm not fully swayed by the arguments in favor of tariffs, but I agree that some sort of response to China's seizure of American IP and increasing dominance in the region is justified even when the American consumer eats a bill. I don't have a fully developed view on alternatives to the tariff approach. How do you weigh cheap consumer goods and profitable transnational companies against American workers forced into tech or service sectors, and smaller businesses unable to globalize their labor streams? Will China really change anything based on tariffs (aside from turning to other trading partners) and will the American burden of tariffs remain moderate?
Good insight, however anecdotal, into the Chinese people's low priority on democratic governance. I don't know where else I can hear someone say their wife's family is tight with the Chinese Communist government and give that perspective.
The gun control debate was mostly on the surface, but that's about as deep as you can get in 20 minutes. Proposed gun control laws like "expanded" background checks would do nothing, correct. The Australian example gave no observable impact of gun confiscation on gun violence. Current focus from the left is on the desired ends, damn the means to get there. America was born in rebellion against a tyrannical government, and the second amendment is the last recourse to preservation of American rights against another tyrannical government (The Supreme Court is not the final line). The bigger causes of mass shootings and gun violence are based in societal rot, like the breakdown of the family and drug abuse. I'd add debasement of human dignity, collectivization of individual identity into competing group identities, the politicization of ordinarily nonpolitical topics, and idolizing political power and political change as the mechanism for societal and cultural change. But even then, I'm not even hitting half the identifiable factors of societal rot.
Trump's "nobody cares anymore" is strangely deeper than I had imagined. Who cares about the individual transgressions, when the people pointing them out will zealously guard their own perfidy? One of the consequences of giving party approval to nasty things said about whites or Israel or right-wingers is complaisance when equally nasty things are fired back at other groups. When you operate in the world of double standards, there is no easy path back to recovering universal standards. Nobody extolling the moral courage of Omar, Tlaib, AOC, and Pressley when they say disgusting, divisive, and racist things will ever gain momentum in collecting apologies for Trump & Co. (It doesn't change the fact that Trump can and should apologize for a dozen or more things in the last six months.)
Overall, it was an interesting and challenging (wrt trade) listen.
EPT
