Achilles

You're welcome. It's probably my favorite of his books. His sister writes also, if you like the social sciences. Don't care much for his wife's stuff though

I appreciate the sentiment, but almost all of my reading falls into these categories (currently reading Michael Sandel's new book). My recollection was that the book just was just poorly written. If I spot too many logical fallacies in the opening pages, I tend to cut my losses early. Leviathan is good and worth reading. Have you read The Better Angels of Our Nature by Steven Pinker?

I think you and I are on the same page for the most part. I think the original argument was "anyone can make it here". It sounds like you and I agree that isn't the case and that the ones that do probably have some advantage over those that don't. I think where we disagree is that this is evidence against systemic racism. Someone who didn't grow up under the influence of systemic racism is probably not going to internalize it the way that someone who did would. Similarly, the fact that some minorities are wealthy and successful isn't evidence that systemic racism isn't a thing, only that some people (possibly exceptions to the rule) make it against all odds. I hear you, but again it's hard for me not to view this through the lens of learned helplessness via systemic racism. The idea that their only way out is through sports or entertainment is supported by history. It's tempting to chalk it up to a lack of character, but I think people tell themselves stories to make sense of their plight. Once enough people adopt the story, it be comes common sense. Right, but which tax(es)? It sounds like you're speaking primarily about sales tax. Are the flat, meaning that everything is taxed evenly, or are something exempt and other not? I genuinely don't know as I've only paid for things in california and new york while visiting.

I bought and started to read one. I didn't make it very far before putting it down. Sam Harris is a fan, so I may try again someday.

So you're just here to beat the drum about how "both sides do it" even though only one side *has* done it? Just want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly.

Yep

I think the issue at hand isn't that they *shouldn't*, rather that they're violating their own made-up-as-they-went-along-rules from after Scalia's death. So the question is: have you not been following politics for very long or are you intentionally forgetting about what happened 4 years ago?

You are aware she won the popular vote, right? Also, I like to think "being popular" isn't the same thing as "being qualified". I don't necessarily question the accuracy of anything you say here. I think there's probably some daylight between us on what that says about Bernie supporters though. My opinion is that voting is civic duty. No one cares how any of us feel about the candidates. We all have an obligation to participate. People who opt to take their ball and go home when their preferred brand doesn't win sure seem like sore losers to me.

With you probably about half of this. M4A needs to be a long term project. We need to change the healthcare system before implementing it, otherwise there will be unintended consequences that will make us worse off, not better. Police need more funding, not less, but it needs to go towards training and standards. Oh, and it probably needs to be nationalized. Police-like services for non-emergencies is a good idea and we should definitely do that. Companies need to apply for and receive a fixed-term "accreditation" if they want to be corporations. Incorporation is a risk management tool, not a license to print money for shareholders. And since this is a wish list, libertarians have to dedicate one weekend per month to public service projects

The counter argument is that the type of person who has the emotional and mental capacity to migrate to a new country is the same type of person who is likely to be successful there. I don't know that you could randomly extract a person from their native country, plunk them down in the U.S., and expect them to be successful. Character matters. And obviously, parental influence matters too. Some of this is probably true, some of the time. As a former ghetto resident, I can say that social mobility is ~40% how hard you work and ~60% how lucky you are. I'm not sure what you mean by "cultural problems", but I am a little familiar with the concept of learned helplessness. Learned helplessness is a systemic issue, not a character or cultural issue. Almost every single person I've ever known who participated in the welfare system hated it. Unfortunately, the way the system is designed, some people get trapped into it. For example, they need to make X dollars per month to afford to get off welfare, but can only find jobs paying Y and Z. If they take the job paying Y dollars, they'll make a little more of their own money, but won't be able to support their families because Y income will trigger a loss of benefits. If they take the job paying Z, they'll never get ahead, but will be able to continue supporting their family. That is a systemic problem. California and NY have the biggest taxes in the country you say? Do you think that could have anything to do with the fact that the city of New York is largest city in the U.S. (8.3m) and the city of Los Angeles is the 2nd largest (~4m, the state having 39m)? And what do you mean by taxes? Sales tax? Property tax? I'm not a expert, but I do know that tax laws often written so that some items are taxed heavily (luxury tax) so that they can reduce or eliminate taxes for others. And that some items aren't taxed at all because they disproportionately burden lower incomes. So could you please help me understand what you mean by "big taxes"?

Maybe? I had many friends (and a politically awakening son) who were Bernie supporters. My take on 2016 was that a lot of young people who had not previously been politically active heard Bernie's call to arms, became emotionally invested in his campaign, then decided not to vote in the general once he lost the primary. I think Bernie bears some responsibility for this. He spent months trying to paint the entire process as capital C "Corrupt", then tried to turn on a dime and keep his supporters invested after losing. I was not excited about Hillary's campaign. I largely think of her as a political opportunist and still shake my head at her antics in the 2008 campaign. But she was the most qualified person running for office in 2016. All that to say, if Hillary was an "awful candidate", then I think we'll need to invent a new word for the guy who got elected.

I'll try to coherently take these in turn: A) Yes, you're absolutely right and I probably should have done a better job of calling this out (and will try to do better in the future). There's enough political nuance to track in the U.S. that I would defer citizens of other countries to speak to their own current events. B) Operative word here is "should". Consider this hypothetical situation: I'm a member of a particular religious tribe My tribe is in the majority in my country Because my tribe is in the majority my government makes all of my religious observances national holidays Members of all other tribes get "my" holidays off as well, however they have to use vacation time (assuming that is a benefit offered by their employer) for their religious observances This is a privilege of being a member of my religious tribe. If my tribe were ever to lose its majority status and some other religious tribe rose to prominence, then it stands to reason that their religious observances would become the national holidays and then that would be a privilege of being a member of that tribe. "Should" this be the way things are? C) In my analysis, it's not just a race thing. There is a class component as well, though the two mingle in ways that make it difficult to track one without influencing the other. D) Agreed. That's a good assessment of where things are at in the U.S. Estimates say that whites will be the racial minority here within the next 30 years. This really freaks some people out and I think that's where a lot of this tension is coming from. Interestingly, "immigrants from vastly different cultures becoming the majority" is more commonly known as "white people" here

So, your definition above is how I'm used to seeing "conservatism" used. Maintain status quo, emphasize tradition over change, and so on. By way of contrast, a "centrist" is someone who has a mix of liberal and conservative view. By extension, "centrism" would be taking political views from "both sides". I don't think there's anything wrong about acknowledging that no single ideology has all the good (or the bad) ideas. Agreed. I don't know to what extent she or her campaign are responsible for the term "Bernie Bro" (I was under the impression it was coined via social media). I do think she made a grievous error with "deplorables". Which speaks to the extent that she took a lot of **** for granted. Yeah, I don't know on this one. It may be that I only remember the ***holes, but I sure do recall seeing a lot of them. Not just in 2016 but in the 2020 primaries, as well. In fact, I know that Sanders himself asked his supporters to tone it down, to no great effect. Your larger point seems to be that politicians should do a better job of being nice to voters, especially the ones that they don't agree with and that Hillary wasn't particularly great at it. On that, I agree.

Thanks for taking the time to share your definitions.

You say "centrist" like it's a bad thing Re: Bernie Bros, I'm not sure I follow. Is your argument that there weren't Bernie supporters being ***holes or that Hillary made a mistake in vilifying them?

I remember the 90's differently, but whatever. The point being that how "the left" is colloquially used now is different than how you're using it. And if Bernie doesn't pass your "left" purity test, then I'm really not sure I want to see who does

I think this speaks to the importance of defining terms (all the time) and avoiding labels (as much as possible). "The left", as it's commonly used now, thinks that capitalizing the word "white" is the only hope of curing racism and that including your preferred pronouns in your email signature is an important thing to do. It speaks in the language of intersectionality and microaggressions. As @213374U said, this needs to go. I think the way you're using it above is probably a bit closer to what would have been referred to as "liberalism" in the 90's and 00's. Coincidentally, there are some that would argue that it's actually the definition of "conservatism". The differences existing in the means, not the goals. The problem, as I think @Gromnir was trying to define it (apologies to him in advance if I butcher this), is that there is a segment of white voters who are having a really rough go of it lately. They see their cohort as the only legitimate heirs to the term "citizen" and feel threatened by any progress that doesn't solely benefit them. So while "white privilege" is a thing, they don't have the perspective to see it, and hearing about it feels like some sort of cultural brainwashing (that they feel obligated to fight against). From the minority perspective, the majority gets to enjoy certain benefits, even if their individual lives are very hard (i.e. the average poor white person has it much better than the average poor black person). You have to be a soulless, possibly probably definitely racist ***hole not to see this. This is more evidence that this entire society is against me. From the majority perspective, you must be ****ing crazy to say that I have "privilege", when I'm struggling to pay my bills, my job is about to be given to a robot, and my brother just died from an opioid overdose. The fact that we're even talking about this is more evidence that this entire society is against me. It's entirely possible that this is manufactured. I think an utter lack of perspective-taking and communication is a much more plausible explanation though. My 2 cents.

Agreed. But the alt-right needs to go with it. The alt-right might be trampolining off of identity politics now, but let's not forget that the reason it has any prominence is because we had the audacity to elect a black president. I'd like to think we have the capacity to dislike more than one set of bad ideas at a time.

agreeing with most everything you said here. From where I sit though, it seems to me that these white voters are happy to take a hard pass on anything that would help them if it meant that anyone else might benefit also. So, one might argue that this considerable body of white voters has taken itself hostage and refuses to negotiate.

Agreed, regarding 99% of them.

Does that extend to the moderators just us plebs?

Precisely. I'm not worried at all. The main thing holding Obsidian back has been a lack of resource, which is no longer a problem. Meanwhile, Bethesda keeps inventing new ways to sit on their balls. I have a feeling that the only danger this acquisition presents to Obsidian is that Microsoft starts conducting more oversight after Bethesda starts losing them money.

ok

lol. Is that what's happening?

Which was totally why you decided to jump in with the troll, right? See above regarding self-awareness. Also, you need new material.