Is the argument here that you want China to take over your community so it can be run differently or something? If not, what point were you trying to make here?
It sounded like your point was that the US fucked your community and so you don't think the US ought to govern your community anymore. What point were you trying to make with your comment, or what were you actually trying to imply?
Were there any alternative bills proposed? This claim would be much stronger if an alternative bill with a "consequential amendment" was proposed and then blocked by Dems, but if not, there's not really evidence that this is true. I didn't follow border bill negotiations so I truly don't know what the answer here is, but I assume you'll know what the answer is and be able to provide a link because you've made some pretty strong claims here that I assume you wouldn't make without evidence.
Remain in Mexico was the policy we need. It was extremely consequential policy and doesn’t need to even be passed by congress. Biden rescinded that policy and that fact demonstrates his unwillingness to do anything meaningful at the border.
Sorry I might just be missing it because it's been a long day and I'm tired. Did you answer my question of if an alternative bill was proposed by Republicans in Congress?
He's also been famously the stereotype for the gaudiest rich person villain for a long time. Hell he was the inspiration for the villain in Back to the Future. I don't know where this lie that he was well-liked came from but it feels a lot like the Lost Cause stuff that popped up about Robert E. Lee at the time, revisionist history happening in real time while he's still alive.
Labor is a fraction of the cost of any purchase. If you raise the minimum wage, prices will go up, but they won't go up enough to offset the increase in wages.
As in would corporations start price gouging people based on the fact that they have more money to spend now? It's certainly possible and it's what happened after the pandemic. I was just explaining the principle of raising the minimum wage if we assume some level of good faith from companies to only raise prices to cover the increased costs. They could certainly be malicious and raise costs more than their new expenses, yeah.
One example of a benefit provided to us by supplying Ukraine is cheaper food prices. Ukraine is one of the largest agricultural, especially grain, exporters in the world. When the war started, grain prices saw rapid increases across the world as Ukraine lost a lot of ability to export grain. Thanks to involvement of other countries, however, Ukrainian grain exports have largely returned to their normal levels.
There is almost no scenario where individualism is preferable to collectivism by and large (but I will give exceptions to this). Individualist societies are ones where people act primarily for their own self-interests and collectivist societies are ones where people act primarily for the interest of society, whether that is to enhance it or to avoid being a burden on it.
I could be civil with right-wingers who are right-wing because they're ignorant rather than because they're aware of what it means to be right-wing and choose it anyway. I'd have trouble being close friends with them because it wouldn't be particularly interesting to me to be close with someone so ignorant. The conversations would be boring and surface-level so I'd find it hard to actually get close.
I've had this discussion with libertarians before. I give you the actual academic textbook definition of what the political alignments are, then you go "BUT THATS NOT MY OPINION" then the discussion devolves into you repeatedly explaining that the definition of political alignments is actually defined by your personal opinions of social issues.
This is not actually correct re:leftism and conservatism. Leftism is an ideology which strives for more egalitarianism and reduced hierarchies. It has nothing to do with supplanting capitalism or revolution. Both of those things could certainly be options for leftism, but becoming more egalitarian is the singular defining characteristic of the ideology.
I took some time to consider your statement as I generally don't 100% disagree, and it also seems to be an intelligible and coherent one based on education in political theory. As opposed to, ya know, whatever unhinged incoherent gobbledeygook I ended up politeley bowing out of with the other guy. After some consideration I have come up with a response.
Yeah I absolutely don't disagree that capitalism necessarily imposes some level of hierarchy, but the distinction I tend to make between leftists and conservatives is that leftists believe in taking action for the sake of reducing hierarchies as the driving factor. I kind of hate doing the "quote a thing and reply to it" style of comment but there's a lot to reply to here so sadly I need to.
Bro this is so lazy, you need to at least put in a tiny amount of effort to learn what these words mean and think critically for 5 minutes before trying to debate about them. I mean come on.
No, right-wing policies in that world would be about instituting social hierarchies where they didn't currently exist. It's a common misconception that conservatism is about maintaining the status quo, when really it's about maintaining and creating hierarchies.
I'd have to become a lot more ignorant about history, sociology, and philosophy to ever become conservative. Maybe if I get dementia and most of the things I've learned about society were erased, then I could vote conservative.
Can you clarify what you're trying to say? You're coming across like you strongly agree with us on the left and I don't think that's your intention, but maybe it is?
I understand Lee’s position but why become a general in a war that he would believe he was on the wrong side of it? Did he not have a choice? Was he thinking of his status after the war?
A lot of what you've been told in this thread is Lost Cause mythology stuff that's pretty heavily whitewashed Robert E. Lee's history and ideology, and I don't blame the other commenter for not being aware of this, especially since they're from one of the states that rewrote a lot of this history and there's essentially a guarantee that they were taught lots of Lost Cause nonsense. Also because the rewriting of Robert E. Lee's history has very thoroughly permeated our culture all the way from the left to the right.
When I'm teaching somebody about something they haven't learned about, I try to give links to things that are audio-based so they don't have to devote their full attention to it, and things that are entertaining/easy to listen to, so they're willing to spend actual time on it. I also try to only give links to the first step of researching a topic and allow them to dig deeper on their own if they end up interested in it. In this example, the podcast would be the first step and it provides many of its own sources that people who are interested in the topic of Robert E. Lee could continue to look into for their own research.
The literal question the OP asked is if it should be decided that way and why. To answer that it "isn't that way now" is at best a deflection as a reply to this post, since it doesn't even attempt to answer the question, and at worst it's bad faith meant to mask that they either believe something bad or have no underlying philosophy about what makes something best managed at the state level vs federally.
That at least answers the "what" of my question in that you'd prefer it be handled federally, but not the "why." Either way it seems like that's the most I'm going to get. Thank you!
We already have wealth taxes in the form of property tax, and those aren't unconstitutional. I don't see any reason why, assuming those are constitutional, a broader wealth tax wouldn't be.
We can disagree on if it should be for discussion, but the objective fact is that it currently is for discussion. If you want to advocate for a change in the rules of the subreddit then that's totally fair.
Is consenting to the risk of a thing the same as consenting to the thing actually happening? As in, when I drive my car, of course I accept the risk that I may be in a car accident. Does that mean I should forfeit my ability to get healthcare since we're saying it's implied from my acceptance of the risk that I'm also actually consenting to being in an accident? Do I consent to being mugged any time I leave my house because being mugged is a conceivable outcome of leaving my house and a risk I accept by doing so?
Sure, with a couple of exceptions like for pest control on farms or other legitimate reasons to own them. In those cases, it'd be easy enough to require registration for each gun and yearly renewals of their ownership license as well as limiting the total number of guns they can own. Owning guns as a hobby or for fun isn't a legitimate enough reason to me for them to be legal. There are other hobbies and other things you can do for fun that aren't oriented around extremely efficient killing machines. Learn a martial art or something if you still need your hobby to be violence-oriented, that'll even be good exercise.
Hey I asked about this recently in one of the weekly threads and didn't get a response, but do you know what's up with some of the threads having super bizarre comments being top comment? This one for example:
About 2 months ago we set the automod to set all Trump questions to contest mode, so the order you're seeing isn't the most popular, for all Trump questions, the answers you see are in random order.
Oh that's kind of annoying. That means it's basically impossible to get a gauge on the sub's opinion on those questions. Is that just a temporary thing through 2024 or something?
OK, how about other non-bullshit media that leans conservative? Can you identify any? I don't disagree that those three channels are utter bullshit, but it looks like calling out those three outlets as bullshit are where your efforts stopped.
I could list more conservative outlets that are bullshit than those three, but I don't know any conservative outlets that aren't bullshit. I'm only really familiar with the bigger ones like DailyWire, Tim Pool, the Blaze, Real America's Voice, and stuff like that, so I'm probably missing smaller ones which might not be bullshit. Do you have any recommendations for non-crazy conservative media?
I saw that thread and it was all the greatest hits. The most annoying thing conservatives do when talking about democracy is use examples of times where a minority of people were able to use flawed democracy to do something awful, like with slavery or the Nazis. They never seem to acknowledge that the problem with slavery wasn't a majority of people oppressing a minority of people, it's that black people and women couldn't vote. If they could, it's likely that slavery would have ended significantly earlier.
Appeals to nature aren't particularly interesting or convincing to anyone with real investment in philosophy, and the abortion debate is entirely a debate over philosophy. Nature has never been a determination for what we think is moral (which is the entire question) for anything else in the past so I'm not sure why anyone would find it convincing here.
States factually do not have a right to leave the union. Nothing to do with belief. The more important question which I think you're trying to ask is should states have a right to leave the union, and I'd say the answer is still no, but obviously people can disagree on that.
I think it'd cause a lot of strife and instability for all of the people of both countries if we allowed portions of the country to break off. It would be devastating to the country (and to that state) if a state which produced a massive amount of food broke off, for example, or if a state which contributed significantly to the nation's economy and taxes did.
The US already fucked my community up beyond repair, so nothing new
Is the argument here that you want China to take over your community so it can be run differently or something? If not, what point were you trying to make here?
If you want to be obtuse then that’s your problem
It sounded like your point was that the US fucked your community and so you don't think the US ought to govern your community anymore. What point were you trying to make with your comment, or what were you actually trying to imply?
The answer is no. Dems wouldn’t have passed a bill with any consequential amendments.
Were there any alternative bills proposed? This claim would be much stronger if an alternative bill with a "consequential amendment" was proposed and then blocked by Dems, but if not, there's not really evidence that this is true. I didn't follow border bill negotiations so I truly don't know what the answer here is, but I assume you'll know what the answer is and be able to provide a link because you've made some pretty strong claims here that I assume you wouldn't make without evidence.
Remain in Mexico was the policy we need. It was extremely consequential policy and doesn’t need to even be passed by congress. Biden rescinded that policy and that fact demonstrates his unwillingness to do anything meaningful at the border.
Sorry I might just be missing it because it's been a long day and I'm tired. Did you answer my question of if an alternative bill was proposed by Republicans in Congress?
He's also been famously the stereotype for the gaudiest rich person villain for a long time. Hell he was the inspiration for the villain in Back to the Future. I don't know where this lie that he was well-liked came from but it feels a lot like the Lost Cause stuff that popped up about Robert E. Lee at the time, revisionist history happening in real time while he's still alive.
Labor is a fraction of the cost of any purchase. If you raise the minimum wage, prices will go up, but they won't go up enough to offset the increase in wages.
But won't the minimum wagers spend their new money, raising prices up?
As in would corporations start price gouging people based on the fact that they have more money to spend now? It's certainly possible and it's what happened after the pandemic. I was just explaining the principle of raising the minimum wage if we assume some level of good faith from companies to only raise prices to cover the increased costs. They could certainly be malicious and raise costs more than their new expenses, yeah.
One example of a benefit provided to us by supplying Ukraine is cheaper food prices. Ukraine is one of the largest agricultural, especially grain, exporters in the world. When the war started, grain prices saw rapid increases across the world as Ukraine lost a lot of ability to export grain. Thanks to involvement of other countries, however, Ukrainian grain exports have largely returned to their normal levels.
There is almost no scenario where individualism is preferable to collectivism by and large (but I will give exceptions to this). Individualist societies are ones where people act primarily for their own self-interests and collectivist societies are ones where people act primarily for the interest of society, whether that is to enhance it or to avoid being a burden on it.
I could be civil with right-wingers who are right-wing because they're ignorant rather than because they're aware of what it means to be right-wing and choose it anyway. I'd have trouble being close friends with them because it wouldn't be particularly interesting to me to be close with someone so ignorant. The conversations would be boring and surface-level so I'd find it hard to actually get close.
Your takeaway is a reflection of what you put into the discussion: not a lot, most of it actively hostile.
Quote the part of
Did you read it? Mocking is very hostile.
Please quote the line if you could.
I've had this discussion with libertarians before. I give you the actual academic textbook definition of what the political alignments are, then you go "BUT THATS NOT MY OPINION" then the discussion devolves into you repeatedly explaining that the definition of political alignments is actually defined by your personal opinions of social issues.
This is not actually correct re:leftism and conservatism. Leftism is an ideology which strives for more egalitarianism and reduced hierarchies. It has nothing to do with supplanting capitalism or revolution. Both of those things could certainly be options for leftism, but becoming more egalitarian is the singular defining characteristic of the ideology.
I took some time to consider your statement as I generally don't 100% disagree, and it also seems to be an intelligible and coherent one based on education in political theory. As opposed to, ya know, whatever unhinged incoherent gobbledeygook I ended up politeley bowing out of with the other guy. After some consideration I have come up with a response.
Yeah I absolutely don't disagree that capitalism necessarily imposes some level of hierarchy, but the distinction I tend to make between leftists and conservatives is that leftists believe in taking action for the sake of reducing hierarchies as the driving factor. I kind of hate doing the "quote a thing and reply to it" style of comment but there's a lot to reply to here so sadly I need to.
Ok. So we have established that you want centralized authoritarian power. Who is the fascist again?
Bro this is so lazy, you need to at least put in a tiny amount of effort to learn what these words mean and think critically for 5 minutes before trying to debate about them. I mean come on.
isn't that a short-term definition though?
No, right-wing policies in that world would be about instituting social hierarchies where they didn't currently exist. It's a common misconception that conservatism is about maintaining the status quo, when really it's about maintaining and creating hierarchies.
I'd have to become a lot more ignorant about history, sociology, and philosophy to ever become conservative. Maybe if I get dementia and most of the things I've learned about society were erased, then I could vote conservative.
Can you clarify what you're trying to say? You're coming across like you strongly agree with us on the left and I don't think that's your intention, but maybe it is?
I understand Lee’s position but why become a general in a war that he would believe he was on the wrong side of it? Did he not have a choice? Was he thinking of his status after the war?
A lot of what you've been told in this thread is Lost Cause mythology stuff that's pretty heavily whitewashed Robert E. Lee's history and ideology, and I don't blame the other commenter for not being aware of this, especially since they're from one of the states that rewrote a lot of this history and there's essentially a guarantee that they were taught lots of Lost Cause nonsense. Also because the rewriting of Robert E. Lee's history has very thoroughly permeated our culture all the way from the left to the right.
Why are all of your sources from a random podcast?
When I'm teaching somebody about something they haven't learned about, I try to give links to things that are audio-based so they don't have to devote their full attention to it, and things that are entertaining/easy to listen to, so they're willing to spend actual time on it. I also try to only give links to the first step of researching a topic and allow them to dig deeper on their own if they end up interested in it. In this example, the podcast would be the first step and it provides many of its own sources that people who are interested in the topic of Robert E. Lee could continue to look into for their own research.
The literal question the OP asked is if it should be decided that way and why. To answer that it "isn't that way now" is at best a deflection as a reply to this post, since it doesn't even attempt to answer the question, and at worst it's bad faith meant to mask that they either believe something bad or have no underlying philosophy about what makes something best managed at the state level vs federally.
Like I said, Im personally anti-abortion.
That at least answers the "what" of my question in that you'd prefer it be handled federally, but not the "why." Either way it seems like that's the most I'm going to get. Thank you!
Likely unconstitutional, along with a host of distortionary effects
We already have wealth taxes in the form of property tax, and those aren't unconstitutional. I don't see any reason why, assuming those are constitutional, a broader wealth tax wouldn't be.
I mean I'm down to do both of those things. Free school lunches that don't suck sounds like a great idea.
Nah this sub can absolutely be used for discourse. There's a frequent bad faith commenter on
Agree to disagree.
We can disagree on if it should be for discussion, but the objective fact is that it currently is for discussion. If you want to advocate for a change in the rules of the subreddit then that's totally fair.
It doesn’t, but the woman didn’t consent to the risk of pregnancy when she was raped.
Is consenting to the risk of a thing the same as consenting to the thing actually happening? As in, when I drive my car, of course I accept the risk that I may be in a car accident. Does that mean I should forfeit my ability to get healthcare since we're saying it's implied from my acceptance of the risk that I'm also actually consenting to being in an accident? Do I consent to being mugged any time I leave my house because being mugged is a conceivable outcome of leaving my house and a risk I accept by doing so?
Sure, with a couple of exceptions like for pest control on farms or other legitimate reasons to own them. In those cases, it'd be easy enough to require registration for each gun and yearly renewals of their ownership license as well as limiting the total number of guns they can own. Owning guns as a hobby or for fun isn't a legitimate enough reason to me for them to be legal. There are other hobbies and other things you can do for fun that aren't oriented around extremely efficient killing machines. Learn a martial art or something if you still need your hobby to be violence-oriented, that'll even be good exercise.
Your ban wasn't related to our flair rule. The reason was noted on your ban message.
Hey I asked about this recently in one of the weekly threads and didn't get a response, but do you know what's up with some of the threads having super bizarre comments being top comment? This one for example:
About 2 months ago we set the automod to set all Trump questions to contest mode, so the order you're seeing isn't the most popular, for all Trump questions, the answers you see are in random order.
Oh that's kind of annoying. That means it's basically impossible to get a gauge on the sub's opinion on those questions. Is that just a temporary thing through 2024 or something?
OK, how about other non-bullshit media that leans conservative? Can you identify any? I don't disagree that those three channels are utter bullshit, but it looks like calling out those three outlets as bullshit are where your efforts stopped.
I could list more conservative outlets that are bullshit than those three, but I don't know any conservative outlets that aren't bullshit. I'm only really familiar with the bigger ones like DailyWire, Tim Pool, the Blaze, Real America's Voice, and stuff like that, so I'm probably missing smaller ones which might not be bullshit. Do you have any recommendations for non-crazy conservative media?
I saw that thread and it was all the greatest hits. The most annoying thing conservatives do when talking about democracy is use examples of times where a minority of people were able to use flawed democracy to do something awful, like with slavery or the Nazis. They never seem to acknowledge that the problem with slavery wasn't a majority of people oppressing a minority of people, it's that black people and women couldn't vote. If they could, it's likely that slavery would have ended significantly earlier.
Accept one is a natural process and one is artificial. One person is dead without it human interference the other will live.
Appeals to nature aren't particularly interesting or convincing to anyone with real investment in philosophy, and the abortion debate is entirely a debate over philosophy. Nature has never been a determination for what we think is moral (which is the entire question) for anything else in the past so I'm not sure why anyone would find it convincing here.
No, the only reason they are "alive" is a machine keeping them that way. Pulling the plug is just letting nature take it's course.
Right, I don't even know why this is a question. Brain death is death. There's no person being kept alive anymore, just an empty body.
So you don't believe states have a right to disassociate?
States factually do not have a right to leave the union. Nothing to do with belief. The more important question which I think you're trying to ask is should states have a right to leave the union, and I'd say the answer is still no, but obviously people can disagree on that.
Philosophically, why do you think they shouldn't be able to?
I think it'd cause a lot of strife and instability for all of the people of both countries if we allowed portions of the country to break off. It would be devastating to the country (and to that state) if a state which produced a massive amount of food broke off, for example, or if a state which contributed significantly to the nation's economy and taxes did.