All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[TheDarman]

It just means that you reformulate a set of policies from the ground up, rather than trying to make changes within the context of the existing model. You ever work with a piece of computer code that just got so jumbled and messy that it was easier to rewrite it than to keep fixing all the bugs as they came along? It does not necessarily mean that you go around shooting everyone and watering the tree of liberty with their blood or whatever, as I'm sure that's where some people's minds go when you suggest any kind of radical policies.

Are you advocating for a new Constitutional convention? That's not a violent means of revolution, but would certainly mean that we would be starting from the ground up on a new system rather than simply rewriting, making edits, etc. for the current vehicle.

[Mister Mets]

In the current business climate in this country, deregulation would only serve to entrench the power of the businesses that are already dominant in their industries, businesses that are primarily owned and operated by white people. There is no meaningful distinction between the "pro-business" GOP and the white nationalist crowd, the end goals they seek look exactly the same.

There can be a major distinction.

Let's say you have a policy goal where everyone with the right level of natural talent is equally likely to reach their full potential. One measure would be whether they're equally represented in elite institutions (CEOs of Fortune 500 companies, congress, acceptance in Ivy League universities, etc.)

The progressive solution is to do a diversity audit but that neglects that some white people will have entrenched resources and be able to hold onto some power, while many won't be able to get that for their children. Joe Biden's grandchild with an IQ of 125 will have a leg up over similarly intelligent children of all races

[green_garnish]

There can be a major distinction.

Let's say you have a policy goal where everyone with the right level of natural talent is equally likely to reach their full potential. One measure would be whether they're equally represented in elite institutions (CEOs of Fortune 500 companies, congress, acceptance in Ivy League universities, etc.)

The progressive solution is to do a diversity audit but that neglects that some white people will have entrenched resources and be able to hold onto some power, while many won't be able to get that for their children. Joe Biden's grandchild with an IQ of 125 will have a leg up over similarly intelligent children of all races

That.... is an amazing post. Wow. Just... wow. I'm at a loss for words.

[TheDarman]

There can be a major distinction.

Let's say you have a policy goal where everyone with the right level of natural talent is equally likely to reach their full potential. One measure would be whether they're equally represented in elite institutions (CEOs of Fortune 500 companies, congress, acceptance in Ivy League universities, etc.)

The progressive solution is to do a diversity audit but that neglects that some white people will have entrenched resources and be able to hold onto some power, while many won't be able to get that for their children. Joe Biden's grandchild with an IQ of 125 will have a leg up over similarly intelligent children of all races

It's because of things like that, though, that there are strong cases to be made for reparations.

Now, I don't agree with reparations to the extent that people just receive payments (unlike slaveholders did after the Civil War to further entrench wealth and power in the new South), I do think that there has to be some kind of solution geared towards repatriating Black populations, in particular, for the systemic and generational hardship they have gone through to achieve things. That could be through Affirmative Action programs or investments in poorer communities. The impact of reparations towards folks that were some combination of talented and lucky (like the Obamas) probably needs to be less of a concern of public policy.

These things might happen, but they aren't necessarily unnoticed nor are they desired outcomes. We do want to try to end these kinds of unearned differences in opportunity, which invariably lead to large differences in outcome. So, using one systemic failure to account for why another systemic failure would be appropriate...doesn't seem quite right to me?

[Mister Mets]

Well there is the link about the law suit I posted above. A few posts ago. A group of states suing to stop the LTGB anti discrimination ruling that was made.

Wouldn't the LGBT antidiscrimination ruling be more about creating regulations to ensure preferred outcomes rather than reversing regulation?

For example, if the ruling forbids schools from allowing students to call classmates by pronouns that the classmates don't prefer, that's a regulation, even if you think it's a good idea.

This post certainly demonstrates flaws in logic. You're responding ultimately to a post about how to go forward vs insisting on going backward. You are suggesting that differing viewpoints on going forward is the same as going forward vs going backward.

I mean seriously.

My post wasn't really about the question of how to go forward.

There are multiple viewpoints on the right about that specific question. The libertarians would say the government doesn't move quickly enough so they should largely stay out of it. My own view is that the right is necessary to push back against the excesses of the left, so that we don't get eugenics or prohibition but so get greater equality.

That said, looking backwards is hardly unique to Republicans.

Are you advocating for a new Constitutional convention? That's not a violent means of revolution, but would certainly mean that we would be starting from the ground up on a new system rather than simply rewriting, making edits, etc. for the current vehicle.

With this there's also the risk that people you disagree with get that level of power.

[green_garnish]

That said, looking backwards is hardly unique to Republicans.

No it's not unique to Republicans, but it is a prerequisite to being a Republican, or identifying with Republican views. I don't see how this can really be a point of contention. I used to be a republican. I know what it's like.

Looking forward does seem to be unique to liberals, though

[TheDarman]

With this there's also the risk that people you disagree with get that level of power.

Sure. Not to mention it is incredibly difficult. That is why I wouldn't advocate for it--just trying to understand how we do what he is insisting on.

[PwrdOn]

Are you advocating for a new Constitutional convention? That's not a violent means of revolution, but would certainly mean that we would be starting from the ground up on a new system rather than simply rewriting, making edits, etc. for the current vehicle.

Well the US does have the world's oldest constitution, and that isn't because it's somehow perfect and timeless as there are plenty of instances where its clauses are simply outdated or insufficient for governing in the 21st century. Of course, with the number of right wing nutjobs that treat the Constitution as a sacred scripture, even though many of them have probably never even read it, so trying to rewrite the Constitution at this point would probably start a violent revolution.

[babyblob]

Wouldn't the LGBT antidiscrimination ruling be more about creating regulations to ensure preferred outcomes rather than reversing regulation?

For example, if the ruling forbids schools from allowing students to call classmates by pronouns that the classmates don't prefer, that's a regulation, even if you think it's a good idea.

Okay you can say it is not a regulation because it is a law suit on an existing regulation. Go ahead and split hairs. it is still vert anti LTGB. They can give speeches about how the law was not intended for that and it is purely a legal matter not an Anti LTGB matter. But that is horseshit! And I am pretty sure if the Dems did want to pass a separate law to have these protections rather then have them added to the Civil Rights Act. the GOP would fight against these tooth and nail.

All in the name of being against regulations of course.

[PwrdOn]

There are multiple viewpoints on the right about that specific question. The libertarians would say the government doesn't move quickly enough so they should largely stay out of it. My own view is that the right is necessary to push back against the excesses of the left, so that we don't get eugenics or prohibition but so get greater equality.

I would love to hear what you think the left is doing that equates to eugenics.

[green_garnish]

I would love to hear what you think the left is doing that equates to eugenics.

Or prohibition, for that matter.

[Jack Dracula]

Well the US does have the world's oldest constitution, and that isn't because it's somehow perfect and timeless as there are plenty of instances where its clauses are simply outdated or insufficient for governing in the 21st century. Of course, with the number of right wing nutjobs that treat the Constitution as a sacred scripture, even though many of them have probably never even read it, so trying to rewrite the Constitution at this point would probably start a violent revolution.

Which is exactly why “hitting a big reset button” is impossible without your opposition suddenly disappearing - or getting disappeared, as is often the case.
So, not as simple as your description implies.

[PwrdOn]

Which is exactly why “hitting a big reset button” is impossible without your opposition suddenly disappearing - or getting disappeared, as is often the case.
So, not as simple as your description implies.

Well as they say, those that make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable.

[Mister Mets]

Or prohibition, for that matter.

Prohibition and eugenics were left-wing positions in the past. It'll take a while for current arguments to be settled so that we can see that we'll get a sense of what's a good idea, what's a bad idea and what's a historically bad idea.

I would generally put socialism in the latter camp.

[green_garnish]

Prohibition and eugenics were left-wing positions in the past. It'll take a while for current arguments to be settled so that we can see that we'll get a sense of what's a good idea, what's a bad idea and what's a historically bad idea.

I would generally put socialism in the latter camp.

Source please on these being liberal positions? Because I'm pretty sure neither is true. In particular, the only time we had prohibition in this country was because of conservatives. Extreme conservatives.