Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[alway]

Speaking of conflicts of interest at the EPA: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/08/epa-board-scientific-scott-pruitt-climate-change

[sluissa]

While I generally agree with the intent, John Oliver has lost ALL of his credibility with me after his whining over the last year or so and this is no different. And while annoying, nothing that happens now will really make a huge difference in the way any of us interact with the internet. Most of the things we hate about what the FCC wants to do are already status quo in one form or another, this just legitimizes it.

You can only cry wolf so long before people start ignoring you. Now the thing is, there ARE wolves out there. And we'd all be better off without the wolves out there threatening us. But we've survived this long with the wolves out there.

It's a problem the democrats and the left as a whole have had for a while now. They attempt to appeal to people's fear of the other side. Republicans do this too, to be fair, it's a common tactic, but it seems to be used more often on the left. It seems to be one of the only tools the left likes to pull out and it not only loses more moderate supporters who feel betrayed, but it also incites extremism in the ones who feel "We must do something to stop this at all costs." when you play up the fear too hard.

Now I'll admit, the world isn't perfect. Lots of stuff needs to change, and I generally agree with many of the ways the left wants to change things. Equality and health care being my two big ones. However there's a big problem I have that keeps me from stepping behind a message pretty often which is the damn lying. Making things seem worse than they are just to get people fired up and moving. It pisses me off to be lied to, it ruins all initiative I have for whatever change sounded good in the first place when the truth comes out, and it abuses the credibility of the leadership who is calling for these changes.

Change is hard, don't make it harder on yourselves by using underhanded tactics which drive your supporters away.

[redwallzyl]

While I generally agree with the intent, John Oliver has lost ALL of his credibility with me after his whining over the last year or so and this is no different. And while annoying, nothing that happens now will really make a huge difference in the way any of us interact with the internet. Most of the things we hate about what the FCC wants to do are already status quo in one form or another, this just legitimizes it.

You can only cry wolf so long before people start ignoring you. Now the thing is, there ARE wolves out there. And we'd all be better off without the wolves out there threatening us. But we've survived this long with the wolves out there.

It's a problem the democrats and the left as a whole have had for a while now. They attempt to appeal to people's fear of the other side. Republicans do this too, to be fair, it's a common tactic, but it seems to be used more often on the left. It seems to be one of the only tools the left likes to pull out and it not only loses more moderate supporters who feel betrayed, but it also incites extremism in the ones who feel "We must do something to stop this at all costs." when you play up the fear too hard.

Now I'll admit, the world isn't perfect. Lots of stuff needs to change, and I generally agree with many of the ways the left wants to change things. Equality and health care being my two big ones. However there's a big problem I have that keeps me from stepping behind a message pretty often which is the damn lying. Making things seem worse than they are just to get people fired up and moving. It pisses me off to be lied to, it ruins all initiative I have for whatever change sounded good in the first place when the truth comes out, and it abuses the credibility of the leadership who is calling for these changes.

Change is hard, don't make it harder on yourselves by using underhanded tactics which drive your supporters away.

I'm having a very hard time understanding what it is you are trying to say. you seem to be going 'oh well, things are bad, lets not do anything about it because its a lost cause'.

[cerapa]

It's a problem the democrats and the left as a whole have had for a while now. They attempt to appeal to people's fear of the other side. Republicans do this too, to be fair, it's a common tactic, but it seems to be used more often on the left. It seems to be one of the only tools the left likes to pull out and it not only loses more moderate supporters who feel betrayed, but it also incites extremism in the ones who feel "We must do something to stop this at all costs." when you play up the fear too hard.

Now I'll admit, the world isn't perfect. Lots of stuff needs to change, and I generally agree with many of the ways the left wants to change things. Equality and health care being my two big ones. However there's a big problem I have that keeps me from stepping behind a message pretty often which is the damn lying. Making things seem worse than they are just to get people fired up and moving. It pisses me off to be lied to, it ruins all initiative I have for whatever change sounded good in the first place when the truth comes out, and it abuses the credibility of the leadership who is calling for these changes.

I'm not an american, so I can only comment on what I have heard or seen by proxy, but wasn't there a whole birther conspiracy thing among the right wing about how Obama was from Kenya and actually a muslim and would take away their guns other stuff like that? The idea that the left does it more seems silly from my perspective.

[McTraveller]

I feel like I kind of agree with sluissa - I'd generally prefer a more "left" approach to things like health care and equality and environment and the like.  However, I fully realize that a significant portion of the world population doesn't care about that stuff - they simply want to maximize their own condition.

So there is the fundamental conundrum - seeing a "better" situation, knowing the only way to arrive at the better situation is to have everyone participate, but also fundamentally not believing it is right to force everyone to participate.  If everyone would volunteer to participate, awesome - but I cannot in good conscience force someone to support something they don't believe, especially monetarily (e.g., through taxes).

This is even at the heart of health care - yes universal health care would be awesome, but I don't have a good feeling about forcing people to buy insurance or forcing people who are generally healthy to pay for those who are less healthy, etc.  Personally I am more than willing to pay whatever premiums, knowing it helps out the disadvantaged.  But I will never personally compel someone do that.

So from that standpoint, in general, I don't like most forms of politics - because essentially it is a way of forcing people to support various causes with their resources, whether they agree with it or not.  Now, to be fair, I think we do need government, and there are things which should be strongly encouraged - but full compulsion just doesn't sit well with me.

I even have to readily admit, though, that I think sometimes compulsion is necessary, such as in dealing with certain crimes - so I even have a difficult time reconciling some of my views with myself.  Generally there isn't a hard and fast rule - except to try and minimize the extent to which any decision applies. That is, avoid "this rule must be applied to all situations" kind of things.  Because any far-reaching rule is going to be more problematic than a very limited one.

[Neonivek]

I'm having a very hard time understanding what it is you are trying to say. you seem to be going 'oh well, things are bad, lets not do anything about it because its a lost cause'.

It is "The complainer is always wrong" conundrum. Basically the more important something is, the more Jon Oliver will complain about it, the more he complains about it, the more wrong he is.

This is even at the heart of health care - yes universal health care would be awesome, but I don't have a good feeling about forcing people to buy insurance or forcing people who are generally healthy to pay for those who are less healthy, etc.  Personally I am more than willing to pay whatever premiums, knowing it helps out the disadvantaged.  But I will never personally compel someone do that.

Oddly it kind of helps everyone. Improves the quality of healthcare and decreases the overall drain on society.

That is the weird thing about collective responsibility.

"I will never use that road, so why should I pay taxes for its upkeep?" Or to put it in perspective "I don't want to force people to pay for roads they will never use"

Yet everyone benefits from those roads. regardless if they use it or not.

Mind you Canada was only able to give universal healthcare because it was done before the times where Doctors received ridiculous globs of cash (In fact the first Province to have it, Saskatchewan, actually increased the Average pay for doctors BECAUSE most patients couldn't afford to pay the doctor's prices).

The USA isn't in that position.

[Strife26]

"Snippy, snarky, whining about the state of the world and blaming the opposition as unthinking others instead of honest engagement or political mobilization is a pretty shitty way to affecting change, even if it is a pretty decent way to getting views and advertising dollars"



Edited to add snippy and snarky, because that's an important component of modern "satire"

[Neonivek]

"Whining about the state of the world and blaming the opposition as unthinking others instead of honest engagement or political mobilization is a pretty shitty way to affecting change, even if it is a pretty decent way to getting views and advertising dollars"

You say that. Yet what is honesty in this case?

"Snippy, snarky, whining about the state of the world and blaming the opposition as unthinking others instead of honest engagement or political mobilization is a pretty shitty way to affecting change, even if it is a pretty decent way to getting views and advertising dollars"



Edited to add snippy and snarky, because that's an important component of modern "satire"

The TYPICAL "Satire" on the show is just to present the information, usually from the opposition's point of view (Colbert's whole thing was that and managed to hit a Double Satire where he is both a Satire of Conservatives AND a Satire of how people view Conservatives). It seems pretty damning a lot of the time because... Yeah usually it is pretty damning.

[Strife26]

"Whining about the state of the world and blaming the opposition as unthinking others instead of honest engagement or political mobilization is a pretty shitty way to affecting change, even if it is a pretty decent way to getting views and advertising dollars"

You say that. Yet what is honesty in this case?

Discussion of ideas and courses of action, or, even better, discussion of the underlying principles that determine the way courses of action are decided upon.

As a rough guideline, look at what usually happens, and do the exact opposite.

[Neonivek]

The underlying principle is that by making our economy stronger we might find a solution to the environmental problems without sacrificing our station in the world.

The Environment is basically a giant game of Chicken.

[Strife26]

The underlying principle is that by making our economy stronger we might find a solution to the environmental problems without sacrificing our station in the world.

The Environment is basically a giant game of Chicken.

I'd argue that the underlying principle is what actions the Federal government should be allowed to should be taking on environmental, economic, and international affairy meddling.

[sluissa]

While I generally agree with the intent, John Oliver has lost ALL of his credibility with me after his whining over the last year or so and this is no different. And while annoying, nothing that happens now will really make a huge difference in the way any of us interact with the internet. Most of the things we hate about what the FCC wants to do are already status quo in one form or another, this just legitimizes it.

You can only cry wolf so long before people start ignoring you. Now the thing is, there ARE wolves out there. And we'd all be better off without the wolves out there threatening us. But we've survived this long with the wolves out there.

It's a problem the democrats and the left as a whole have had for a while now. They attempt to appeal to people's fear of the other side. Republicans do this too, to be fair, it's a common tactic, but it seems to be used more often on the left. It seems to be one of the only tools the left likes to pull out and it not only loses more moderate supporters who feel betrayed, but it also incites extremism in the ones who feel "We must do something to stop this at all costs." when you play up the fear too hard.

Now I'll admit, the world isn't perfect. Lots of stuff needs to change, and I generally agree with many of the ways the left wants to change things. Equality and health care being my two big ones. However there's a big problem I have that keeps me from stepping behind a message pretty often which is the damn lying. Making things seem worse than they are just to get people fired up and moving. It pisses me off to be lied to, it ruins all initiative I have for whatever change sounded good in the first place when the truth comes out, and it abuses the credibility of the leadership who is calling for these changes.

Change is hard, don't make it harder on yourselves by using underhanded tactics which drive your supporters away.

I'm having a very hard time understanding what it is you are trying to say. you seem to be going 'oh well, things are bad, lets not do anything about it because its a lost cause'.

No. That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm just saying I want people to stop using hyperbole and lies in order to get people to care about things. If you give me the facts, allow me to come to my own conclusions. If you tell me that "You need to stop smoking because it's going to kill you right now, put out that cigarette to prevent it!" and then it turns out I don't die in the next 30 seconds. I'm going to, at worst think you're a complete nut, and keep smoking forever and ignore any similar arguments to the same effect, or at best, think "eh, it's not that important that I stop smoking, it won't kill me RIGHT NOW."

The left is using the "Stop right now, there is no other choice, total doom awaits you if you don't follow our plan." approach. And when total doom doesn't happen they lose credibility. I"m not saying the right doesn't do it, but it feels like that's the ONLY weapon in the left's arsenal anymore.

I'm not even against forcing people to contribute to healthcare or other beneficial public projects, but the only way you'll do that is if you have a fair majority of people WANTING to do that and pushing everyone else to do it too. The big problem with the ACA was that it overpromised. Some of that WAS in fact because the republicans gutted large parts of it, sure. But some of it was flat out promising the best case scenario to everyone rather than admitting that, "Okay, yeah, some of you might have to change doctors. Some of you might have to pay more. It's not going to make EVERYONE happy, but it's better than what we've got." You ended up with just a bunch of people seeing broken promises. A bunch of people seeing others complaining about having to pay more, and a few people here and there having to pay fines because they stubbornly decided a tax fine was a better deal for them than buying insurance. And it took such a clusterfuck as the ACHA to compare it to for even the people who WANTED to see the ACA as something decent and worth having to have a positive opinion of it.

Anyway... yeah... stop lying and maybe I'll listen again. That doesn't mean I'm suddenly going to petition for big coal and oil to get more subsidies. That doesn't mean I'm going to stop arguing for universal health care. That doesn't mean I'm going to stop pushing for better social programs. But it does mean, at the moment I don't really have a leader or a movement to put my efforts behind that I can trust. It means I'm basically standing out here alone, or at least I feel like it. And often it feels like the big groups making their arguments is actively making things worse.

[Neonivek]

If you give me the facts, allow me to come to my own conclusions

Wait a minute. They aren't the news, they are a parody.

[McTraveller]

Oddly it kind of helps everyone. Improves the quality of healthcare and decreases the overall drain on society.

That is the weird thing about collective responsibility.

"I will never use that road, so why should I pay taxes for its upkeep?" Or to put it in perspective "I don't want to force people to pay for roads they will never use"

Yet everyone benefits from those roads. regardless if they use it or not.

Yes absolutely - collective projects do "benefit everyone".  But I'd rather be in a society where a sufficient subset of the population would just pay for those collective things because they want them and would pay for them anyway even if they do benefit more than just the people paying for them.

After all, we already do live in a society where only a subset of the population effectively pays for all the infrastructure, etc. (This is looking at absolute dollars of taxes paid, not tax rate.)  It is sad that we only have the infrastructure we do have due to the compulsory nature of taxes though - that we don't have enough people willing to buy stuff "for everyone" otherwise.

[ChairmanPoo]

That's why it's a good idea to make healthcare single payer.

For the record, with private systems you're already subsidizing non-payers, except in a more expensive and less efficient manner.