Print

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

[Reelya]

Actually on what I wrote in the WTF thread i have an interesting analogy. Black people make up roughly 50% homicide victims, and that's assumed to be normal. Imagine then if the black homicide rate fell to 14% (e.g. a completely proportional amount - thus equitable), then you'd have some right-wing types yelling about how the percentage of murder victims who are white was rising and it was white genocide and something needed to be done about the epidemic of crime against white people. Even though, rationally speaking, white people were never safer in all of history than at that moment. It's just that the people bearing the overwhelming brunt of street-crime - black people - became just as safe as white people are. That's privilege, because it presumes that 50% black murder victims is "normal", when it is in fact complete disproportionate. And it's in fact the same thing that was being displayed in the mainstream news article I posted - women's privilege to assume that the vast majority of murder victims and workplace deaths should be men because that's the natural order of things. People who are privileged expect to be treated disproportionately well and when confronted with things that are completely fair, they get freaked out.

I'll add to the current statement however, that the Democrats largely back-stabbed the labor movement and left them in the dust to chase the identity-politics thing. Sure they give lip-service to the working man, but that involves a lot of virtue signalling. Basically they are mostly a bunch of upper middle class white do-gooders who in actuality tend to despise the common working man as uncouth. This might have something to do with the rise of Trump.

[scriver]

Regarding fire fighters and "shouldn't firemen put out every fire?": In a universal firemen tax system, the firemen can put out fires universally. This is why we want firefighting to be socialised. Everybody pays the insurance, everybody pays for the maintenance of the service, everybody gets the service. Any exceptions will be so singular that they can be covered anyway.

I'm a system of private firefighting, this cannot hold out. You cannot expect firemen to fight fires for people who did not pay them just because you think they have some do-goody duty to "out out every fire". That is not a financially responsible policy. It would mean that the people who actually pay will have to pay more just to cover the freebies.

The point of firefighting insurance is basic solidarity. We pay together to provide cover for the ones of us who will need it. Expecting those payers to also provide cover for the freebies is not solidarity. Showing solidarity is standing together. Solidarity does not mean you have to cover for those who choose to stand not with you. "From each and all according to ability, to each and all according to need". Not just "to each and all at all times".

This is exactly why firefighting and rescue services should be universal and socialised.

[Antioch]

Regarding fire fighters and "shouldn't firemen put out every fire?": In a universal firemen tax system, the firemen can put out fires universally. This is why we want firefighting to be socialised. Everybody pays the insurance, everybody pays for the maintenance of the service, everybody gets the service. Any exceptions will be so singular that they can be covered anyway.

I'm a system of private firefighting, this cannot hold out. You cannot expect firemen to fight fires for people who did not pay them just because you think they have some do-goody duty to "out out every fire". That is not a financially responsible policy. It would mean that the people who actually pay will have to pay more just to cover the freebies.

The point of firefighting insurance is basic solidarity. We pay together to provide cover for the ones of us who will need it. Expecting those payers to also provide cover for the freebies is not solidarity. Showing solidarity is standing together. Solidarity does not mean you have to cover for those who choose to stand not with you. "From each and all according to ability, to each and all according to need". Not just "to each and all at all times".

This is exactly why firefighting and rescue services should be universal and socialised.

And healthcare.

[scriver]

And hugs. Because we could all do with more hugs.

[Frumple]

Basically they are mostly a bunch of upper middle class white do-gooders who in actuality tend to despise the common working man as uncouth. This might have something to do with the rise of Trump.

You got your parties mixed way the hell help, there. Dem support goes up as economic situation goes down (except with a subsection of the white population, anyway) for a reason, and "white upper middle class" is one of the areas actually in substantial contention electorate wise. Working man that's not more racist than poor knows which side the bread is buttered and it sure as fuck ain't the GOP these days, especially the friggin' trumpist "Is labor law something you eat?" wing.

[wierd]

A choice between corporate neofascists and people who simply expect your vote (and dont actually look out for your interests, instead catering preferentially to other demographics) is a poor choice.

That's the proverbial "Giant douche vs Turd Sandwich"  Sure, the giant douche is clean sterile water. However, you are male, so it does nothing for you.  The turd sandwich is of course, a turd between two slices of bread, and you are expected to eat it and like it while an audience of rich hedonists relishes your having to do so.

Voting for the douche that does nothing for you in order to avoid the turd sandwich is still not having your needs met-- It is just not getting fucked harder.

The DNC needs to realize that. It is why Hillary did not get her "assured" victory.

[Maximum Spin]

I'm going to answer this question in a more serious spirit than the one in which it was asked

It was an entirely serious question.

However, I should note a problem with your premises: for many people outside of suburbia, including myself, it's simply impossible for someone else's fire to spread to your own stuff. The average sovereign citizens' compound, as you brought up, isn't built near *anything*. In winter, isolated fires in the houses of people who were dumb about heating are pretty commonplace in my general area, but there's no reason for anyone else to be concerned about it – and, as a practical matter, the fire department cannot reach the fire in time anyway.

[wierd]

When I lived out in the county as a child, I frequently did "volunteer fire fighting", as many of the more "Devil may care" types that have inherited farms (and dont really want to operate them) would do seasonal burning WITHOUT doing the requisite prevention steps first, and WITHOUT proper fire spotting support crews to ensure the burn is safe and controlled.

As a consequence, fires raging down roadside ditches, getting into tree rows, escaping into adjacent hay pasture land, et al-- were all very dubiously common (and likely still are.) 

It is not that I particularly enjoyed beating dangerous tall grass fires out with a burlap sack; Or even that I particularly liked my neighbors who I was assisting with that action-- It was more enlightened self interest.  The people with the pasture land have a strong vested interest in keeping their pasture NOT ON FIRE. As such, they were (and I bet still are) very grateful when people prevent damage to their haycrop from less scrupulous (and often fucking lazy) "farmers" they have as neighbors. Nobody can be there all the time to keep that from happening, but they remember when you do them good turns, and will watch your back for your property in return, as it is the only right thing to do.  (The last thing you want to find when you come home, is that your house is gone, because the uncontrolled fire raged through your lawn and ignited your propane tank-- then continued burning, caught your barn on fire, killed your lifestock, etc.)

In less populous areas, it is possible for everyone within many miles coverage to know everyone else, and to have such tightly knit social support against calamity.  This is not true in a civic environment. Humans are just not equipped to deal with social networks of that size or complexity, and this favors the production of "Fuck you all" behaviors.

[Maximum Spin]

Yeah, from my perspective that's still "way too close together"; out here you do not have other farms as neighbours, you have miles of soggy forest dotted with bog. There isn't much in the way of tightly-knit social support because there aren't enough actual people. (It's heaven.)

[Trekkin]

This makes me an out-lier to the modern political debate process, but I still feel that my views are worth mentioning and fighting for.

Worth your time to mention, perhaps, but no one cares what you think unless you give them a reason to -- and claiming you're better than everyone else and willing to shoulder the oh-so-heavy burden of judging them all is not a reason to do anything but just let you vent. "The way things SHOULD be" is subjective and kind of irrelevant without first defining what can be, itself dependent on what has to happen to get there from where we are in a way that people will want to do.

Seeing the problems is the easiest part of trying to fix things, but if you stop there, plant your feet, and say "no side is worthy of my endorsement and both sides are mad emperors compared to me, an intellectual", even the people who bother to listen don't come away with anything actionable except letting you rant until you feel better. That's not insightful or courageous, it's just more whining, as can be had in ample supply from every street corner and bar. Everybody can see everything sucks. What's your solution to making it suck less?

And bear in mind that your solution has to work for the people who have to make it happen, too; this is one of the many problems with the many, many flavors of "i/"everyone"(but mostly me) should get more free stuff" as a philosophy. Free education is expensive; so is any kind of welfare that actually does any good. "Other people I don't like should pay for my stuff" doesn't work either unless you can make it do so even for those other people, and in a way they can appreciate.

When you have a plan that is devoid of axiomatic "should" and endless carping judgment of vast swathes of the populace and is instead a series of individually actionable steps likely to bring about a more desirable state of affairs for enough people to actually pull it off, then it might matter -- but be prepared to defend it and yourself with actual data rather than spurious citations of unrelated numbers, because there's a lot of people who love nothing more than tearing other people down and they will pounce on anything you have the courage to bring up.

But it's very worth doing, and I hope you try it.

[RedKing]

And hugs. Because we could all do with more hugs.

Pay for your own hugs, you pinko! 

Yeah, from my perspective that's still "way too close together"; out here you do not have other farms as neighbours, you have miles of soggy forest dotted with bog. There isn't much in the way of tightly-knit social support because there aren't enough actual people. (It's heaven.)

So....because your rather unique situation makes the scenario of privatized firefighting theoretically tenable, you believe it should be that way for everyone?

However, I should note a problem with your premises: for many people outside of suburbia, including myself, it's simply impossible for someone else's fire to spread to your own stuff.

And by "many people", you mean yourself. I live well outside of suburbia, and I'm surrounded on three sides by forest. Anybody adjoining that forest starts a big fire, it's spreading to my stuff. And while it is lower population density, it's not like I live in rural Wyoming. There are plenty of levels of existence between suburbia and "shack in the middle of the desert".


In more sideshow news, Trump's back at war with the NFL, calling for the suspsension of Marshawn Lynch for standing for the Mexican national anthem but then sitting for the US anthem, at the start of the Patriots-Raiders game in Mexico City on Sunday. He's also tweeted angrily -- after what he perceives as a lack of suitable gratitude towards three UCLA players who were facing legal trouble in China -- that he "should have left them in jail". Trump seems to have a real problem with 'uppity' black athletes not being suitably deferential....

[Maximum Spin]

So....because your rather unique situation makes the scenario of privatized firefighting theoretically tenable, you believe it should be that way for everyone?

Odd, I don't remember saying that. Maybe you dreamt it?

And by "many people", you mean yourself. I live well outside of suburbia, and I'm surrounded on three sides by forest. Anybody adjoining that forest starts a big fire, it's spreading to my stuff. And while it is lower population density, it's not like I live in rural Wyoming. There are plenty of levels of existence between suburbia and "shack in the middle of the desert".

I am beginning to doubt whether you were reading the same thing I actually wrote. Or do you genuinely think I'm the only person in my county? Nobody ever suggested that "many" means "everyone".

[wierd]

This makes me an out-lier to the modern political debate process, but I still feel that my views are worth mentioning and fighting for.

Worth your time to mention, perhaps, but no one cares what you think unless you give them a reason to -- and claiming you're better than everyone else and willing to shoulder the oh-so-heavy burden of judging them all is not a reason to do anything but just let you vent. "The way things SHOULD be" is subjective and kind of irrelevant without first defining what can be, itself dependent on what has to happen to get there from where we are in a way that people will want to do.

Seeing the problems is the easiest part of trying to fix things, but if you stop there, plant your feet, and say "no side is worthy of my endorsement and both sides are mad emperors compared to me, an intellectual", even the people who bother to listen don't come away with anything actionable except letting you rant until you feel better. That's not insightful or courageous, it's just more whining, as can be had in ample supply from every street corner and bar. Everybody can see everything sucks. What's your solution to making it suck less?

And bear in mind that your solution has to work for the people who have to make it happen, too; this is one of the many problems with the many, many flavors of "i/"everyone"(but mostly me) should get more free stuff" as a philosophy. Free education is expensive; so is any kind of welfare that actually does any good. "Other people I don't like should pay for my stuff" doesn't work either unless you can make it do so even for those other people, and in a way they can appreciate.

When you have a plan that is devoid of axiomatic "should" and endless carping judgment of vast swathes of the populace and is instead a series of individually actionable steps likely to bring about a more desirable state of affairs for enough people to actually pull it off, then it might matter -- but be prepared to defend it and yourself with actual data rather than spurious citations of unrelated numbers, because there's a lot of people who love nothing more than tearing other people down and they will pounce on anything you have the courage to bring up.

But it's very worth doing, and I hope you try it.

Indeed. Any plan to arrive at an objective, with the goal of mutual benefit for your society as a whole, requires meticulous planning, and unimpeachable data and hard fact to back it up.

the major effective problem, however, is not this thing you mention.  It is that people do not agree on what the objective itself should be. They therefore, cannot come to consensus on the means to arrive there, because the destination is not mutually desired.

EG, Ajit Pai most likely honestly thinks he is doing the "right thing" with how he is managing the FCC.  I am very strongly in disagreement, and very strongly do not wish to arrive at the objective end goal of his actions.

[birdy51]

Ah. I think I get the idea you are touching on.

There can be no progress without vision; that idea that you have a goal or objective, and you are going to take every step possible to move towards that goal, and then also making a goal of letting no one dilute that goal. It's having a core idea, holding onto it, and letting it be unshakeable, and then convincing others to follow you; not just bending to cover all your bases and check as many ideological boxes as you can.

[hector13]

So....because your rather unique situation makes the scenario of privatized firefighting theoretically tenable, you believe it should be that way for everyone?

Odd, I don't remember saying that. Maybe you dreamt it?

This is why it’s phrased as a question. You provided an example in apparent support for privatized firefighters, at least regarding the article that provoked the discussion.

And by "many people", you mean yourself. I live well outside of suburbia, and I'm surrounded on three sides by forest. Anybody adjoining that forest starts a big fire, it's spreading to my stuff. And while it is lower population density, it's not like I live in rural Wyoming. There are plenty of levels of existence between suburbia and "shack in the middle of the desert".

I am beginning to doubt whether you were reading the same thing I actually wrote. Or do you genuinely think I'm the only person in my county? Nobody ever suggested that "many" means "everyone".

Neither did RK.

You provided an example of living outside of urban sprawl in which fire is difficult to spread, RK provided an example where it spreads easily.

I mean, do you understand how discourse works?