Print

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

[nenjin]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_ratio

Unfortunately this brand of jurisprudence has been on the decline for a long, long time now. I feel like particularly after 9/11, many average people abandoned this reasoning.

[scriver]

I want to argue that it's better to follow rules in general, because it helps one maintain an internal integrity which is perceived by others.  I really want to say that, but that's so fricken naive.

No, not really. They're not the ones being naive here, you and MSH are.

[Trekkin]

I want to argue that it's better to follow rules in general, because it helps one maintain an internal integrity which is perceived by others.  I really want to say that, but that's so fricken naive.  It's a lie, a trap set to make the compassionate players hobble themselves.

That's not why, though. That sort of reasoning is closer to what you tell kids when they ask why they have to play fair at recess or share their cookies -- why, in short, they should follow the immutable rules imposed on them by somebody else.

Politics has rules that are followed for a more concrete reason: because the rules let us change the rules, raising the possibility of some nefarious actor changing that rule once things are as they would wish them to be and breaking us out of our current metastable state into dictatorship. In a larger sense, the whole idea of government works only by consensus; that's partly why there was opposition among the Founders to amending the Constitution to include the Bill of Rights, because everyone would only ever meaningfully have the rights society agreed they did anyway.

The trap, I think, is in thinking that playing by the rules means accepting them as they are.

[Baffler]

Any reasonable person in the modern world understands that morality is consequential. The right isn't evil because of their tactics, they're evil because of their values and the results thereof. Their tactics are generally quite sound, which is why they tend to control things. The only strength that liberalism has against this is that they don't disagree with the economics of the right, at least not beyond reconciliation.

If wierd wants to make things about chess, then the right is a man playing chess against a liberal who doesn't take pieces because it would be in poor sport for them to actually win.

You want to be the good guy here? Put us in a place where we can actually have healthcare for everybody, or stop pigs from murdering on the daily, or stop the ecological collapse, instead of just dreaming about it and following the rules that were so carefully handed down to you by previous generations of right-wing assholes.

Ignoring the "u r teh ebil," I would like to ask you some questions. Where did Christine Blasey Ford go when she was no longer politically useful? Surely if that was all real and not just theater something would have come of that, right? Same goes for Anita Hill. What about how congressional Democrats ran maximum interference when this happened, or this, or this, which was hardly even reported on at all, to avoid embarrassment? Or what of Obama using the DoJ unethically if not illegally to both protect his friends and allies and hinder his enemies? Or how political sympathizers seemingly took it upon themselves to just do it anyway? I could go on to the word limit with this but I truthfully don't hope to convince you anyway.

On a second line of questioning, can you explain the nature and mechanism of the right wing's control of society?

[Rolan7]

I want to argue that it's better to follow rules in general, because it helps one maintain an internal integrity which is perceived by others.  I really want to say that, but that's so fricken naive.

No, not really. They're not the ones being naive here, you and MSH are.

They who?  I'm 32 and have generally lived that way, and still tend to.  I'm expressing a fear that I'm being naive and taken advantage of.

The trap, I think, is in thinking that playing by the rules means accepting them as they are.

This I agree with.

[JoshuaFH]

I want to argue that it's better to follow rules in general, because it helps one maintain an internal integrity which is perceived by others.  I really want to say that, but that's so fricken naive.

No, not really. They're not the ones being naive here, you and MSH are.

They who?  I'm 32 and have generally lived that way, and still tend to.  I'm expressing a fear that I'm being naive and taken advantage of.

Since you want to be admonished, I'll admonish you: there's nothing naive about believing and behaving in accordance to principles, as opposed to mere self-interest or pragmatism. The foundation of justice is desiring what is right, as opposed to what is expedient.

The nation wasn't created by laissez-faire attitudes clashing together, which happened to create a government and constitution by accident; it was made deliberately, by people who believed that that's the way it should be.

Not to grandstand piously.

[SalmonGod]

I think you guys are going way overboard on your interpretation of what MSH said.  I read it as just saying that we need to be more stubborn and stop playing into the right's games.  When they continually step backwards crying "Why won't you meet us in the middle?!", stop falling for it.  When they control the conversation, stop following their lead.  Don't abandon dignity, but stop hand-wringing over how your opposition frames your *appearance* of dignity.  Stop offering olive branches when they've been immediately used to poke you in the eye 1000 times in a row.  Etc.  He's not saying to play the game their way.  He's saying to STOP playing the game their way.

If we want to stick with the chess analogy, the Democrat Party has for my whole adult life been playing with an opponent who says "Let me cheat or you're a meany doody head who hates America.  Ok I'll stop cheating if you let me take that piece.  Thanks, but I was lying!  Ok I'm sorry again, but if you punish me for breaking the rules, we won't be able to move on and play a good-natured game afterwards.  Thanks!  I guess this means I should keep breaking the rules!  What?  I never admitted to breaking the rules!  I think you're breaking the rules!  You had this look on your face like a rule-breaker a minute ago!  You were thinking about it weren't you!  Also if I win this game lots of people you love will die.".... AND GOING ALONG WITH IT NEVER FUCKING LEARNING.

[Magistrum]

What crimes, exactly, did he commit in broad daylight?

Wait, is that a rhetorical question? I don't even live in the United States and I know his lawyer got locked up due to campaign finance violations, with the same document clearly showing him to be the one ordering it, he just didn't get charged because you guys think the president should be king or whatever.

[Folly]

Is it then evil to lie to Nazis if you're hiding people from them?

Lies are always evil. But they are often the lesser evil. A harsh truth can be far more cruel than a gentle lie.

My belief is the "least evil" is not evil at all, and that one should not be punished for doing it. After all, choosing the "least evil" means acting as morally ideal as possible, does it not? So, no, it would not be evil at all to lie to Nazis in that case, and in fact would be very good.

In an artificially constructed society, that is certainly the ideal we strive for. Expect people to do the best they can, and so long as they do so, do not hold them responsible for any negative consequences. But this is something of a fantasy, and real life usually doesn't work out this way. Choices have consequences, and someone always ends up paying a price.

[RedKing]

I want to argue that it's better to follow rules in general, because it helps one maintain an internal integrity which is perceived by others.  I really want to say that, but that's so fricken naive.

No, not really. They're not the ones being naive here, you and MSH are.

Well, that's certainly a convincing argument. 
Allow me to offer the well-reasoned contrapositive, "I'm rubber and you're glue".

I have never been a Democrat, specifically for the reasons cited -- the Dems are like the hero in a cliched action film that, after they've knocked the bad guy on his ass, deliver some flowery speech about values and shit, giving the bad guy time to reload and pull A Dastardly Move. Or, they wind up being just as fucking greedy and corrupt as what they've displaced.

Is it too much to ask for honest, thoughtful politicians who also know when to put the dagger in? I want to see Democrats execute a Mortal Kombat-style fatality move and rip their fucking opponent's spine out and do a floss dance with it, politically speaking.

[Frumple]

I mean. It might be. Putting the dagger in in some circumstances tends to end up expanding to other circumstances and precluding the honest or thoughtful bit. Eternal problem with recruiting folks that know how to knife fight is that you're recruiting people willing to stab someone, drastically increasingly the likelihood hood they, y'know. Do.

[Zangi]

It is pretty nice when you can also write the rules in a way that'll let you stack the odds in your favor, while also giving your opponent a harder time.

It is also pretty nice when you have people dedicating their lives to prove something(you say/believe) is wrong by actively sabotaging it.

[smjjames]

@ earlier joking about closing the thread: There is certainly a possibility that it'll get temporarily closed as a time out measure, but permaclosed and rebooted, hope not.

"Damn the actual truthfulness or validity of the accusation-- WE HAVE OUR MAN!" is how you send innocent people to death row. (In the hundreds.)

That liberals are unwilling to go down that path, (because it is not actually winning, it is losing horribly) is a sign that they actually do have an interest in actually solving societal issues.


It isn't that liberals are uninterested in winning, or incapable of thinking about winning;  It is that there is a different set of "victory conditions."


(This is to say, throwing a temper tantrum and smashing the chess table is not how you actually win at playing chess. The republican mindset says it is, but no. That is not how you can claim to actually win at playing chess.)

Some Liberals at least, certainly the top Democratic leaders, but there are definetly those who want Trump impeached no matter what.

Anyhow, Trump backed out of the border closure threat and then started it up again with a different target. He's also willing to take the economic hit apparently.

If he's so brave or naive/stupid (incidentially, I almost typo'd brave as braive, heh) as to be willing to take the hit, why doesn't he go ahead and do it just so that reality can smack his face at light speed.

[Bumber]

What crimes, exactly, did he commit in broad daylight?

Wait, is that a rhetorical question? I don't even live in the United States and I know his lawyer got locked up due to campaign finance violations, with the same document clearly showing him to be the one ordering it, he just didn't get charged because you guys think the president should be king or whatever.

The lawyer made a plea deal rather than go to court. Trump can still fight it, arguing that it doesn't amount to a violation, or that he wasn't advised that it was illegal.

IIRC, the alleged violation hinges on the fact that it was an undisclosed campaign contribution. Since Trump reimbursed his lawyer, I would think that puts the case on shaky grounds. Furthermore, he wouldn't have had to disclose it until after the election, so it wouldn't have affected the results of the 2016 race.

More importantly, it's a bad precedent to start impeaching on that sort of crime, as it would most certainly be weaponized by Republicans in the future. They failed to impeach Bill Clinton over perjury and obstruction of justice charges, and the whole charade ended up costing them votes. What if they could succeed, instead?

[RedKing]

@ earlier joking about closing the thread: There is certainly a possibility that it'll get temporarily closed as a time out measure, but permaclosed and rebooted, hope not.

"Damn the actual truthfulness or validity of the accusation-- WE HAVE OUR MAN!" is how you send innocent people to death row. (In the hundreds.)

That liberals are unwilling to go down that path, (because it is not actually winning, it is losing horribly) is a sign that they actually do have an interest in actually solving societal issues.


It isn't that liberals are uninterested in winning, or incapable of thinking about winning;  It is that there is a different set of "victory conditions."


(This is to say, throwing a temper tantrum and smashing the chess table is not how you actually win at playing chess. The republican mindset says it is, but no. That is not how you can claim to actually win at playing chess.)

Some Liberals at least, certainly the top Democratic leaders, but there are definetly those who want Trump impeached no matter what.

Anyhow, Trump backed out of the border closure threat and then started it up again with a different target. He's also willing to take the economic hit apparently.

If he's so brave or naive/stupid (incidentially, I almost typo'd brave as braive, heh) as to be willing to take the hit, why doesn't he go ahead and do it just so that reality can smack his face at light speed.

Guess we'll start being referred to by the rest of the world as "Behind The Gold-Plated Curtain". Because once the southern border is sealed off, we have to contend with those nefarious moose rustlers and syrup dealers to our north. They're bringing politeness, they're bringing Justin Bieber and Nickelback and Celine Dion. And some, I'm sure, are good people.