Russia Likely Did Swing Votes For Donald Trump

[Guest]

Yeah, I’ve seen you describe yourself this way before. I get that it’s cute to describe yourself in contrary terms, but is it a coherent political philosophy? Or is it just cover for throwing tantrums about things that piss you off?

I think your blind spot is showing, but then again what else is new with the posters on this board, especially the ones that think they're righteous?

I'm a centrist because it's both pragmatic and based in reality. I also enjoy the ideological flexibility it allows me. I'm able to shift a bit when someone makes a good argument or a valid observation. The extremists on this board are mentally rigid and morally inflexible. You'll note they virtually never admit error and certainly won't admit if they're wrong on a topic, point, or issue. It's probably a reflection of society, To be honest.

eta since RI can't be bothered to Google something:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_centrism

- Doc

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

So we're back tk the inherent immorality of exploiting the desperate.

- Doc

Seems like having a better paying job with a higher standard of living is the opposite of exploitation. Oh, there no doubt is a lot of exploitation of immigrant labor. Specifically, when people cannot legally participate in the economy, they are cut off from access to legal institutions that give them access to contract enforcement and labor regulations. But it's quite another thing to assert that giving someone a job that pays substantially more than what they were making in an exchange of mutual benefit is immoral exploitation. You know what is immoral? Denying people freedom of movement, free exchange of goods and services, and crippling their standard of living all so you can feel less competition in your field of work.

So we'll just put EA in the camp of exploiting minorities because his standard of living goes up when a Happy Meal costs $6.99 versus $10.

Wow. White privilege much?

- Doc

[_subgenius]

So we're back tk the inherent immorality of exploiting the desperate.

- Doc

I don't believe they are being exploited.

obviously you can choose to believe anything on this topic...but it might be edifying to peruse the facts before you make such a declaration. Establishing a belief on this subject may be better served if you base that belief on the readily available facts.

[_EAllusion]

Seems like having a better paying job with a higher standard of living is the opposite of exploitation. Oh, there no doubt is a lot of exploitation of immigrant labor. Specifically, when people cannot legally participate in the economy, they are cut off from access to legal institutions that give them access to contract enforcement and labor regulations. But it's quite another thing to assert that giving someone a job that pays substantially more than what they were making in an exchange of mutual benefit is immoral exploitation. You know what is immoral? Denying people freedom of movement, free exchange of goods and services, and crippling their standard of living all so you can feel less competition in your field of work.

So we'll just put EA in the camp of exploiting minorities because his standard of living goes up when a Happy Meal costs $6.99 versus $10.

Wow. White privilege much?

- Doc

You see people voluntarily taking jobs that pay or provide more in order to improve their and their family's standard of living as exploitation. You propose fixing this exploitation by not allowing them to decide where to work and instead forcing them to keep lower quality jobs to get by. You know what is better for them than they do, and so they should only be allowed to take the jobs you say are Ok. Whether you extend this reasoning to other people it logically applies to, namely anyone in work that pays as well as what any immigrants are accepting, is unstated.

So after offering a vaguely Marxist critique of capitalism and proposing a socialist solution, you decide to in-artfully cloak this in racial justice. Meanwhile, just a few pages ago, you complained of my supposed cypto-socialism by saying,

"The weird thing with these guys who post here they post as if they have the moral high ground, but we all know what they really are. They're intolerant control freak bullies who hide behind their professed tolerance, but they don't really believe what they post outside of more socialism."

Yeah, that does seem to be a really apt description of someone here.

[_Hawkeye]

obviously you can choose to believe anything on this topic...but it might be edifying to peruse the facts before you make such a declaration. Establishing a belief on this subject may be better served if you base that belief on the readily available facts.

I'm speaking in general, not denying isolated examples of unfair treatment. These are the exceptions, not the rule.

[_EAllusion]

obviously you can choose to believe anything on this topic...but it might be edifying to peruse the facts before you make such a declaration. Establishing a belief on this subject may be better served if you base that belief on the readily available facts.

I'm speaking in general, not denying isolated examples of unfair treatment. These are the exceptions, not the rule.

He's saying you had no basis for saying this outside of your conviction that you'd prefer if it were true. It's a trollish argument that assumes you have no facts in hand to form your opinion and therefore it must be based on what you fancy.

Immigrant labor does face forms of exploitation. Though almost all of that exploitation is either 1) what Americans in general face or 2) related to undocumented status closing off legal and bargaining remedies. Of course it is possible to seek reforms that curb this exploitation as much as possible while not regarding the mere fact that someone takes a job that pays somewhat less than what a native worker had been demanding is ipso facto exploitative.

If people here were so concerned about exploitation of immigrants specifically, you'd think they'd want close off the near exclusive cause of it, which is employers using their undocumented status to prevent them from seeking redress of grievances.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

"The weird thing with these guys who post here they post as if they have the moral high ground, but we all know what they really are. They're intolerant control freak bullies who hide behind their professed tolerance, but they don't really believe what they post outside of more socialism."

Yeah, that does seem to be a really apt description of someone here.

I mean. You can try and hide what you are, but it's patently obvious to me that you don't care about activism. What YOU care about is acting out the delusion of caring about the things you say. You've absolutely inflated your own ego by pretending to care about the problems of the world to the point of arguing every_single_thing_anyone_says into the ground, buddy.

What's up with that?

Getting back to the OP. If we're talking about dealing with people who deal with complex systems, and then making them better, then I guess I'd have to ask what have the people in our country, who are in charge of policy, done to address the complex challenges of their constituents that makes our system better or worse? The fact of the matter is we're just fundamentally going to look at our system through our filter of good and bad. Markk has his filter. You have yours. I have mine.

So. I think in order to move this conversation forward we'd have to hammer out (no pun intended in a second) a particular agreement to settle on a particular point, say, what should the average person in SoCal who is a basic carpenter be making per hour. Once we agree to discuss a singular issue then we can discuss the current and historical policies that have led to the current wage-per-hour and figure out how to move to what we can agree is a fair and equitable wage for a carpenter in SoCal. Otherwise the complexity of what we're talking about lends the conversation to uselessness and it ends up as a virtue signal to one's ideological side.

- Doc

[_EAllusion]

So. I think in order to move this conversation forward we'd have to hammer out (no pun intended in a second) a particular agreement to settle on a particular point, say, what should the average person in SoCal who is a basic carpenter be making per hour. Once we agree to discuss a singular issue then we can discuss the current and historical policies that have led to the current wage-per-hour and figure out how to move to what we can agree is a fair and equitable wage for a carpenter in SoCal. Otherwise the complexity of what we're talking about lends the conversation to uselessness and it ends up as a virtue signal to one's ideological side.

Since I'm not Marxist, I don't think I can just fiat decide what a carpenter in So-Cal should be making as a fair wage. His or her wage is worth what people are willing to pay for it.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Since I'm not Marxist, I don't think I can just fiat decide what a carpenter in So-Cal should be making as a fair wage. His or her wage is worth what people are willing to pay for it.

So, again, we're back to taking advantage of the poor and desperate because *Libertarian*. But, hey, as long as you're paying $6.99 for that Happy Meal who cares what those minorities are being paid, ya know?

Wow. This just keeps getting worse and worse...

- Doc

[_EAllusion]

Since I'm not Marxist, I don't think I can just fiat decide what a carpenter in So-Cal should be making as a fair wage. His or her wage is worth what people are willing to pay for it.

So, again, we're back to taking advantage of the poor and desperate because *Libertarian*. But, hey, as long as you're paying $6.99 for that Happy Meal who cares what those minorities are being paid, ya know?

Wow. This just keeps getting worse and worse...

- Doc

Because "not Marxist." Or, if you prefer, because "capitalist." The position I'm expressing encapsulates the standard view ranging from staunch conservatives to very generous welfare-state liberals in Western democracies.

But that's not the right way to think about it either. I don't think this because I self-label as part of the broad range of capitalist tradition, look up a list of what I must believe based on that label, and note that I have to think that. Rather, this is something I think and that just so happens to put me under that label.

If you want to argue why you both can and should fiat define what constitutes a fair wage for a carpentry in So-Cal and make it that way through policy, go for it. No one is stopping you. Command economies have such a great track record on planet earth that it should be no problem to pick some examples to illustrate your thoughts.

I hear from this poster named "Doctor CamNC4Me" that socialists are actually dishonest vipers who lie about what they think to oppress people, so you'll probably have to explain to him why what you are saying should be taken in good faith, but I'm sure everyone else is all ears.