Random Politics 2

[Yasna]

So the exception to prove the rule?

No.

Literally the same argument neo-Nazis and other racists use when called out for supporting people and positions that line up with those mindsets.

I agree with a good deal of Noam Chomsky's views. Does that make me a presumed anarcho-syndicalist?

Because it's the same arguments put out by people with similar interests.

This might have slipped past your notice, but people espousing centrist and center right views tend to have other stuff in common as well, such as looking at issues through the lens of classical liberalism.

It's because of knowledge of the history of right-wing thought and its motivations that I make that claim. Right-wing people are always on the wrong side of history, just as they are right now in the US on the wrong side of every single fucking issue.

Serious question: Where did you learn your history from?

It's not such a cut-and-dry issue with refutations or inconclusive studies, but at its core it is ad-hoc argumentation to justify the continuation of systemic racism while pretending it doesn't exist.

I agree that there is room for debate. The point is, there's so much hard evidence against affirmative action, that going after the critics' imagined motives is simply avoiding the hard questions. One of the authors of the most prominent critical book on affirmative action (Mismatch, 2012), Richard Sander, has worked for a small neighborhood housing group on Chicago's south side, organized tenant unions, worked on the election effort and subsequent transition team of Chicago’s first black mayor, and was president of the Fair Housing Congress of Southern California from 1984 to 1996. This man is supposed to be engaged in "ad-hoc argumentation to justify the continuation of systemic racism"? Get out of here!

This was the case in the antebellum south. Racism in the US is largely the result of a concerted effort by the slave-owning population to create a false sense of solidarity among whites that was founded on a thinly-veiled threat: "you have it better than them and should feel grateful for that, because it could be you."

Wrong. Racism in the US was imported from the Old World.

Actual class interests are this: employers and employees fight over who gets the higher share of labor value, with one side wanting more working hours and the other side wanting less. Anything more than that is a distraction to divide workers. They've used that pretty well to dismantle worker protections in the US.

That's a nice 19th century understanding of class interests you have there.

The reason it's brought up the way that it is is because white people would rather talk about them without their input.

More vapid mind-reading.

[Yasna]

"I suspect part of what angers some commentators so much about the Harper's letter is just how involved people of color were. For them, we're only allowed to have one position, and if we diverge from that, we're not truly what we are. For these so-called progressives, they judge us based on immutable identities. We are not individuals, distinguished by what we think and believe. For them, we're supposed to play "our role." We are merely representatives of victimized groups to be both "elevated" and patronized."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nN3B_q40RyY

[Yasna]

When Authority Vanishes

"Kim Foxx, the state’s attorney for Cook County (which includes Chicago), has already become nationally notorious for refusing to prosecute Jussie Smollett, the actor who lied to the police that he was a victim of racial violence. But her offenses against public order are far worse than her condoning of a provocateur who tried to fracture the city with a falsehood. Foxx has dismissed felony cases brought by the police at a rate 35 percent higher than her predecessor. She raised the threshold for felony shoplifting from $300 to $1,000—and as a result, thieves steal brazenly in broad daylight as well as under cover of darkness. Chicago police chief David Brown suggested that Foxx’s failure to prosecute looters from the previous sacking of the city in June was partly responsible for emboldening the current round of looting."

"The state and city’s ineffective leaders are all the product of a progressive ruling elite that promoted them beyond their competence because they helped advance political goals. Foxx is a graduate of Southern Illinois School of Law, one of the state’s weakest law schools. Despite the debacle of the Smollett case, she has prevailed in the Democratic primary over a veteran prosecutor, her campaign enjoying contributions from progressive celebrities like Steven Spielberg’s wife.

Lori Lightfoot, Chicago’s first female black mayor, was also the progressives’ choice, though she had never held elected office or had substantial managerial experience. Her most important position in government previously had been as head of the police accountability board. Northwestern University, where I teach, nevertheless awarded her an honorary degree before she was a year into the mayor’s job, violating its own strictures against politically motivated choices.

Pritzker’s main qualification for governor was that he had inherited a lot of money and thus could self-fund a campaign against the Republican incumbent, Bruce Rauner, who, in contrast, paid for his campaign with money that he had made himself. Though Pritzker was not chosen to be put in charge of his own family’s principal businesses, progressives liked him enough to run him for governor without any political experience in order to stop Rauner’s effort at reforming the state’s pension liabilities and regulatory overkill."

"They have also failed to sustain the first condition of civilization: order under law. One feels almost nostalgic for the days when Chicago was run by a Democratic political machine that at least understood this cardinal principle of statecraft. Chicago’s machine, however, ultimately became dependent for its support on public-sector unions. These unions have received rich pensions, currently only 35 percent funded—leaving a huge debt overhang for future taxpayers. The unions have also made it impossible to discipline cops or teachers. This interference with sound management has directly led to the crisis of confidence in both police and the schools. Chicago residents had filed 19 complaints against Officer Jason Van Dyke, for example. He had more complaints against him than 94 percent of officers on the force but had never been seriously disciplined before he shot Laquan McDonald—an event that catalyzed mistrust of police in the city’s minority communities."

[linguoboy]

Pritzker’s main qualification for governor was that he had inherited a lot of money and thus could self-fund a campaign against the Republican incumbent, Bruce Rauner, who, in contrast, paid for his campaign with money that he had made himself. Though Pritzker was not chosen to be put in charge of his own family’s principal businesses, progressives liked him enough to run him for governor without any political experience in order to stop Rauner’s effort at reforming the state’s pension liabilities and regulatory overkill."

LOL. McGinnis thinks Pritzker was the choice of "progressives"?

[Yasna]

LOL. McGinnis thinks Pritzker was the choice of "progressives"?

He beat the next closest primary contender by a margin of 20%, which to me suggests at least some degree of progressive support. But I don't know much about Illinois politics, so correct me if I'm wrong.

Do you think this is an accurate characterization of state and city leaders?

The state and city’s ineffective leaders are all the product of a progressive ruling elite that promoted them beyond their competence because they helped advance political goals.

[linguoboy]

LOL. McGinnis thinks Pritzker was the choice of "progressives"?

He beat the next closest primary contender by a margin of 20%, which to me suggests at least some degree of progressive support.

Why do you think that's a particularly good measure of progressive support? Why not look at, say, endorsements instead?

Pritzker started the race with the most name recognition (his family's name is on buildings all over town) and spent $171 million of his own money, about $70 million in Democratic primary and the rest in the general. That's an order of magnitude than all other candidates in the Democratic primary combined. (Biss, by comparison, only raised $5.5 million.) For weeks, I couldn't watch a single video on YouTube without having to skip over a "JB" advert. Maybe that had a little something to do with his crushing margin of victory?

Initially, most progressives supported Pawar, but he soon realised he couldn't compete with billionaire cash and withdrew. Most gravitated to Biss after that, who together with Hardiman netted 28% of votes. Do you think the progressive voter block within Illinois is substantially larger than that and, if so, why?

Do you think this is an accurate characterization of state and city leaders?

The state and city’s ineffective leaders are all the product of a progressive ruling elite that promoted them beyond their competence because they helped advance political goals.

The fact that he thinks we have a "progressive ruling elite" is exactly what has me LOLing. You have to be pretty far on the hard right end of spectrum to get that much of a parallax effect. I have a alderman who's an actual progressive (he ran as a democratic socialist) and he's been opposing Lightfoot right and left.

[Yasna]

LOL. McGinnis thinks Pritzker was the choice of "progressives"?

He beat the next closest primary contender by a margin of 20%, which to me suggests at least some degree of progressive support.

Why do you think that's a particularly good measure of progressive support? Why not look at, say, endorsements instead?

Pritzker started the race with the most name recognition (his family's name is on buildings all over town) and spent $171 million of his own money, about $70 million in Democratic primary and the rest in the general. That's an order of magnitude than all other candidates in the Democratic primary combined. (Biss, by comparison, only raised $5.5 million.) For weeks, I couldn't watch a single video on YouTube without having to skip over a "JB" advert. Maybe that had a little something to do with his crushing margin of victory?

Initially, most progressives supported Pawar, but he soon realised he couldn't compete with billionaire cash and withdrew. Most gravitated to Biss after that, who together with Hardiman netted 28% of votes. Do you think the progressive voter block within Illinois is substantially larger than that and, if so, why?

Do you think this is an accurate characterization of state and city leaders?

The state and city’s ineffective leaders are all the product of a progressive ruling elite that promoted them beyond their competence because they helped advance political goals.

The fact that he thinks we have a "progressive ruling elite" is exactly what has me LOLing. You have to be pretty far on the hard right end of spectrum to get that much of a parallax effect. I have a alderman who's an actual progressive (he ran as a democratic socialist) and he's been opposing Lightfoot right and left.

I guess the sticking point is how one defines progressive. If you're defining it as roughly coterminous with "democratic socialist", then I see where our perspectives differ. The author was presumably taking a broader view of progressivism, as was I. As a reference point, 2020 Joe Biden seems like a progressive to me.

But we can sidestep the progressive issue. Do you agree that the city's leaders were promoted beyond their competence because they helped advance political goals?

[linguoboy]

But we can sidestep the progressive issue. Do you agree that the city's leaders were promoted beyond their competence because they helped advance political goals?

"Promoted" is a strange word to use for politicians who were selected for their posts by overwhelming margins in popular elections. Lightfoot won just shy of 75% of votes in the second round against the much more experienced Toni Preckwinkle. Foxx beat incumbent Anita Alvarez by 30 points in the primary and got 72% of the vote in general. If they're "incompetent", just how bad were the candidates they beat out?

[Yasna]

"Promoted" is a strange word to use for politicians who were selected for their posts by overwhelming margins in popular elections. Lightfoot won just shy of 75% of votes in the second round against the much more experienced Toni Preckwinkle. Foxx beat incumbent Anita Alvarez by 30 points in the primary and got 72% of the vote in general. If they're "incompetent", just how bad were the candidates they beat out?

That's the point though. Was Lightfoot elevated (by people with influence as well as some voters) past other more competent candidates partially because she checked the right boxes? Black, gay, woman. Same for Foxx minus the gay part.

[Yasna]

I'm concerned by how many of my (young, well-educated) friends plan on voting for Trump this November. Biden may win, but it's not going to be a landslide.

[vijayjohn]

I have seen even people who do not support Chump at all seriously and unironically pushing a narrative that Biden is some kind of demented rapist with no evidence beyond "LOOK AT THAT VIDEO HE TOUCHED HER OHMIGOD SO CREEPY!" so yeah, I don't exactly hold out hope for Biden winning by a landslide.

[Saim]

I have seen even people who do not support Chump at all seriously and unironically pushing a narrative that Biden is some kind of demented rapist with no evidence beyond "LOOK AT THAT VIDEO HE TOUCHED HER OHMIGOD SO CREEPY!" so yeah, I don't exactly hold out hope for Biden winning by a landslide.

Erm...

https://www.vox.com/2020/3/27/21195935/ ... allegation ?

[vijayjohn]

My understanding is that the investigation into Reade's claims has at least begun, the evidence has so far been found to be weak, and the other complaints about him are not alleging rape. These people also really like resorting to armchair psychiatry without apparently knowing the slightest thing about mental disorders and concluding that he is too old and has dementia, which is arguably both ageist and ableist (and they have definitely scoffed at the accusation of ableism). I take away from this that "he's a demented rapist how can you not see that?!" is not really a well-informed sentiment.

That being said, at least that article is better evidence than anything they have cited, so thanks!

[Saim]

Found weak by who? Whatever happened to "believe women"? And what kind of "evidence" could you possibly have of forced digital penetration that happened in the 90s?

The point with the other testimonies is not that he's a rapist. The thing to keep in mind here is that it's far beyond "look at how he touched her omg so creepy"; several women themselves have come out and said they are uncomfortable with this behaviour.

It's ageist to suggest that he has dementia because he's forgetful and confused or ageist to suggest that someone with dementia shouldn't be president? And was it also ableist when people thought of all sorts of diagnoses for Trump?

[vijayjohn]

Found weak by who?

The New York Times in an extensive investigation according to Stacey Abrams, at least (source: this, specifically the paragraph above the first bullet point)

Whatever happened to "believe women"?

a) Rape victims are not all women.
b) Some (many, according to some statistics) rapists are women.
c) False allegations are not unknown.
d) Rape is a crime. In cases of other crimes like theft or murder, do we simply believe that someone was robbed or murdered, or do we investigate it?

And what kind of "evidence" could you possibly have of forced digital penetration that happened in the 90s?

Eyewitness accounts? Alleged victim's testimony? Alleged perpetrator's testimony? Physical injuries? Medical reports? Police reports?

The point with the other testimonies is not that he's a rapist.

I know, but the point the people I mentioned when I first started discussing this were trying to make seems to be this.

It's ageist to suggest that he has dementia because he's forgetful and confused or ageist to suggest that someone with dementia shouldn't be president?

It's ageist to say that he can't be president because he's too old and ableist to write him off as someone who has dementia because he forgot things and/or got confused.

And was it also ableist when people thought of all sorts of diagnoses for Trump?

Yes, I think so. I was guilty of doing this, too.

[Saim]

I hope you hold Republican politicians to the same standard of evidence. I certainly won't.

Eyewitness accounts? Alleged victim's testimony? Alleged perpetrator's testimony? Physical injuries? Medical reports? Police reports?

Only two of those things can possibly exist and you know why.

source: this, specifically the paragraph above the first bullet point

The BBC says that a Democratic politician cited the New York Times as saying the accusation wasn't credible? That's your standard for evidence?

It's ageist to say that he can't be president because he's too old and ableist to write him off as someone who has dementia because he forgot things and/or got confused.

I can respect this position. I do think the fact that he can't finish a speech and can't remember where he is is certainly a point against him when considering him for a high-responsibility position that requires oratory skills and contact with a large amount of all over the world. If I cared about the Democrats winning I'd be livid that they presented such a bad candidate.

[vijayjohn]

I hope you hold Republican politicians to the same standard of evidence. I certainly won't.

I'm not sure what you meant by this. Did you mean you will hold them to the same standard of evidence, or did you mean the standard of evidence I was using was bad?

Only two of those things can possibly exist and you know why.

In this particular case or in general?

The BBC says that a Democratic politician cited the New York Times as saying the accusation wasn't credible? That's your standard for evidence?

No, just the only information I had; that was why I said that was my understanding.

I can respect this position. I do think the fact that he can't finish a speech and can't remember where he is is certainly a point against him when considering him for a high-responsibility position that requires oratory skills and contact with a large amount of all over the world. If I cared about the Democrats winning I'd be livid that they presented such a bad candidate.

I can respect this position, too. I noticed the people I mentioned criticizing Biden a lot and didn't understand why, so I tried to figure it out for myself but failed. Then I asked them, and I didn't feel their explanation made any sense except that they were apparently just disillusioned with (at least American) politicians in general. Even if he really is a rapist with dementia, I still don't think their explanation makes sense or is good. Yours is the only one I know of so far that does make sense, even though I honestly know very little about all of the bad things American politicians have done.

[Saim]

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Did you mean you will hold them to the same standard of evidence, or did you mean the standard of evidence I was using was bad?

I mean my default mode of operations is to distrust powerful people and believe victims.

My point about the Republicans is that I respect you having a different framework, I just hope you apply the same framework to the opposing political camp.

In this particular case or in general?

It depends on what you mean by "in general". To be clear, this is what I'm referring to: "forced digital penetration that happened in the 90s" [and wasn't reported on at the time].

The only things we have to go on here are 1) the victims own testimony and 2) her mother's statement from 1993 that her daughter had had "problems" with a prominent senator, which she didn't make public out of respect for said senator. Given the recent shift in cultural attitudes towards sexual assault and rape, it's not surprising someone wouldn't have felt comfortable talking about it publicly or going to the police in the 90s but might want to air it out now. It seems just as plausible as any other "old" allegations against prominent public figures.

[vijayjohn]

Honestly, I have never heard much about sexual assault in either party (I'll admit I'm pretty sure I deliberately ignored the Monica Lewinsky scandal for a long time. I should probably learn more about that). In this particular case, I was just going off of the little information I had, which seemed to be suggesting that the allegations were not credible. I understand that that isn't good evidence, but I wouldn't have been able to make that evaluation if no one had told me anything else about it.

[Car]

The only things we have to go on here are 1) the victims own testimony and 2) her mother's statement from 1993 that her daughter had had "problems" with a prominent senator, which she didn't make public out of respect for said senator. Given the recent shift in cultural attitudes towards sexual assault and rape, it's not surprising someone wouldn't have felt comfortable talking about it publicly or going to the police in the 90s but might want to air it out now. It seems just as plausible as any other "old" allegations against prominent public figures.

I'm currently reading the book Football Leaks 2 and more specifically the rape accusations against Ronaldo. It's quite interesting what it says about rape in the US and how people deal with it. Many just settle outside of court (as they're much more likely to win that way) and then aren't allowed to talk about it at all. Ok, in that case, she actually went to the police, but that was much later.