Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats
- Thread starter GasBandit
- Start date
Certainly they are incomparable in many ways, but in many other ways they are comparable.
I hope, however, that you're not suggesting that one form of hate is acceptable and the other is not. Just because one may be "worse" doesn't mean the other should be ignored or accepted.
That's really stretching it. It's perfectly natural and acceptable to have anger towards a violent organization that has as it's stated goal the eradication/subjugation of your race. That's called self preservation.
Well, at this point I suspect we're arguing because we have differences in our interpretation of hate and it's general acceptability.
I tend to think of hate as dislike so passionate that the hateful person wishes the people they hated were dead - not just that they stopped being or believing in something, but that they simply didn't exist.
As such any form of hate is unacceptable.
I may want the KKK and others to change their minds, beliefs, attitudes, or actions, but I don't want them dead, or to simply disappear.
There's a wide gulf between "I hate this, I wish those people would change" and "I hate this, I wish those people would die", though, and given that I'm arguing against the second form of hate, and you're arguing in defense of the first form of hate I don't think we're necessarily arguing against each other.
I tend to think of hate as dislike so passionate that the hateful person wishes the people they hated were dead - not just that they stopped being or believing in something, but that they simply didn't exist.
As such any form of hate is unacceptable.
I may want the KKK and others to change their minds, beliefs, attitudes, or actions, but I don't want them dead, or to simply disappear.
I agree with that. But to suggest that the members of that violent organization should be killed for their beliefs (not just in self defense) is an extreme I'd decry.
There's a wide gulf between "I hate this, I wish those people would change" and "I hate this, I wish those people would die", though, and given that I'm arguing against the second form of hate, and you're arguing in defense of the first form of hate I don't think we're necessarily arguing against each other.
Now I would like not just blotsfan, but everyone reading this to take a moment to read the following statement: hating someone solely based on their affiliation with some sort of group is exactly the same no matter what that group might be. I don't hate Donald Trump because he's a millionaire, a Republican, a cis white American male, or anything else. I hate Trump because he has a long and storied history of being a bigot, an idiot, and a liar. To automatically hate millionaires, Republicans, White people, Men, or cisgendered people just because of the actions of people who fit those characteristics does those groups an injustice. It's that monkeysphere thing again.
I completely understand becoming automatically suspicious of someone if you discover they are a Klansman. I would, too. It takes a certain mentality/worldview to join that organization, and unlike being Black, this is something a person chooses to do. But I wouldn't automatically hate him for being so. There's a fine line between "inference" and "prejudice," but the difference is huge.
--Patrick
Last edited:
There's a long-standing belief that hate itself is bad in all circumstances, and that it only breeds destruction. Anger, and fury, and many other "related" emotions don't carry the same implications as hate. When you hate, there's no room for compromise.
And there's the view that such a view is bullshit, and hating bad things is good. Being 100% against bad things is nothing to apologize for.
Which is best? I'm not sure. The appeal of hating something is great, but as I said, it leaves no room for compromise with those you hate, or those things you hate. But should you? Or not? It's actually a really deep question IMO. I've thought both on various occasions for various reasons, but it's WAY too easy to say "well look at this horrific thing, don't you hate it?" Well, ya, maybe, but this gets really easy to apply the same label to anything you don't like. So I'm uncomfortable with that being applied at all. But at the same time, I DO hate some things. So where do you go from there?
That was rather rambling, but I hope it made some sense to a few people.
And there's the view that such a view is bullshit, and hating bad things is good. Being 100% against bad things is nothing to apologize for.
Which is best? I'm not sure. The appeal of hating something is great, but as I said, it leaves no room for compromise with those you hate, or those things you hate. But should you? Or not? It's actually a really deep question IMO. I've thought both on various occasions for various reasons, but it's WAY too easy to say "well look at this horrific thing, don't you hate it?" Well, ya, maybe, but this gets really easy to apply the same label to anything you don't like. So I'm uncomfortable with that being applied at all. But at the same time, I DO hate some things. So where do you go from there?
That was rather rambling, but I hope it made some sense to a few people.
GasBandit
Staff member
Quit muscling in on my racket!
Dave
Staff member
You've changed, man. You've changed. And Matt has mellowed. Someone has to pick up the asshole slack around here.
Man, that sounded better in my head.
GasBandit
Staff member
I may not be as good as I once was, but I can be as good ONCE as I ever was! Then I need some icy hot and tylenol.
It took me actual, entire decades to arrive at the following conclusion, but I have found it will cause me much less internal conflict to hate the things a person does rather than assigning that hate to the person himself. Instead, that person receives my pity for being a person who seems to be unable to stop doing things I hate. Later, if I end up having to vote that person out of my life, I know I'm doing so because of what that person brings, not because of the person himself. Also, it leaves open the possibility for redemption. I hate that my cat pees on the carpet. I do not hate my cat. I know I said earlier that I hate Trump. I don't, really. I've just given up on him because I think it may be too late to successfully teach him how to use a box.
As I said, it took legitimate decades to build this view. I don't expect everyone to share in it.
I could, but I wouldn't be happy with myself for doing so, no matter how much talent I might have for it.
--Patrick
Last edited:
To me you're re-stating the old saying "Love the sinner, hate the sin." Which I believe in. Most of the time. I think.
Don't think I've heard the saying. Yet another example of parallel evolution, I guess.To me you're re-stating the old saying "Love the sinner, hate the sin." Which I believe in. Most of the time. I think.
--Patrick
Dave
Staff member
Okay this is a dumb question and no matter whether you answer or not makes NO difference to me. But why would the klan want you and your family dead? Religious or racial? And if you've said before about your race or religion, I apologize. I don't pay much attention to these things and even if you say I'll probably forget in a week.
Dave
Staff member
Gotcha. I've never understood anti-semitism. But then again, prejudice has never really made that much sense to me.
The struggle is real...The writing looks to be on the wall, IMO. Coming this fall, Drumpf and Rodham are our Giant Douche v Turd Sandwich.
It's still too early to call it. We've past most of the states where Hilary has the greatest advantage, the southern states, and she still only has an actual lead of a few hundred delegates. Outside the south, Bernie won soundly or had a close loss (in Mass). That doesn't speak well of Hilary's chances going forward.The writing looks to be on the wall, IMO. Coming this fall, Drumpf and Rodham are our Giant Douche v Turd Sandwich.
"The Republic is doomed!"
Bernie still has to win something like 2/3rds of the delegates to actually secure a win. If this goes into the Convention, he's going to lose when the Super Delegates vote for Hilary.
GasBandit
Staff member
This morning, the results are rosier than last night's projections. That's what I get for listening to exit polling, amirite?
GasBandit
Staff member
So last night, while Trump didn't absolutely stomp everything, he did get a lot more delegates, but Cruz got a lot too. I was kinda surprised that Rubio won Minnesota. But it's still looking to me that the only way Trump won't be the nominee for the republicans is if Rubio gets out of the race now (and the others as well but that's slightly less critical), and even then only in a way that his votes go to Cruz and not split with Trump. So, basically, Cruz needs to convince Rubio to be his VP before the Florida primary. If Rubio is still in the race March 15th, I'm pretty sure Trump will get the nomination.
I think a Cruz/Rubio ticket would just tell a lot of Republicans to stay home though. They've been having record turnout lately and it's mostly been to vote for Trump. And there is still the specter of Trump going 3rd party and tanking the entire election, which is still possible considering all the votes he's getting.
Ah, my bad, I didn't notice the time you posted and didn't consider that.
It would surprise me if you didn't have to sign agreements that if you lost in the primaries you wouldn't go third party, possibly splitting the voters, for both the republican and democratic parties.
Such an agreement would be un-enforcable though. The worst they could do is kick him out of the Republican Party and ban him from rejoining, as well as refusing to support him. The only consequence he would face is if he switched parties after getting the nomination, as the party gets to pick from their own membership. Otherwise... there are basically no repercussions aside from the obvious support issues.
Necronic
Staff member
So I watched The Big Short the other night and it's had me thinking a lot about politics and money etc. I've always held that there is an important difference between "wealth" and "value". By wealth I mean money (or valuable assets etc), and by value I mean intrinsic value. Building a car people want or refining oil or making beautiful art etc. I've come to the conclusion that the problem with free market economics is that it is based on a gals equivalence of wealth and value. See, if everything was about generating value, then the free market as envisioned by Rand and Von Mises and others would absolutely work. The problem though is that value is an abstract/intangible concept, so we have to have something tangible to represent value, which in this case is wealth.
This is at the core of the failure of free market economics. Because one can generate wealth without generating value, or, worse, by destroying it. I'll give a few examples.
The first is financial shenanigans like those discussed in the Big Short. These were all about generating wealth without any actual value backing them up. I don't dislike finance in general, because I think it does often generate value. Giving businesses access to capital or creating market liquidity is an incredibly valuable service. But when unfettered and when wealth is the only target it is in their interest to create wealth without generating any underlying value, the ability to do this so easily is something fairly unique to their industry since they create financial tools.
A second example has to do with short sightedness. It is fairly simple to generate wealth, and even the underlying value in the short term of the long term value costs are ignored. One version of this would be environmentalism. We can chop down a forest and generate both wealth and value in the process, but the long term value loss of that in terms of biodiversity or soil erosion patterns or whatever are not looked at in the equation. Definitely not in the sense of wealth.
In both of these cases the free market actually encourages the generation of wealth without the corresponding generation of value. This is very problematic. Regulatory bodies exist to help tie those concepts back together and actually maintain a properly working free market economy, in the cases given above that would be the SEC and the EPA, two organizations that are highly maligned by many free market types.
Fundamentally this is a big problem I have with republicans as a whole. For one I don't think many of them even understand the difference between wealth and value. Consider Donald Trumps supporters. He has undoubtedly generated a substantial amount of wealth in his lifetime, but how much actual value is tied to any of it? When asked about the bankruptcy of his casinos and other ventures he (quite cleverly) riposted that he never lost a cent from those projects, in fact he profited from them. This is a clear indicator of a divorce between wealth and value, and yet the republican electorate saw it as sign of sound business strategy (which it is in a free market that doesn't tie wealth and value together).
And then there are those that perhaps do understand the difference between wealth and value, but simply don't care. These are the Gordon Gecko/Don Blankenship (and Probably Donald Trump) types. They understand the system and simply exploit it as much as possible to line their pockets. And I think that they prey on the ignorance of the first group as much as possible to do so.
And I don't really see a third option. Perhaps there are those that appreciate that while regulatory bodies are intended to tie wealth and value together to create a stronger free market, they often fail due to bureaucratic in efficiencies and idiocy. I count myself in this group. But what I don't understand is how someone with that belief could actually back republican politics which more often than not believe that the entire regulatory system is a hindrance and should be removed, which is simply not the case as there are numerous examples of success in better thing wealth to value, like the Clean Air Act. Moreover even if regulatory bodies and the regulations they enforce are flawed the solution is to keep working on them and adjust them as we go, something very few republicans ever admit to being a goal.
There are of course other good reasons to want to vote republican, social values are very personal and I understand why people put them as so important. Similarly fear of overly burdensome tax policies or "wealth redistribution" have other systems of logic behind them which may have validity.
But when it comes to discussions of the free market and regulations the Republican Party is fundamentally wrong. And since this is now a major part of the platform these days I can't help but wonder how much of the party is composed of people with severe failings in their understanding of economics, or are simply crooks. In other words, to my republican friends out there, are you a dummy or scummy?
This is at the core of the failure of free market economics. Because one can generate wealth without generating value, or, worse, by destroying it. I'll give a few examples.
The first is financial shenanigans like those discussed in the Big Short. These were all about generating wealth without any actual value backing them up. I don't dislike finance in general, because I think it does often generate value. Giving businesses access to capital or creating market liquidity is an incredibly valuable service. But when unfettered and when wealth is the only target it is in their interest to create wealth without generating any underlying value, the ability to do this so easily is something fairly unique to their industry since they create financial tools.
A second example has to do with short sightedness. It is fairly simple to generate wealth, and even the underlying value in the short term of the long term value costs are ignored. One version of this would be environmentalism. We can chop down a forest and generate both wealth and value in the process, but the long term value loss of that in terms of biodiversity or soil erosion patterns or whatever are not looked at in the equation. Definitely not in the sense of wealth.
In both of these cases the free market actually encourages the generation of wealth without the corresponding generation of value. This is very problematic. Regulatory bodies exist to help tie those concepts back together and actually maintain a properly working free market economy, in the cases given above that would be the SEC and the EPA, two organizations that are highly maligned by many free market types.
Fundamentally this is a big problem I have with republicans as a whole. For one I don't think many of them even understand the difference between wealth and value. Consider Donald Trumps supporters. He has undoubtedly generated a substantial amount of wealth in his lifetime, but how much actual value is tied to any of it? When asked about the bankruptcy of his casinos and other ventures he (quite cleverly) riposted that he never lost a cent from those projects, in fact he profited from them. This is a clear indicator of a divorce between wealth and value, and yet the republican electorate saw it as sign of sound business strategy (which it is in a free market that doesn't tie wealth and value together).
And then there are those that perhaps do understand the difference between wealth and value, but simply don't care. These are the Gordon Gecko/Don Blankenship (and Probably Donald Trump) types. They understand the system and simply exploit it as much as possible to line their pockets. And I think that they prey on the ignorance of the first group as much as possible to do so.
And I don't really see a third option. Perhaps there are those that appreciate that while regulatory bodies are intended to tie wealth and value together to create a stronger free market, they often fail due to bureaucratic in efficiencies and idiocy. I count myself in this group. But what I don't understand is how someone with that belief could actually back republican politics which more often than not believe that the entire regulatory system is a hindrance and should be removed, which is simply not the case as there are numerous examples of success in better thing wealth to value, like the Clean Air Act. Moreover even if regulatory bodies and the regulations they enforce are flawed the solution is to keep working on them and adjust them as we go, something very few republicans ever admit to being a goal.
There are of course other good reasons to want to vote republican, social values are very personal and I understand why people put them as so important. Similarly fear of overly burdensome tax policies or "wealth redistribution" have other systems of logic behind them which may have validity.
But when it comes to discussions of the free market and regulations the Republican Party is fundamentally wrong. And since this is now a major part of the platform these days I can't help but wonder how much of the party is composed of people with severe failings in their understanding of economics, or are simply crooks. In other words, to my republican friends out there, are you a dummy or scummy?
Last edited:
GasBandit
Staff member
I don't know that you can really quantify who the people turning up this time that haven't previously are voting for. Republicans voters are extremely disgruntled at the GOP establishment, that's for sure, but I'm not sure that trump supporters would be averse to Cruz, as he's been a bald-faced renegade in the senate since day 1. But really, any comparison between who turns out in a primary, and who they vote for, and the same in the General Election is all pure speculation. I was merely saying what would have to happen for Trump to lose the primary, not for any given republican to win the General.
Congratulations, you've built an argument that republicans are either crooks or stupid based on your personal belief of what wealth and value are.
All you have to do now, naturally, is convince some 100 million people to adopt your personal values and priorities in life, so they too come to the same tunnel vision conclusion you've reached.
I think you should write a blog. That's how all great awakenings are started these days.
All you have to do now, naturally, is convince some 100 million people to adopt your personal values and priorities in life, so they too come to the same tunnel vision conclusion you've reached.
I think you should write a blog. That's how all great awakenings are started these days.
Necronic
Staff member
Could you make any argument against how the false equivalence of wealth and value is at the core of the failure of an unregulated free market? If so I truly am more than willing to listen.
As for calling republicans crooks or stupid people being exploited by them, I'll admit that it's more than a little harsh, but my view on politics is heavily focused on fiscal matters and I truly believe that the republicans push for an unregulated free market is phenomenally wrong headed and dangerous. And I'm just tired of it.
I've entered Charlie territory on this subject.
But perhaps there's something fundamentally unsound about my argument, and if there is I (unlike Charlie) am honestly willing to listen and could change my view on it. So I'm sitting here having thrown the gauntlet (perhaps a little roughly), and I'm asking you to pick it up and swing back.
Have at thee.
As for calling republicans crooks or stupid people being exploited by them, I'll admit that it's more than a little harsh, but my view on politics is heavily focused on fiscal matters and I truly believe that the republicans push for an unregulated free market is phenomenally wrong headed and dangerous. And I'm just tired of it.
I've entered Charlie territory on this subject.
But perhaps there's something fundamentally unsound about my argument, and if there is I (unlike Charlie) am honestly willing to listen and could change my view on it. So I'm sitting here having thrown the gauntlet (perhaps a little roughly), and I'm asking you to pick it up and swing back.
Have at thee.
You've just entered a stage of your life where you're finally coming to grips with these concepts, and it all seems so simple to you that you cannot understand why others might disagree. This is not an uncommon step towards greater understanding, and it's one of the reasons facebook is filled with such vitriol - someone suddenly understands the basics of one simple concept, feels enlightened, and cannot understand why others might disagree. And like an adult male homosapien with a new power tool, they have to apply the new knowledge to anything and everything. See also vegans and libertarians.
The answers are much more complex than I'm willing to spend time on.
At minimum, please realize that you haven't yet fully understood or fleshed out your "wealth vs value" foundation, upon which you've built your entire argument. You've handwaved at it with "by value I mean intrinsic value" and then thrown it at "it is in their interest to create wealth without generating any underlying value" and "value ... in terms of biodiversity or soil erosion patterns or whatever"
The root of your problem is that you don't understand what "intrinsic value" means - or if you do you've utterly failed to explain why your definition is universal, objective, and absolute across all people. If it isn't, then you can't suggest that your conclusion is likewise universal, objective, and absolute for everyone.
Then you go on using this simplistic argument to "deconstruct" some of what some in the republican party wants to see in terms of industry regulation and suggest that they are too stupid to understand, or too corrupt to care, that their policies are actually backfiring.
It may Sound Great on the Internet(TM) but it's lacking a real foundation.
The answers are much more complex than I'm willing to spend time on.
At minimum, please realize that you haven't yet fully understood or fleshed out your "wealth vs value" foundation, upon which you've built your entire argument. You've handwaved at it with "by value I mean intrinsic value" and then thrown it at "it is in their interest to create wealth without generating any underlying value" and "value ... in terms of biodiversity or soil erosion patterns or whatever"
The root of your problem is that you don't understand what "intrinsic value" means - or if you do you've utterly failed to explain why your definition is universal, objective, and absolute across all people. If it isn't, then you can't suggest that your conclusion is likewise universal, objective, and absolute for everyone.
Then you go on using this simplistic argument to "deconstruct" some of what some in the republican party wants to see in terms of industry regulation and suggest that they are too stupid to understand, or too corrupt to care, that their policies are actually backfiring.
It may Sound Great on the Internet(TM) but it's lacking a real foundation.
Necronic
Staff member
I'm going to step right past the "it makes sense because you're young" bait and jump to the actual good point you made, that I hand waved the concept of intrinsic value, and perhaps I did.
But I do think that most people can appreciate some concept of an intrinsic value to a product or service, even if there are disagreements other whether you are using a labor theory of value or Von Mises theory (can't remember what it's called but it's based on the agreed upon concept of value that the marketplace arrives at collectively) or whatever. In general terms they still give similar results.
For instance, would you argue that complex financial instruments like synthetic CDOs represent something of value, or incorrectly rated housing bonds? Or, using my other example, all other things aside, would you agree that polluting a river represents a loss of value? Because that's what my argument was based on. We don't need to come to an agreement about which exact definition of value we use, because all theories of value would agree that both of those instance either represent the absence of value or the loss of it (respectively).
As for my argument only pertaining to what "some" republican candidates feel about regulations maybe I'm off point, but I'm pretty most of them only have negative things to say about regulatory bodies.
But what do I know, I'm just a dumb kid with no real world experience (damnit I fell for the bait).[DOUBLEPOST=1456955478,1456954883][/DOUBLEPOST]
But I do think that most people can appreciate some concept of an intrinsic value to a product or service, even if there are disagreements other whether you are using a labor theory of value or Von Mises theory (can't remember what it's called but it's based on the agreed upon concept of value that the marketplace arrives at collectively) or whatever. In general terms they still give similar results.
For instance, would you argue that complex financial instruments like synthetic CDOs represent something of value, or incorrectly rated housing bonds? Or, using my other example, all other things aside, would you agree that polluting a river represents a loss of value? Because that's what my argument was based on. We don't need to come to an agreement about which exact definition of value we use, because all theories of value would agree that both of those instance either represent the absence of value or the loss of it (respectively).
As for my argument only pertaining to what "some" republican candidates feel about regulations maybe I'm off point, but I'm pretty most of them only have negative things to say about regulatory bodies.
But what do I know, I'm just a dumb kid with no real world experience (damnit I fell for the bait).[DOUBLEPOST=1456955478,1456954883][/DOUBLEPOST]
You may have a good point there. They are both total sleazeballs.