Objectively intelligent.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Adder

So that debate was a mess...

They should have gone a full-on Straight Dave's Max Out.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

Can you show me where you asked the question before?

I really think of you as more of a neo-centrist anarco-syndicalist statist humorist, myself.

[Pretty Little Flower]

SEBASTIAN ON SEBASTIAN

I can’t help myself. I like to argue.

What you think of me? Let’s assume one of two things occur:

1. You die;
2. You announce you hit the lottery

I’d feel a need to say something different in each circumstance. But internally, neither would cause me to rethink my appetizer.

I don't know why you'd think otherwise.
I'm absolutist terms of liberty and equality for all.
I advocate for negative rights.
I see fiddling with society by enforcing new positive rights as a road to hell.
I am deemed a selfish "enemy" of wokeism.
I am inadequately supportive of it.
I think the freakout about Trump being a racist is overblown.
I think it's all a moral panic - silly, irrational bullshit.
I don't like being told that.
I think your side's ideas largely suck.
I'm not a one issue voter.
I don't see anyone flipping Roe anyway.
I am also truly disgusted with the Democratic Party at this point.
I think they're correct in that.
I have listened to people.
I'm tired of not even being able to coolly discuss politics with them at dinner.
I'm tired of their status signalling.
I'm sick of dumb people on both sides of this debate.
I'm also sick of Trump.
I'm also unwilling to enable the Democratic Party at this point.
I think it's a cynical shit party which is only interested in its own power.
I'll be staying home on November 3.
I’m not supporting Trump.
I’m your man.
I just don’t want any surprises.
I personally detest that.
I can vote Biden.
I am generally oppositional to politics.
I have an immediate revulsion to people who "resist.”
I should not lump Biden in with that train of screwballs on the left.
I reflexively find myself annoyed by people who get so upset about politics.
I admit I do care about general freedom.
I think to pick a side requires one to join.
I couldn't join Trump.
I can't even join a tennis league.
I don't know.
I don't like this new SCOTUS judge.
I'll hear a bunch of whiny overwrought nonsense
I'll wish I could vote for Lyndon LaRouche, or Pigasus.
I am at heart a vacant golf course quasi-libertarian who just likes to complain.
I should should own it already.
I see abortion as a negative right.
I change my mind.
I'm a somewhat rootless relativist.
I've banked a lot on the notion that it goes nowhere.
I don't want to pass laws to prohibit people from doing things
I would actually like to repeal most of the laws the conservatives have passed.
I can't say that to policy people who are reading DiAngelo.
I needn't explain how easy it is to manipulate a Trumpkin.
I worry about what sort of dumb policy will be offered.
I liked Bernie and Yang.
I'm not conservative.
I'm anti-dumb.
I’m too dumb to be here.
I’m too drunk to be here.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

SEBASTIAN ON SEBASTIAN

I can’t help myself. I like to argue.

What you think of me? Let’s assume one of two things occur:

1. You die;
2. You announce you hit the lottery

I’d feel a need to say something different in each circumstance. But internally, neither would cause me to rethink my appetizer.

I don't know why you'd think otherwise.
I'm absolutist terms of liberty and equality for all.
I advocate for negative rights.
I see fiddling with society by enforcing new positive rights as a road to hell.
I am deemed a selfish "enemy" of wokeism.
I am inadequately supportive of it.
I think the freakout about Trump being a racist is overblown.
I think it's all a moral panic - silly, irrational bullshit.
I don't like being told that.
I think your side's ideas largely suck.
I'm not a one issue voter.
I don't see anyone flipping Roe anyway.
I am also truly disgusted with the Democratic Party at this point.
I think they're correct in that.
I have listened to people.
I'm tired of not even being able to coolly discuss politics with them at dinner.
I'm tired of their status signalling.
I'm sick of dumb people on both sides of this debate.
I'm also sick of Trump.
I'm also unwilling to enable the Democratic Party at this point.
I think it's a cynical shit party which is only interested in its own power.
I'll be staying home on November 3.
I’m not supporting Trump.
I’m your man.
I just don’t want any surprises.
I personally detest that.
I can vote Biden.
I am generally oppositional to politics.
I have an immediate revulsion to people who "resist.”
I should not lump Biden in with that train of screwballs on the left.
I reflexively find myself annoyed by people who get so upset about politics.
I admit I do care about general freedom.
I think to pick a side requires one to join.
I couldn't join Trump.
I can't even join a tennis league.
I don't know.
I don't like this new SCOTUS judge.
I'll hear a bunch of whiny overwrought nonsense
I'll wish I could vote for Lyndon LaRouche, or Pigasus.
I am at heart a vacant golf course quasi-libertarian who just likes to complain.
I should should own it already.
I see abortion as a negative right.
I change my mind.
I'm a somewhat rootless relativist.
I've banked a lot on the notion that it goes nowhere.
I don't want to pass laws to prohibit people from doing things
I would actually like to repeal most of the laws the conservatives have passed.
I can't say that to policy people who are reading DiAngelo.
I needn't explain how easy it is to manipulate a Trumpkin.
I worry about what sort of dumb policy will be offered.
I liked Bernie and Yang.
I'm not conservative.
I'm anti-dumb.
I’m too dumb to be here.
I’m too drunk to be here.

You could ask me for a photo to throw darts at, or jerk off to. Or both. I’d send one.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

SEBASTIAN ON SEBASTIAN

I can’t help myself. I like to argue.

What you think of me? Let’s assume one of two things occur:

1. You die;
2. You announce you hit the lottery

I’d feel a need to say something different in each circumstance. But internally, neither would cause me to rethink my appetizer.

I don't know why you'd think otherwise.
I'm absolutist terms of liberty and equality for all.
I advocate for negative rights.
I see fiddling with society by enforcing new positive rights as a road to hell.
I am deemed a selfish "enemy" of wokeism.
I am inadequately supportive of it.
I think the freakout about Trump being a racist is overblown.
I think it's all a moral panic - silly, irrational bullshit.
I don't like being told that.
I think your side's ideas largely suck.
I'm not a one issue voter.
I don't see anyone flipping Roe anyway.
I am also truly disgusted with the Democratic Party at this point.
I think they're correct in that.
I have listened to people.
I'm tired of not even being able to coolly discuss politics with them at dinner.
I'm tired of their status signalling.
I'm sick of dumb people on both sides of this debate.
I'm also sick of Trump.
I'm also unwilling to enable the Democratic Party at this point.
I think it's a cynical shit party which is only interested in its own power.
I'll be staying home on November 3.
I’m not supporting Trump.
I’m your man.
I just don’t want any surprises.
I personally detest that.
I can vote Biden.
I am generally oppositional to politics.
I have an immediate revulsion to people who "resist.”
I should not lump Biden in with that train of screwballs on the left.
I reflexively find myself annoyed by people who get so upset about politics.
I admit I do care about general freedom.
I think to pick a side requires one to join.
I couldn't join Trump.
I can't even join a tennis league.
I don't know.
I don't like this new SCOTUS judge.
I'll hear a bunch of whiny overwrought nonsense
I'll wish I could vote for Lyndon LaRouche, or Pigasus.
I am at heart a vacant golf course quasi-libertarian who just likes to complain.
I should should own it already.
I see abortion as a negative right.
I change my mind.
I'm a somewhat rootless relativist.
I've banked a lot on the notion that it goes nowhere.
I don't want to pass laws to prohibit people from doing things
I would actually like to repeal most of the laws the conservatives have passed.
I can't say that to policy people who are reading DiAngelo.
I needn't explain how easy it is to manipulate a Trumpkin.
I worry about what sort of dumb policy will be offered.
I liked Bernie and Yang.
I'm not conservative.
I'm anti-dumb.
I’m too dumb to be here.
I’m too drunk to be here.

would you do one of these for Penske socks?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

It’s really not that hard. You make sure everyone has food, housing and health care.

I guess you're right. All the other societies preceding us have cured poverty. Why can't we?

By the way, it's not that simple. Inequality is what irks people today. Those losing in the new economy see those winning and are quite mad about it. Hence, UBI is a policy to placate. But I've no delusion it's a long term fix. Once the people who are losing out are able to satisfy the bottom tiers of Maslow's Hierachy of Needs, they're going to want to start satisfying the upper ones.

Everybody wants to keep climbing.

It is, but you’re still lying to yourself.

I don't know what you're saying here and I'm not sure you do either.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I remember when I used to fly places all the time. That was fun.

I'm flying this winter. I may fly sooner than than that. The chance of getting Covid on a flight is low if you wear a good mask and you're not on some AirTran-like carrier. https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/o...scn/index.html

I've immunosuppressed clients and family who've flown a lot during the pandemic. No acquisitions yet.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I guess you're right. All the other societies preceding us have cured poverty. Why can't we?

You realize that countries with modern welfare states mostly have, right?

Inequality is what irks people today.

They will be a lost less irked if they have the things they need. It's not jealousy - this country loves rich people.

Hence, UBI is a policy to placate.

UBI will work only if it's enough to allow people to afford food, shelter and health care. And yet if it is ever adopted, it's unlikely to be and many UBI advocates, including you, like it expressly because it can be used as an excuse to end direct provision of those things.

I don't know what you're saying here and I'm not sure you do either.

I'm saying that you lie to yourself about your views on race (and gender). You dismiss other people's concerns about those issues, because you fundamentally don't care. They don't affect you, so you don't care. This is why "wokeness" bothers you. It's people asking you to care about things that don't matter to you. You view that as an imposition. You think not caring about those issues in neutral when it is not.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I'm flying this winter. I may fly sooner than than that. The chance of getting Covid on a flight is low if you wear a good mask and you're not on some AirTran-like carrier. https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/o...scn/index.html

I've immunosuppressed clients and family who've flown a lot during the pandemic. No acquisitions yet.

The plane isn't the risk. The person next to you is the risk, and you have no way of knowing what that risk is. Why take unnecessary unknown risks? It's also a bit like going to a 45 rally. Almost by definition, you know that the other people there are taking more risks than others (as my in-laws have risk factors and are our childcare, it's almost universally true that others are taking more risks than us).

I'd fly if there was a good reason to. My desire to go somewhere for fun isn't a good reason. Leisure travel can wait.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

You realize that countries with modern welfare states mostly have, right?

Research a bit about the yellow vests in France and unemployment in Spain and wage stagnation in England. I'll spot you Germany and Sweden, but as we've discussed ad nauseum, those are unique countries the policies used within which do not work in a nation as large and varied in population as this one.

They will be a lost less irked if they have the things they need. It's not jealousy - this country loves rich people.

I don't think that's the case anymore. I see more pitchforks than adulation.

UBI will work only if it's enough to allow people to afford food, shelter and health care. And yet if it is ever adopted, it's unlikely to be and many UBI advocates, including you, like it expressly because it can be used as an excuse to end direct provision of those things.

It's the reverse. UBI is direct money. It's more money, as well. The savings we acquire from elimination of administrative bloat become excess dollars directly to those who need them. My only concern with it would be a possible inflationary impact that blunts the positive goals of the plan.

I'm saying that you lie to yourself about your views on race (and gender). You dismiss other people's concerns about those issues, because you fundamentally don't care. They don't affect you, so you don't care. This is why "wokeness" bothers you. It's people asking you to care about things that don't matter to you. You view that as an imposition. You think not caring about those issues in neutral when it is not.

There's some truth to this, but you've taken it a bit too far. I do care because, as I've said, personal freedom is a paramount concern to me. So any policy that preys upon certain people, based on race, class, or any other illegitimate basis, is anathema and must be addressed.

This involves ending the drug war, ending our ridiculous obsession with over-jailing, and making "tough on crime" into a badge of shame. Larry Krasner, Philly's DA, is a good example of how to start fixing those things.

Where I get off the train is when you demand that I agree race is the most important issue at the heart of all of these problems. It isn't. It is one of many.

I also do not have a duty to empathize with anyone. You and most Woke folks seem to think this is incumbent upon us all -- that we must study the plight of others and put ourselves in their shoes. Well, where would that end? If we must empathize with one group, it would be unfairly discriminatory to not empathize with others. Ultimately, you either empathize with everyone or you empathize with none.

Do you have a 400 year lifespan in which this could be done?

I also do not agree with the lack of rational thinking in woke scholarship. Many of its underpinnings are logically weak. This is proven by its attempts to censor critiques of it. It is also proven by the attempts of its purveyors to argue (you can look this up) that rationality and logic are oppressive constructs, and that one's "own truth" or "narrative history" is more important. That is not thinking. That is emoting. That is what one sees in a classic moral panic. And moral panics are not something to be fed.

It do not wish to ignore any issue. I wish to have adult conversations about them. This would include the very resonant point that DiAngelo made about whites being reluctant to talk about race. I found that enlightening. This would not include the suggestion that this nation's real founding was 1619 (a claim the editor of that project originally made but subsequently had to walk back when she was mocked by scholars for taking such an unsupportable position). It does not include the Manichean ramblings of Kendri that seek to simplify a complex issue.

If you foist an idea upon a person (me or anyone else) you should expect to have it tested by use of logic and reasoning. If your ideas can only hold public attention by their proponents using them as cudgels, and seeking to censor or avoid all critique, people will view them as suspect. If wokeness wishes to be treated seriously, it should seek to engage seriously. That necessarily means it must invite and accept good faith critique. Not critique like Taibbi's, which I agree with you was offered in bad faith, but critique of thinkers acting in good faith, interested in flashing out the facts, as opposed to emoting grievance or denial of basis for grievance. And there are many such serious thinkers out there who would like to engage the subject but are afraid of being destroyed for having dared stood athwart the current moral panic around race issues.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I'm flying this winter. I may fly sooner than than that. The chance of getting Covid on a flight is low if you wear a good mask and you're not on some AirTran-like carrier. https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/o...scn/index.html

I've immunosuppressed clients and family who've flown a lot during the pandemic. No acquisitions yet.

Six-week old article bub

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

The plane isn't the risk. The person next to you is the risk, and you have no way of knowing what that risk is. Why take unnecessary unknown risks? It's also a bit like going to a 45 rally. Almost by definition, you know that the other people there are taking more risks than others (as my in-laws have risk factors and are our childcare, it's almost universally true that others are taking more risks than us).

I'd fly if there was a good reason to. My desire to go somewhere for fun isn't a good reason. Leisure travel can wait.

I think they seat people apart from each other. The trick is order your flight by size of plane and hope you find a near empty one.

I really like to ski. And that ride is just way too long.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Research a bit about the yellow vests in France and unemployment in Spain and wage stagnation in England. I'll spot you Germany and Sweden, but as we've discussed ad nauseum, those are unique countries the policies used within which do not work in a nation as large and varied in population as this one.

That dodge works for Sweden (oil and homogeneous) but not Germany, which just took in a big wave of refugees too. It's almost like the anger has something to do with leaving people behind...

It's more money, as well. The savings we acquire from elimination of administrative bloat become excess dollars directly to those who need them.

This is a fantasy. It ignores (1) that "universal" means that vastly more people will get it, totally overwhelming any savings, and (2) lack of money is hardly the only barrier to to being able to afford food, housing and healthcare, ranging from artificial constraints on supply (e.g., zoning), to access (e.g., "food deserts") and information problems (e.g. non-insurance "prices"), etc.

It turns out that direct provision of fundamental needs is more "efficient" than leaving things to markets if the goal is to make sure everyone gets them. You can see it in how we didn't have nearly the level of unhoused people back when we actually had federal funding of public housing. Turns out markets don't want to create unprofitable housing for the most vulnerable.

I also do not have a duty to empathize with anyone.

As we've discussed before, you do if you don't want to be an asshole. Yeah, I know that's not something that concerns you.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I think they seat people apart from each other. The trick is order your flight by size of plane and hope you find a near empty one.

I really like to ski. And that ride is just way too long.

It's like a six hour drive from Philadelphia to ski areas in Vermont, but sure, get on a plane.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

This is a fantasy. It ignores (1) that "universal" means that vastly more people will get it, totally overwhelming any savings, and (2) lack of money is hardly the only barrier to to being able to afford food, housing and healthcare, ranging from artificial constraints on supply (e.g., zoning), to access (e.g., "food deserts") and information problems (e.g. non-insurance "prices"), etc.

It should be progressive. The affluent should not receive it.

It turns out that direct provision of fundamental needs is more "efficient" than leaving things to markets if the goal is to make sure everyone gets them. You can see it in how we didn't have nearly the level of unhoused people back when we actually had federal funding of public housing. Turns out markets don't want to create unprofitable housing for the most vulnerable.

As to some, yes. But citing one example does not prove that it is as to all, a sizable fraction, or even a majority of them. Giving money directly is simply far more efficient for most, I suspect. Those items it does not work for can be administered.

As we've discussed before, you do if you don't want to be an asshole. Yeah, I know that's not something that concerns you.

We can agree to disagree about whether one has a duty to empathize. But I wrote a lot more than that line you cherry picked for disagreement. What say you of the rest (pasted below)?

[P]ersonal freedom is a paramount concern to me. So any policy that preys upon certain people, based on race, class, or any other illegitimate basis, is anathema and must be addressed.

This involves ending the drug war, ending our ridiculous obsession with over-jailing, and making "tough on crime" into a badge of shame. Larry Krasner, Philly's DA, is a good example of how to start fixing those things.

Where I get off the train is when you demand that I agree race is the most important issue at the heart of all of these problems. It isn't. It is one of many.

I also do not have a duty to empathize with anyone. You and most Woke folks seem to think this is incumbent upon us all -- that we must study the plight of others and put ourselves in their shoes. Well, where would that end? If we must empathize with one group, it would be unfairly discriminatory to not empathize with others. Ultimately, you either empathize with everyone or you empathize with none.

Do you have a 400 year lifespan in which this could be done?

I also do not agree with the lack of rational thinking in woke scholarship. Many of its underpinnings are logically weak. This is proven by its attempts to censor critiques of it. It is also proven by the attempts of its purveyors to argue (you can look this up) that rationality and logic are oppressive constructs, and that one's "own truth" or "narrative history" is more important. That is not thinking. That is emoting. That is what one sees in a classic moral panic. And moral panics are not something to be fed.

It do not wish to ignore any issue. I wish to have adult conversations about them. This would include the very resonant point that DiAngelo made about whites being reluctant to talk about race. I found that enlightening. This would not include the suggestion that this nation's real founding was 1619 (a claim the editor of that project originally made but subsequently had to walk back when she was mocked by scholars for taking such an unsupportable position). It does not include the Manichean ramblings of Kendri that seek to simplify a complex issue.

If you foist an idea upon a person (me or anyone else) you should expect to have it tested by use of logic and reasoning. If your ideas can only hold public attention by their proponents using them as cudgels, and seeking to censor or avoid all critique, people will view them as suspect. If wokeness wishes to be treated seriously, it should seek to engage seriously. That necessarily means it must invite and accept good faith critique. Not critique like Taibbi's, which I agree with you was offered in bad faith, but critique of thinkers acting in good faith, interested in flashing out the facts, as opposed to emoting grievance or denial of basis for grievance. And there are many such serious thinkers out there who would like to engage the subject but are afraid of being destroyed for having dared stood athwart the current moral panic around race issues.