Objectively intelligent.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

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

Not Vermont. Think about 2000 miles west.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

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.



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



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.



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.

Usually I'd pity all those poor strawmen you're attacking, but I think some of them actually won the fight.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

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.

Sweden has no poverty?
https://euobserver.com/social/146538

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Usually I'd pity all those poor strawmen you're attacking, but I think some of them actually won the fight.

Flower, Sebby, my apologies, this was really not right. This is like actually saying, and not just thinking, I'm sorry about your mental disabilty.

Sebby, I admire the way you keep posting, and write all those words. Really, a solid B for effort. Well done! Silver star!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

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

Even when I agree with you, I have to say that when you ask someone whether they realize something, it makes me want to disagree with you. Regardless, here you're overstating it. Other peer countries have significantly less poverty, proportionately, but they still have it.

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.

What makes them unique? This sounds like code for, we can't do what they do because whites won't vote for something that gives money to blacks.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

Leisure travel can wait.

Hope we still have a travel industry when the dust has settled.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

What makes them unique? This sounds like code for, we can't do what they do because whites won't vote for something that gives money to blacks.

Have you read anything at all about how Muslim immigrants are treated in Sweden?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

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.

Richard Epstein has this rhetorical trick he does where he explains both sides of what ever he's talking about, and then he says, "and it turns out that" what he thinks is right.

We have all sorts of examples of failures of different systems to provide goods and services in an efficient manner. The "direct provision of fundamental needs" is great if you ignore all the mistakes that governments make in assessing the nature of demand and the problems they have in providing the right incentives for their employees and other actors. Think Soviet breadlines. There is a real virtue in giving people money, so that the state doesn't have to try to predict what they most need. On the other hand, it is absolutely undeniable that "leaving things to markets" often doesn't work, not least because markets are regulated. The housing market doesn't work for poor people in part because of zoning, which has a huge influence on where and what people want to build.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Have you read anything at all about how Muslim immigrants are treated in Sweden?

Yes. And I think that your comment is directed to Sebby, who was explaining that Sweden and Germany are unique. I was asking him what he meant.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Yes. And I think that your comment is directed to Sebby, who was explaining that Sweden and Germany are unique. I was asking him what he meant.

Sweden was an inapt choice for comparison of poverty interventions given its issues with immigrant and refugee populations. That influx has taken away its status as the country that we're compared to when people say we should have a better welfare state.

But those are more recent troubles. In the past, Sweden was an example of a welfare state run quite well.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

What makes them unique? This sounds like code for, we can't do what they do because whites won't vote for something that gives money to blacks.

That's a gross simplification. This country is much larger and has much different populations in terms of wealth, character of work, race, culture, state and local level political systems. Germany can implement a country wide policy. We are a tenuously united collection of very different states. Nothing is easily solved here, let alone something as impossibly difficult to tackle as poverty.

It's also worth noting that an essential part of what causes this country to innovate a lot is people are working without nets. There's no incentive to succeed like realizing if you should fail...

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Have you read anything at all about how Muslim immigrants are treated in Sweden?

You recall the statement, "In Sweden they can have a robust welfare state and not ruin the economy." I was referring to that old comparison. I'd forgotten the country had since slipped into a bit of a shitshow in terms of dealing with newly introduced populations.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Usually I'd pity all those poor strawmen you're attacking, but I think some of them actually won the fight.

They have not. The junk "scholarship" behind much of them is not widely embraced.

They're considered a gelded form of what'd previously been sneered at as radical chic. Of course it appeals to you.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

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

If you were trying to convince me that you are not, in fact, a narcissist, I’m not sure that offering to send me a picture so I can masturbate to your image was the right strategy.

But I’ll take the pic. I’ve read you’re pretty.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Hope we still have a travel industry when the dust has settled.

Gonna have to roll with the instant tests Need to be mandated before the mask comes off tho.