Without getting into “sensible”, because that’s a minefield,
But that's my whole problem with your approach. Just because it's a minefield doesn't mean picking through it isn't important, and we can just walk around the minefield and get where we want to go.
Walking around the minefield doesn't get you where you want to go. It gets you to Trump.
I do know that freakin’ people like freakin’ EBS are freakin’ feeling that freakin’ way and *THAT* is a freakin’ problem that will *NOT* be freakin’ resolved by freakin’ telling them how freakin’ naive they were and how they freakin’ should have freakin’ known freakin’ better.
Except we don't even know what the problem is until we determine whether they actually have a sensible reason to feel betrayed. Surely, "These people are incredibly upset because they had bizarre and unrealistic expectations about how they would be treated," is a very different problem, and demands a different sort of solution, from, "These people are incredibly upset because they got egregiously screwed over by people that owed them better."
Gonna take a blind shot, hail Mary from way out of right field on this one, but maybe — just maybe — the candidate you all have been insisting is beloved by everyone who doesn’t listen to Fox News 24/7 isn’t actually as popular as you’ve talked yourselves into believing that she is, by like maybe just a wee small tiny smudge.
That may be the case (though I've never argued that HRC was particularly beloved), but the relevance here escapes me.
But that's the problem: by saying, "It's a trust/collaboration thing," you basically excuse people from knowing anything, thinking about anything, and actually learning anything about the world they live in. We should just assume their grievances are legitimate because they feel them so deeply. In the end, we don't have any basis for judgment because everybody feels their grievances are legitimate.
So now you're effectively telling me that Elizabeth Bruenig et al. are totally right to be distressed by the content of the emails, not based on anything that's actually in them, but simply based on what they thought should be in them. What the heck are we supposed to do with that? The more seriously we take it, the more we encourage people to get really pissed off with no reference to anything outside their own heads.
Well, yes. Don't you think it should matter to them, upon seeing these angry folks disrupt the convention, whether their grievance is reasonable? Isn't that a rather crucial detail?
The argument about how they shouldn’t feel betrayed and they certainly shouldn’t stop collaborating is one that strikes me as being beside the point.
I'd think that if you're viewing this as a game of Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma, it should matter very much whether the defection was real.
What other rights do you think we should allow the government to selectively encumber in order to make it harder for members of racial minorities to exercise them?
As stated elsewhere, the real problem with straight-ticket voting going away is it slows down voting--not for you, but for potentially hundreds of people standing in line in front of you.
Right. If elected officials want legitimate reforms (and I think that removing straight-ticket voting counts), I think they really need to build a lot more trust that this isn't just a roundabout way of making it harder for people they don't like to vote. The best way to build that trust is to make it as easy as possible to vote in other ways.
Straight ticket voting is faster, and minority voters tend to face much longer lines for voting. Maybe MI should switch to voting by mail; that would resolve this issue and many others at a swoop.
This exactly. Trump and has top advisors routinely say and do more outrageous things on public platforms (Twitter, TV, RNC speeches, et c.) then are in those emails, but we're supposed to pretend that these point to some horrible truth about the DNC. Especially since a lot of the "worst" stuff came down the pipe when Sanders was directly attacking the DNC as corrupt. Of course they were pissed at him!
Pity about the unintended consequences, but hey, good intentions excuse all sorts of bad outcomes because things can’t possibly get any worse.
Except this is precisely the argument you're making: the good intentions behind police violence (that justify dismissing some or all of Ground Zero's recommendations) mean there can't possibly be bad outcomes due to reduced community trust in the police. Also, it's hardly like all of the violence is due to the drug war. Indeed, it's unclear how any of the recent high profile, gratuitous shootings have anything to do with it.
Yes, clearly we only need to worry about the unintended consequences of preventing cops from needlessly inflicting violence on black people; surely there are no possible unintended consequences of continuing with the status quo. Well, beyond the direct effects of the needless violence.
Do you think law enforcement is going to be more effective in a community where people are afraid to call the cops because they think, if they do, they're likely to be shot, or beaten, or just hauled off to jail for no good reason?
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Morning Ed: Politics {2017.07.25.M}”
Without getting into “sensible”, because that’s a minefield,
But that's my whole problem with your approach. Just because it's a minefield doesn't mean picking through it isn't important, and we can just walk around the minefield and get where we want to go.
Walking around the minefield doesn't get you where you want to go. It gets you to Trump.
"
I do know that freakin’ people like freakin’ EBS are freakin’ feeling that freakin’ way and *THAT* is a freakin’ problem that will *NOT* be freakin’ resolved by freakin’ telling them how freakin’ naive they were and how they freakin’ should have freakin’ known freakin’ better.
Except we don't even know what the problem is until we determine whether they actually have a sensible reason to feel betrayed. Surely, "These people are incredibly upset because they had bizarre and unrealistic expectations about how they would be treated," is a very different problem, and demands a different sort of solution, from, "These people are incredibly upset because they got egregiously screwed over by people that owed them better."
"
IIRC, the fact that it made voting slower was a key part of the rationale for striking the law down.
"
Gonna take a blind shot, hail Mary from way out of right field on this one, but maybe — just maybe — the candidate you all have been insisting is beloved by everyone who doesn’t listen to Fox News 24/7 isn’t actually as popular as you’ve talked yourselves into believing that she is, by like maybe just a wee small tiny smudge.
That may be the case (though I've never argued that HRC was particularly beloved), but the relevance here escapes me.
"
But that's the problem: by saying, "It's a trust/collaboration thing," you basically excuse people from knowing anything, thinking about anything, and actually learning anything about the world they live in. We should just assume their grievances are legitimate because they feel them so deeply. In the end, we don't have any basis for judgment because everybody feels their grievances are legitimate.
So now you're effectively telling me that Elizabeth Bruenig et al. are totally right to be distressed by the content of the emails, not based on anything that's actually in them, but simply based on what they thought should be in them. What the heck are we supposed to do with that? The more seriously we take it, the more we encourage people to get really pissed off with no reference to anything outside their own heads.
"
Well, yes. Don't you think it should matter to them, upon seeing these angry folks disrupt the convention, whether their grievance is reasonable? Isn't that a rather crucial detail?
"
The argument about how they shouldn’t feel betrayed and they certainly shouldn’t stop collaborating is one that strikes me as being beside the point.
I'd think that if you're viewing this as a game of Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma, it should matter very much whether the defection was real.
"
If you have an alternative explanation that fits what we're seeing, I'd love to hear it.
If not, it's unclear what you're trying to accomplish here.
"
I think I'm going to stick with my "pack of credulous idiots" theory, yes.
"
They, of course, saw this as a flaw in the DNC rather than in the amount of trust they were placing in the DNC.
Well, OK. Let me amend that to saying, "...it's really not clear why you would if you hadn't just fallen off a turnip truck."
"
You can, but based on the content we've seen so far, it's really not clear why you would.
"
What other rights do you think we should allow the government to selectively encumber in order to make it harder for members of racial minorities to exercise them?
"
All of the Daesh-sympathizing suicide bombers are planning on killing at least one Daesh sympathizer.
"
As stated elsewhere, the real problem with straight-ticket voting going away is it slows down voting--not for you, but for potentially hundreds of people standing in line in front of you.
"
Right. If elected officials want legitimate reforms (and I think that removing straight-ticket voting counts), I think they really need to build a lot more trust that this isn't just a roundabout way of making it harder for people they don't like to vote. The best way to build that trust is to make it as easy as possible to vote in other ways.
On “The DNC Email Leaks”
She was promised some party hacks would say some nasty things about her primary opponent without acting on them?
Sure, OK. That seems to be about as substantive as the median "Clinton scandal".
"
I'm pretty sure she's not speaking anymore. But in any event, they probably wanted her to step down without a fight.
Hell, the Clinton campaign wanted her to step down months ago.
On “Morning Ed: Politics {2017.07.25.M}”
Straight ticket voting is faster, and minority voters tend to face much longer lines for voting. Maybe MI should switch to voting by mail; that would resolve this issue and many others at a swoop.
On “The DNC Email Leaks”
So... the bare minimum to let her save face and not pull a Cruz?
On “Morning Ed: Business {2017.07.24.Su}”
One of these days, a Muslim cop is going to shoot an unarmed black guy, and @notme is going to explode like an evil computer on Star Trek.
On “The DNC Email Leaks”
The whole thing is making me feel like I'm insane and paranoid.
"
This exactly. Trump and has top advisors routinely say and do more outrageous things on public platforms (Twitter, TV, RNC speeches, et c.) then are in those emails, but we're supposed to pretend that these point to some horrible truth about the DNC. Especially since a lot of the "worst" stuff came down the pipe when Sanders was directly attacking the DNC as corrupt. Of course they were pissed at him!
On “CNN: Man shot by cops while lying down with hands up, lawyer says [+Video]”
Pity about the unintended consequences, but hey, good intentions excuse all sorts of bad outcomes because things can’t possibly get any worse.
Except this is precisely the argument you're making: the good intentions behind police violence (that justify dismissing some or all of Ground Zero's recommendations) mean there can't possibly be bad outcomes due to reduced community trust in the police. Also, it's hardly like all of the violence is due to the drug war. Indeed, it's unclear how any of the recent high profile, gratuitous shootings have anything to do with it.
"
Yes, clearly we only need to worry about the unintended consequences of preventing cops from needlessly inflicting violence on black people; surely there are no possible unintended consequences of continuing with the status quo. Well, beyond the direct effects of the needless violence.
"
Do you think law enforcement is going to be more effective in a community where people are afraid to call the cops because they think, if they do, they're likely to be shot, or beaten, or just hauled off to jail for no good reason?
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.