Makes you wonder how SWAT team members were being chosen. It's obviously a position that comes with prestige; do SWAT team members also get additional pay, benefits or promotion chances?
Tod Kelly: You can certainly be someone whose “turn” it is and be a good or exceptional candidate, for whatever definition of the entirely fuzzy and malleable concept “it’s their turn” means to you. But to have that be your primary and/or only criteria for delivering potential power is by its very definition undemocratic.
I disagree. For one thing, it's entirely possible for a substantial fraction of a party's rank-and-file voters to decide to support someone "because it's their turn". I'm not saying that was a major factor in Clinton's victory, but I'm not saying it wasn't, either.
However, one thing that was a major factor in her victory was that a substantial majority of the party voted for her in primaries, and that her approval ratings among Democrats were and remain high. The idea that she was somehow forced on the party against its will just doesn't track well with what played out.
So I've noticed the following pattern in police apologism following an outrageous shooting. If there's a shadow of a doubt that the person shot might have done something to provoke it, it obviously completely discredits any criticism of the police.
If there isn't a shadow of a doubt, it's obviously atypical and there's nothing to see here.
If that's the case, I'd think it's more than a little premature to point to HRC's nomination as a sign of brokenness, since she hasn't even lost the election (and looks pretty likely to end up winning it).
Only in some nth best world where n is definitely greater than 2.
I suppose it's possible that in the best of all possible worlds, we'll successfully eliminate the politics from politics, but that seems like a difficult and debatably useful endeavor no matter which universe you find yourself in.
As somewhat better way of party selection is if the party chose someone who had the best chance of a) competently administering the country justly (at least by the party’s own lights) if elected and b) of getting elected.
Neither (a) nor (b) are simple determinations to make, and while you could at least argue that (b) is at least in principle an objective criterion, (a) most definitely is not, and once you put the two in tension with one another[1], you introduce another degree of subjectivity.
Which leads me to believe that politicians will likely be winning power in political parties by playing politics even in Muralitopia.
[1] For instance, I think that Sanders would have had a somewhat better chance of winning the general election, but had a good deal more trust in HRC's policy judgement and ability to act as the head of the executive branch.
You may not like the fact that she got the nomination, in part, because she paid her dues, but it's a common feature of how political parties function in this country (and as far as I can tell, other countries as well).
The complaint really seems to boil down to, "This politician won power in a political party by playing politics," which, well, is how it works and is supposed to work.
Because "anointing a not-great candidate" is a very weak argument for a political party being completely broken. Political parties do that fairly frequently. It's not... well, great, but it's routine. There are only so many Ronald Reagans and Barack Obamas in the world, after all.
When someone asked the President of Coca Cola if they released New Coke so that it would flop and drive sales up when they switched back to Coca-Cola, he replied, "The truth is we are not that dumb, and we are not that smart."
But he says “if we fail to do so, we are partially responsible for racism.”
No, I'm saying the opposite. I'm saying that I'm not convinced improving the economic situation will have the desired effect of reducing racism. Thus, I don't think it makes sense to try to shift responsibility for racism away from the people who are actually racist to everybody who has failed to solve difficult economic problems.
"You haven't dealt with economic distress, and because people are being racist due to their economic distress, you are thus partially responsible for their racism," entails the argument that, "You haven't dealt with economic distress, and thus are partially responsible for economic distress," as well as a lot of other assumptions about the relationship between economic distress and racism.
So if the argument is that the problem of racism is orthogonal to the problem of economic distress, I’d say okay… so what do we gather from that?
That it's unreasonable to demand that we present a plan to deal with the economic distress (let alone successfully implement such a plan) prior to dealing with racism, and that if we fail to do so, we are partially responsible for racism.
My issue was more with the whole “the burden of proof is on the racist to prove she’s not a racist” thing.
That's not what I'm saying at all.
What I am saying is that no one has presented an argument that people who are economically distressed and racist will suddenly stop being racist when they stop being economically distressed. Everybody is evidently just supposed to implicitly assume that's true.
But part of the honesty I think we need is for my tribe of liberals to accept that it is natural and not evil to feel insecure and anxious when we are in the minority, when we move from being the dominant culture to being just one of many cultures.
Why is it "honesty" to admit something you don't believe is true?
I mean, the liberals you're referring to are either part of the dominant culture moving to be one of many cultures, and don't feel that way, or aren't part of the dominant culture, so aren't losing that status.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Top DNC Official Wanted to Use Bernie Sanders’s Religious Beliefs Against Him”
I can't say this is the most preposterous argument I've seen in favor of BSDI, but it's gotta be in the top 10.
On “Linky Friday #176: Eggheadery”
From Schilling's lips to #BernieOrBust's ears:
https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/756883190397202432
"
Oh, I am shocked to learn that Wikileaks is straight garbage. Knock me over with a feather.
On “Top DNC Official Wanted to Use Bernie Sanders’s Religious Beliefs Against Him”
Why would they repudiate a tactic that was never publicly discussed, let alone used?
For that matter, how would they repudiate it?
On “Briefly, On Charles Kinsey Having Been Shot”
Makes you wonder how SWAT team members were being chosen. It's obviously a position that comes with prestige; do SWAT team members also get additional pay, benefits or promotion chances?
On “Top DNC Official Wanted to Use Bernie Sanders’s Religious Beliefs Against Him”
Advocacy of appealing to a group’s base bigotries for electoral gain is indeed a thing
I think it's relevant that said advocacy was, quite obviously, ignored.
On “CNN: Man shot by cops while lying down with hands up, lawyer says [+Video]”
Except those arguments are not, based on everything I've seen and read, rooted in lived experience. This difference strikes me as significant.
On “Linky Friday #176: Eggheadery”
Having worked as both a physicist and an economist, I resent the hell out of Schilling's remark. I'm just not sure why.
"
I'm not a Sanders fan at all, but I recall very little that could reasonably be called bigotry from his campaign.
On “When is a Speech More Than Just a Speech?”
Yes, surely we should be deeply suspicious of the idea that a party that just nominated Donald J. Trump for President has a credulous base.
"
I disagree. For one thing, it's entirely possible for a substantial fraction of a party's rank-and-file voters to decide to support someone "because it's their turn". I'm not saying that was a major factor in Clinton's victory, but I'm not saying it wasn't, either.
However, one thing that was a major factor in her victory was that a substantial majority of the party voted for her in primaries, and that her approval ratings among Democrats were and remain high. The idea that she was somehow forced on the party against its will just doesn't track well with what played out.
On “CNN: Man shot by cops while lying down with hands up, lawyer says [+Video]”
So I've noticed the following pattern in police apologism following an outrageous shooting. If there's a shadow of a doubt that the person shot might have done something to provoke it, it obviously completely discredits any criticism of the police.
If there isn't a shadow of a doubt, it's obviously atypical and there's nothing to see here.
On “When is a Speech More Than Just a Speech?”
If that's the case, I'd think it's more than a little premature to point to HRC's nomination as a sign of brokenness, since she hasn't even lost the election (and looks pretty likely to end up winning it).
"
Only in some nth best world where n is definitely greater than 2.
I suppose it's possible that in the best of all possible worlds, we'll successfully eliminate the politics from politics, but that seems like a difficult and debatably useful endeavor no matter which universe you find yourself in.
As somewhat better way of party selection is if the party chose someone who had the best chance of a) competently administering the country justly (at least by the party’s own lights) if elected and b) of getting elected.
Neither (a) nor (b) are simple determinations to make, and while you could at least argue that (b) is at least in principle an objective criterion, (a) most definitely is not, and once you put the two in tension with one another[1], you introduce another degree of subjectivity.
Which leads me to believe that politicians will likely be winning power in political parties by playing politics even in Muralitopia.
[1] For instance, I think that Sanders would have had a somewhat better chance of winning the general election, but had a good deal more trust in HRC's policy judgement and ability to act as the head of the executive branch.
"
You may not like the fact that she got the nomination, in part, because she paid her dues, but it's a common feature of how political parties function in this country (and as far as I can tell, other countries as well).
The complaint really seems to boil down to, "This politician won power in a political party by playing politics," which, well, is how it works and is supposed to work.
"
Because "anointing a not-great candidate" is a very weak argument for a political party being completely broken. Political parties do that fairly frequently. It's not... well, great, but it's routine. There are only so many Ronald Reagans and Barack Obamas in the world, after all.
"
When someone asked the President of Coca Cola if they released New Coke so that it would flop and drive sales up when they switched back to Coca-Cola, he replied, "The truth is we are not that dumb, and we are not that smart."
I suspect the same thing is happening here.
On “How Brexit Turned Into an Immigrant’s Nightmare”
But he says “if we fail to do so, we are partially responsible for racism.”
No, I'm saying the opposite. I'm saying that I'm not convinced improving the economic situation will have the desired effect of reducing racism. Thus, I don't think it makes sense to try to shift responsibility for racism away from the people who are actually racist to everybody who has failed to solve difficult economic problems.
"
I don't think that's right.
"You haven't dealt with economic distress, and because people are being racist due to their economic distress, you are thus partially responsible for their racism," entails the argument that, "You haven't dealt with economic distress, and thus are partially responsible for economic distress," as well as a lot of other assumptions about the relationship between economic distress and racism.
"
My answer falls somewhere between, "Absolutely," and, "Well, that's seems pretty plausible."
"
So if the argument is that the problem of racism is orthogonal to the problem of economic distress, I’d say okay… so what do we gather from that?
That it's unreasonable to demand that we present a plan to deal with the economic distress (let alone successfully implement such a plan) prior to dealing with racism, and that if we fail to do so, we are partially responsible for racism.
"
Huh?
"
My issue was more with the whole “the burden of proof is on the racist to prove she’s not a racist” thing.
That's not what I'm saying at all.
What I am saying is that no one has presented an argument that people who are economically distressed and racist will suddenly stop being racist when they stop being economically distressed. Everybody is evidently just supposed to implicitly assume that's true.
"
Do you want the term “racist” to lose its sting?
Because that’s how you get the term “racist” to lose its sting.
Because I'm not assuming that only people who are economically struggling can be racist?
Well, OK then.
"
But part of the honesty I think we need is for my tribe of liberals to accept that it is natural and not evil to feel insecure and anxious when we are in the minority, when we move from being the dominant culture to being just one of many cultures.
Why is it "honesty" to admit something you don't believe is true?
I mean, the liberals you're referring to are either part of the dominant culture moving to be one of many cultures, and don't feel that way, or aren't part of the dominant culture, so aren't losing that status.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.