It isn't even clear to me that 'cultural appropriation' is a thing outside certain cultural corners of the United States. The idea that something as natural as cultural exchange and imitation can be stopped or cast in stark moral terms has always struck me as baffling for all the reasons Freddie laid out.
My understanding is that there is a lot of Turkish bitterness about inability to actually join the EU despite decades of promises that it would be permitted when ready. France and Germany have been the main opponents of allowing Turkish membership. I've read arguments that it's been a contributing factor in Turkey's slide away from secularism and democracy but I'm not familiar enough with Turkey's internal politics to have an opinion of my own.
I dont want to speak for the OP but I think the half measure is because political plausibility is being factored in. I think that adds value to any proposal on reform of the EC. Otherwise it'd just be raging against the existing system.
I think the answer is both and neither and one or the other and something else entirely depending on who you ask.
Again, I think progressive self analysis is good. Successful political parties and movements learn from their mistakes and adapt. Clinton was an almost uniquely bad candidate for the circumstances of this election for the reasons that have been discussed here ad nauseum.
What I don't think is useful is a sort of self indulgent wallowing about how the country is in the grips of some ultra reactionary political force and all social progress made over the last 60 years is right down the toilet. I don't see how you can square that narrative with the fact that had the popular vote been distributed just a little bit differently Clinton would have won. Instead we'd then be discussing how much progress was made by electing the first female president right after the first black person and analyzing the latest obituary for a Republican party that had reached new heights of dysfunction.
I think Clinton's sizeable victory in the popular vote adds a lot of important context to the discussion that keeps being glossed over. I do think that there are cultural attributes to upper middle class coastal progressives that have started to look a lot like classism. Its good that at least some progressives are examining that. At the same time, we shouldn't lose perspective. Clinton narrowly lost a low turnout election in large part due to ignoring jurisdictions she thought she had already won.
Clearly the difference makers in the white populations of those states weren't turned off by Trump's racially charged remarks to the point of not voting for him. However the margin of victory is so narrow I think the idea that some giant racist movement has been awoken is being greatly overstated.
To clarify, I'm waiting to see whether he will be a bad president in the order of previous bad administrations or whether he does something truly unprecedented and awful. From my perspective the latter is a pretty high bar and will require some actual action without recent historical parallels and/or which goes a lot further than, as opposed to just building on, the imperial presidency as it currently exists.
I think your overall point is correct but I actually think the means do matter. Maybe I'm wrong and there'd be the same indifference but I've often thought that there might be a little more controversy if these strikes were being conducted by manned aircraft or artillery or special forces units.
For whatever reason the drones seem to allow people to look at it as something other than an act of war.
I wouldnt call myself a Trump optimist so much as a Trump wait-and-see-ist. Part of the issue with posts like Gessen's I think is the hypocracies jr mentioned above. We've had 2 straight presidencies from each of the big parties where civil servants went right along with disastrous and illiberal policies.
Maybe if mainstream progressives and Gessen's bureaucrats hadn't been so blase about Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning and the drone war and some of these other issues they would have more credibility.
This seems about right. There's also a level of entitlement underlying the whole perspective that reinforces negative stereotypes about public sector employees. If someone orders you to do something truly immoral the answer is to resign in protest and go to the press. The possibility that might happen is the trade off for all those holidays and vacation days and cheap benefits no one else gets.
The competition question is hard and there's no easy answer. If the proposed answer is emulate working conditions in the developing world I don't think that's realistic or responsible.
Regarding whether people want to be handled I operate under the assumption that the vast majority of people want a decent standard of living.
Well not to get overly pedantic but it kind of depends on what you mean by controlled. I don't think we can do much about technology making a lot of work done by humans obsolete and trying to slow it down with laws or public policy would be counterproductive. I do think we can control how we decide to handle people who are going to lose their jobs or become substantially under employed. The latter is where I'm increasingly convinced that the mid to late 20th century model is not up to the task.
Serious question- does it lead to work that pays humans (and lots of them, maybe tens of millions in the US alone) enough to sustain a minimally acceptable lifestyle by first world standards?
I don't think the much heralded end of work is quite as close as some people. I do however think that we're in for a long rot where technology and increased efficiency renders mass manpower unnecessary. A race to the bottom with the third world may delay the inevitable but I don't see how we avoid getting to a place where it isn't necessary to employ large numbers of people in the way industrial economies did or reasonable to expect it.
I actually thought the Joan Williams post linked to was even better than the Atlantic article. At some point we need to start rethinking the way our economy and social contract work. Itll be gradual but in another 30 years I think automation is only going to make the situation worse, and the traditional 40 hour work week, employer provided benefits, and a minimally decent standard of living will no longer be possible for an even bigger chunk of the population.
Supposedly Foxconn already has a completely automated site in China that can operate 24/7 with the lights off and minimal human oversight. The next big hit will be when driverless vehicles start taking over and put millions of truckers and taxi drivers out of work. Our political situation is already showing the results of what happens when you tell the masses to suck eggs and deal with an increasingly precarious economic situation while allowing a very few to become outrageously weathy.
@mike-dwyer @switters This actually probably most accurately gets to what I was trying to convey- I don't see it as a means of administering vigilante justice. That is the concern that I was trying to address.
Interestingly I've never heard the word 'fetishize' used by advocates of stricter laws that way. My intent wasnt to insult anyone who, as in the example you used has learned a skill and discipline they are proud of. What I was trying to convey was more along the lines of 'I do not have an unhealthy obsession with it.'
I don't feel the need to apologize but I do want to reach out to people who don't agree with me in a way that does not make them feel immediately defensive. I'm in a part of the country that's largely hostile to my stance on this and, fair or not, I think that puts the burden on me and people like me to try and change their way of thinking.
For point number 1 you are correct. I'm being deliberately opaque on that though for reasons of personal privacy.
On point number 2 my intent is to address a regular concern that I see raised, which is that people who purchase these types of rifles do so out of a belief that they are a solution to various social problems or see them as a means of intimidation. Im not talking about a soft spot for the shotgun you used to bring down your first buck or something along the lines of the other examples you used.
My position may sound libertarian but I think that is more a result of the broader mainstream left backing away from civil liberties as an important part of their policy platform, something I also see as a mistake. The roots of my concerns come from the problems I see in how law enforcement and the criminal justice system actually work in practice, not how I'd like like the world to be.
That means that when we talk about restrictions I'm also thinking about things like how many more people are going to have to go to jail for a long time, or how many people who havent done anything violent are going to wake up to a SWAT team coming through the door at 4AM, or find out they got put on some secret list that means they can't travel? How will that play out in a society that already has all kinds of serious inequities? Who are we making value judgments about when we set up systems that result in the wealthy being able to exercise important rights due to their ability to navigate the system but not people with lesser means?
Regarding law and order conservatives, I have no qualms about calling them on their hypocracies on this issue. I'm not among them, and my views on economic policies probably make me a Marxist of some kind in their view.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Freddie: no one has the slightest idea what is and isn’t cultural appropriation”
It isn't even clear to me that 'cultural appropriation' is a thing outside certain cultural corners of the United States. The idea that something as natural as cultural exchange and imitation can be stopped or cast in stark moral terms has always struck me as baffling for all the reasons Freddie laid out.
On “Linky Friday #195: Pillars of Sand”
There you go again always taking someone else's side. Flanders, the water department, God...
On “Morning Ed: World {2016.12.01.Th}”
My understanding is that there is a lot of Turkish bitterness about inability to actually join the EU despite decades of promises that it would be permitted when ready. France and Germany have been the main opponents of allowing Turkish membership. I've read arguments that it's been a contributing factor in Turkey's slide away from secularism and democracy but I'm not familiar enough with Turkey's internal politics to have an opinion of my own.
On “A National Popular Vote Amendment”
I dont want to speak for the OP but I think the half measure is because political plausibility is being factored in. I think that adds value to any proposal on reform of the EC. Otherwise it'd just be raging against the existing system.
On “How White Working Class Culture Shaped American Politics”
I think the answer is both and neither and one or the other and something else entirely depending on who you ask.
Again, I think progressive self analysis is good. Successful political parties and movements learn from their mistakes and adapt. Clinton was an almost uniquely bad candidate for the circumstances of this election for the reasons that have been discussed here ad nauseum.
What I don't think is useful is a sort of self indulgent wallowing about how the country is in the grips of some ultra reactionary political force and all social progress made over the last 60 years is right down the toilet. I don't see how you can square that narrative with the fact that had the popular vote been distributed just a little bit differently Clinton would have won. Instead we'd then be discussing how much progress was made by electing the first female president right after the first black person and analyzing the latest obituary for a Republican party that had reached new heights of dysfunction.
"
I think Clinton's sizeable victory in the popular vote adds a lot of important context to the discussion that keeps being glossed over. I do think that there are cultural attributes to upper middle class coastal progressives that have started to look a lot like classism. Its good that at least some progressives are examining that. At the same time, we shouldn't lose perspective. Clinton narrowly lost a low turnout election in large part due to ignoring jurisdictions she thought she had already won.
Clearly the difference makers in the white populations of those states weren't turned off by Trump's racially charged remarks to the point of not voting for him. However the margin of victory is so narrow I think the idea that some giant racist movement has been awoken is being greatly overstated.
On “Morning Ed: Politics {2016.11.29.T}”
+1
"
I believe the preferred nomenclature until Obama leaves office is 'kinetic military intervention.'
"
To clarify, I'm waiting to see whether he will be a bad president in the order of previous bad administrations or whether he does something truly unprecedented and awful. From my perspective the latter is a pretty high bar and will require some actual action without recent historical parallels and/or which goes a lot further than, as opposed to just building on, the imperial presidency as it currently exists.
"
I think your overall point is correct but I actually think the means do matter. Maybe I'm wrong and there'd be the same indifference but I've often thought that there might be a little more controversy if these strikes were being conducted by manned aircraft or artillery or special forces units.
For whatever reason the drones seem to allow people to look at it as something other than an act of war.
"
#content
"
I wouldnt call myself a Trump optimist so much as a Trump wait-and-see-ist. Part of the issue with posts like Gessen's I think is the hypocracies jr mentioned above. We've had 2 straight presidencies from each of the big parties where civil servants went right along with disastrous and illiberal policies.
Maybe if mainstream progressives and Gessen's bureaucrats hadn't been so blase about Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning and the drone war and some of these other issues they would have more credibility.
"
This seems about right. There's also a level of entitlement underlying the whole perspective that reinforces negative stereotypes about public sector employees. If someone orders you to do something truly immoral the answer is to resign in protest and go to the press. The possibility that might happen is the trade off for all those holidays and vacation days and cheap benefits no one else gets.
On “The Atlantic: Democrats’ Answer for the Rust Belt”
The competition question is hard and there's no easy answer. If the proposed answer is emulate working conditions in the developing world I don't think that's realistic or responsible.
Regarding whether people want to be handled I operate under the assumption that the vast majority of people want a decent standard of living.
"
Well not to get overly pedantic but it kind of depends on what you mean by controlled. I don't think we can do much about technology making a lot of work done by humans obsolete and trying to slow it down with laws or public policy would be counterproductive. I do think we can control how we decide to handle people who are going to lose their jobs or become substantially under employed. The latter is where I'm increasingly convinced that the mid to late 20th century model is not up to the task.
"
Serious question- does it lead to work that pays humans (and lots of them, maybe tens of millions in the US alone) enough to sustain a minimally acceptable lifestyle by first world standards?
I don't think the much heralded end of work is quite as close as some people. I do however think that we're in for a long rot where technology and increased efficiency renders mass manpower unnecessary. A race to the bottom with the third world may delay the inevitable but I don't see how we avoid getting to a place where it isn't necessary to employ large numbers of people in the way industrial economies did or reasonable to expect it.
"
Sadly you're probably right. The question will be can liberal democracy withstand the inevitable hits to its legitimacy.
"
I actually thought the Joan Williams post linked to was even better than the Atlantic article. At some point we need to start rethinking the way our economy and social contract work. Itll be gradual but in another 30 years I think automation is only going to make the situation worse, and the traditional 40 hour work week, employer provided benefits, and a minimally decent standard of living will no longer be possible for an even bigger chunk of the population.
Supposedly Foxconn already has a completely automated site in China that can operate 24/7 with the lights off and minimal human oversight. The next big hit will be when driverless vehicles start taking over and put millions of truckers and taxi drivers out of work. Our political situation is already showing the results of what happens when you tell the masses to suck eggs and deal with an increasingly precarious economic situation while allowing a very few to become outrageously weathy.
On “Confession of a Liberal Gun Owner”
@joe-sal
I nevet meant to imply i dont also have fun with it. Politically speaking though it's a matter of putting my money where my mouth is.
"
For what it's worth I can't think of any reason to object to that either. I'd imagine it would just be rolled up in homeowners or renters insurance.
"
@mike-dwyer @switters This actually probably most accurately gets to what I was trying to convey- I don't see it as a means of administering vigilante justice. That is the concern that I was trying to address.
"
@mike-dwyer
Interestingly I've never heard the word 'fetishize' used by advocates of stricter laws that way. My intent wasnt to insult anyone who, as in the example you used has learned a skill and discipline they are proud of. What I was trying to convey was more along the lines of 'I do not have an unhealthy obsession with it.'
I don't feel the need to apologize but I do want to reach out to people who don't agree with me in a way that does not make them feel immediately defensive. I'm in a part of the country that's largely hostile to my stance on this and, fair or not, I think that puts the burden on me and people like me to try and change their way of thinking.
"
@mike-dwyer
Thanks for reading.
For point number 1 you are correct. I'm being deliberately opaque on that though for reasons of personal privacy.
On point number 2 my intent is to address a regular concern that I see raised, which is that people who purchase these types of rifles do so out of a belief that they are a solution to various social problems or see them as a means of intimidation. Im not talking about a soft spot for the shotgun you used to bring down your first buck or something along the lines of the other examples you used.
"
Just to add I'm not saying that you aren't cognizant of these issues or don't care about them, just trying to explain my own thought process.
"
My position may sound libertarian but I think that is more a result of the broader mainstream left backing away from civil liberties as an important part of their policy platform, something I also see as a mistake. The roots of my concerns come from the problems I see in how law enforcement and the criminal justice system actually work in practice, not how I'd like like the world to be.
That means that when we talk about restrictions I'm also thinking about things like how many more people are going to have to go to jail for a long time, or how many people who havent done anything violent are going to wake up to a SWAT team coming through the door at 4AM, or find out they got put on some secret list that means they can't travel? How will that play out in a society that already has all kinds of serious inequities? Who are we making value judgments about when we set up systems that result in the wealthy being able to exercise important rights due to their ability to navigate the system but not people with lesser means?
Regarding law and order conservatives, I have no qualms about calling them on their hypocracies on this issue. I'm not among them, and my views on economic policies probably make me a Marxist of some kind in their view.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.