"The fact that B knows that many of their supporters voted for A as well..."
...or perhaps B would note that a large part of the public voted for A, and take that into account when formulating policy, instead of assuming "I had the most votes, therefore everyone agrees with me".
Because rational political calculus says A can’t win. "
What's that got to do with anything? If you think A is the best candidate, then you vote for A. If A has no chance of winning, then a "preference-based vote" isn't going to change that.
Now, you can say that there's too much emphasis on "winner takes all, therefore the winner should act as thought they received 100% of the popular vote". A win by 51% over 49% is hardly a popular mandate in support of your philosophy.
Or, maybe, what needs to happen is for a third-party candidate to present themselves as an actual alternative. If third-party candidates insist on portraying themselves as angry radicals who're going to burn the village in order to save it, then it's hardly surprising that they don't get many votes. (see my earlier comment about Nader.)
"Graduated ranking of votes is one option. I like A a lot, I like B somewhat less..."
...then why aren't you voting for A?
Maybe the solution isn't so much a new voting system as it is candidates who depend less on team-jersey voting blocs, and voters who are less willing to go into the booth with the attitude that they're voting straight-ticket Democrats/Republicans because they're nicer/smarter.
What *does* need to happen is for people to stop saying "third party? Oh, pish, that'll never work".
If you're suggesting Ralph Nader as proof that third parties can't be viable in American politics, that's like looking at the 1980's Indians and concluding that Cleveland can never have a decent baseball team.
You write: "[T]he Republican party is far, far more ideological and, yes, radical than the Democrats. Democrats nowadays — and especially in the Obama era — are basically mild-mannered, technocratic pragmatists who just want to tweak our systems wherever necessary so as to improve the efficiency of what they fundamentally believe to be a sound model. Republicans tend to be the ones throwing around transformative rhetoric — just because it’s reactionary doesn’t make it conservative."
Where did the Ice Zombies go? The ones from the first freakin' chapter who appeared, were all scary, and then disappeared for the next three thousand pages?
I mean, if it took five books to get through the political maneuvering leading up to the Zombie Apocalypse, then Jesus, this is going to be another Chung Kuo!
"North Korea’s barely nuclear “nuclear” test and rockets that can barely make it off the peninsula are an existential threat..."
Remember how, a few years ago, Everybody Knew that North Korea had no nuclear program at all, and it wouldn't work even if they did, and they weren't developing ballistic missiles either?
I've been on plenty of real-name-only forums, and they're exactly as contentious and fractious as anything anonymous.
Indeed, anonymity is better, I think, because it encourages people to engage the substance of the statement, rather than bringing in a bunch of backstory and external thought associated with the identity in question.
*People can, in good faith, and with well-reasoned logic, propose things that you find absolutely abhorrent. They can suggest that abortion shouldn't be restricted, for example, or that two persons of the same sex should be allowed to form binding social compacts.
It is important to suppress one's emotional response when discussing such propositions. And it may well be that, barring that emotional response, you can't come up with an acceptable rebuttal of that proposition.
And that's okay. It's all right to say "I don't consider this particular proposition to be acceptable to me." But be aware of when your response is emotional and when it isn't--and, if you have to make a decision based on it, be prepared for your decision to have unappealing consequences.
*That said: If someone says "okay, I can't argue this with you any further"...accept that. Don't continually be coming back to that concession as a form of mockery, or as an attempt to browbeat the person into agreeing with you on other things. Basically, don't do a sack dance.
"What I take Tim to be saying is, “The bigots think some horrible things about Muslims..."
The problem is the trigger-word/instinct-response behavior that too damn many people call "thinking". Tim suggested that Muslims might be doing something not-quite-fully-good. He is criticising Muslims. Therefore he's a racist, because Muslims are (typicall) not white, and the only reason you'd criticise a nonwhite person is racism.
The substance of Tim's argument is irrelevant. He criticised nonwhites. The. End.
"I might have said it’s a strange case of blaming the victim, given that moderate Muslims have tried pretty hard to distance themselves from their more militant brethren..."
If 'moderate Muslims have tried pretty hard' to do the things that Tim suggests they ought to do, then it should be the work of a few minutes to come up with examples, dozens of examples, of moderate Muslims declaring that the Islamic religion is entirely contra the notion of suicide bombers or killing nonbelievers, and doing it without reference to Israel or to "western aggression" or implying that it's justified vengeance instead of sheer zealotry.
Yeah, it really sucks when people can say things you don't like, right? I hate having to form intellectual responses to reprehensible viewpoints! I'd rather just go with the ungood bellyfeel.
It REALLY FROSTS MY SHORTS when people say that they "give someone free reign". The aphorism you're thinking of is "free REIN", like reins on a horse. Yes, your spell checker says that "free reign" is okay, butt tats be cause the spill chocker is a maroon.
One of the photos I put on the dating site was of me with my arms crossed and a grim expression. I captioned it "i are serious (DensityDuck). this are serious photo."
My wife said that this photo/caption combination was one of the things she liked about my profile.
"People may make kiddie-touching jokes about Catholics, but is anyone calling for Congressional hearings? Boycotting the construction of a church near a school?"
It isn't newsworthy when they do, because people do things like that all the time. Maybe you missed the endless debates about removing Christian symbols on government-operated property, eliminating Christian references in public activities, etcetera.
"...despite the contrived War on Christianity, Muslims are a far more marginalized group who get more than their fair share of criticism, while Christianity and Christians often get a pass; my intent is to offer more nuance to the conversation."
A: "contrived"? My well, she is poisoned. I like how you insist that there's no such thing as anti-Christian sentiment, but take it, as it were, on faith that pervasive anti-Muslim sentiment is real.
B: What Tim's post was trying to ask is whether the reason that Muslims find themselves "marginalized" and receive "more than their fair share of criticism" is their refusal to act like Christians when confronted with criticism.
On “Are Liberals Nihilistically Tolerant?”
"The fact that B knows that many of their supporters voted for A as well..."
...or perhaps B would note that a large part of the public voted for A, and take that into account when formulating policy, instead of assuming "I had the most votes, therefore everyone agrees with me".
Which is what I already said.
"
"> …then why aren’t you voting for A?
Because rational political calculus says A can’t win. "
What's that got to do with anything? If you think A is the best candidate, then you vote for A. If A has no chance of winning, then a "preference-based vote" isn't going to change that.
Now, you can say that there's too much emphasis on "winner takes all, therefore the winner should act as thought they received 100% of the popular vote". A win by 51% over 49% is hardly a popular mandate in support of your philosophy.
On “From a Benton Harbor Resident”
Don't know if I agree with that. I like the notion that those whose judgement determines the application of the law are subject to public recall.
On “Are Liberals Nihilistically Tolerant?”
Or, maybe, what needs to happen is for a third-party candidate to present themselves as an actual alternative. If third-party candidates insist on portraying themselves as angry radicals who're going to burn the village in order to save it, then it's hardly surprising that they don't get many votes. (see my earlier comment about Nader.)
"Graduated ranking of votes is one option. I like A a lot, I like B somewhat less..."
...then why aren't you voting for A?
Maybe the solution isn't so much a new voting system as it is candidates who depend less on team-jersey voting blocs, and voters who are less willing to go into the booth with the attitude that they're voting straight-ticket Democrats/Republicans because they're nicer/smarter.
"
What *does* need to happen is for people to stop saying "third party? Oh, pish, that'll never work".
If you're suggesting Ralph Nader as proof that third parties can't be viable in American politics, that's like looking at the 1980's Indians and concluding that Cleveland can never have a decent baseball team.
"
Both.
You write: "[T]he Republican party is far, far more ideological and, yes, radical than the Democrats. Democrats nowadays — and especially in the Obama era — are basically mild-mannered, technocratic pragmatists who just want to tweak our systems wherever necessary so as to improve the efficiency of what they fundamentally believe to be a sound model. Republicans tend to be the ones throwing around transformative rhetoric — just because it’s reactionary doesn’t make it conservative."
"
That was a big long post just to repeat the tired old idea that Democrats never get what they want because they're too nice.
On “Tits! Swords! Edginess!”
What I wonder about Martin's series is...
Where did the Ice Zombies go? The ones from the first freakin' chapter who appeared, were all scary, and then disappeared for the next three thousand pages?
I mean, if it took five books to get through the political maneuvering leading up to the Zombie Apocalypse, then Jesus, this is going to be another Chung Kuo!
On “American Decline!”
"North Korea’s barely nuclear “nuclear” test and rockets that can barely make it off the peninsula are an existential threat..."
Remember how, a few years ago, Everybody Knew that North Korea had no nuclear program at all, and it wouldn't work even if they did, and they weren't developing ballistic missiles either?
On “Contra Tu Quoque, Or, Avoiding The Fourth Response”
I've been on plenty of real-name-only forums, and they're exactly as contentious and fractious as anything anonymous.
Indeed, anonymity is better, I think, because it encourages people to engage the substance of the statement, rather than bringing in a bunch of backstory and external thought associated with the identity in question.
On “Muslims and the need for reform or, at least, better PR”
Thank you, that's exactly what we needed here.
On “Contra Tu Quoque, Or, Avoiding The Fourth Response”
Things to remember:
*People can, in good faith, and with well-reasoned logic, propose things that you find absolutely abhorrent. They can suggest that abortion shouldn't be restricted, for example, or that two persons of the same sex should be allowed to form binding social compacts.
It is important to suppress one's emotional response when discussing such propositions. And it may well be that, barring that emotional response, you can't come up with an acceptable rebuttal of that proposition.
And that's okay. It's all right to say "I don't consider this particular proposition to be acceptable to me." But be aware of when your response is emotional and when it isn't--and, if you have to make a decision based on it, be prepared for your decision to have unappealing consequences.
*That said: If someone says "okay, I can't argue this with you any further"...accept that. Don't continually be coming back to that concession as a form of mockery, or as an attempt to browbeat the person into agreeing with you on other things. Basically, don't do a sack dance.
"
Oh look, it's Response #4. That was quick.
On “Muslims and the need for reform or, at least, better PR”
"What I take Tim to be saying is, “The bigots think some horrible things about Muslims..."
The problem is the trigger-word/instinct-response behavior that too damn many people call "thinking". Tim suggested that Muslims might be doing something not-quite-fully-good. He is criticising Muslims. Therefore he's a racist, because Muslims are (typicall) not white, and the only reason you'd criticise a nonwhite person is racism.
The substance of Tim's argument is irrelevant. He criticised nonwhites. The. End.
On “Muslims Don’t Need Better PR, Americans Need More Tolerance”
"What is this magical way that Christians act when confronted with criticism that ensures that they are treated better than Muslims?"
You don't exactly see riots and threats of violent retribution in response to a story that someone chucked a Bible into a storm drain.
On “The Title of This Blog Post Is Only Slightly Inflammatory”
This is me not getting the joke and writing a lengthy rant about a typographical error.
On “Muslims and the need for reform or, at least, better PR”
"I might say it’s wishful thinking, given that Muslims are about 0.5% of the US population to think they can do much to counter bigotry."
Yes, pity the poor Muslims, who can't do anything for themselves and need white men to come in and save them from their plight.
"
"I might have said it’s a strange case of blaming the victim, given that moderate Muslims have tried pretty hard to distance themselves from their more militant brethren..."
If 'moderate Muslims have tried pretty hard' to do the things that Tim suggests they ought to do, then it should be the work of a few minutes to come up with examples, dozens of examples, of moderate Muslims declaring that the Islamic religion is entirely contra the notion of suicide bombers or killing nonbelievers, and doing it without reference to Israel or to "western aggression" or implying that it's justified vengeance instead of sheer zealotry.
Indeed, as Jaybird says...write a guest post.
"
Yeah, it really sucks when people can say things you don't like, right? I hate having to form intellectual responses to reprehensible viewpoints! I'd rather just go with the ungood bellyfeel.
On “The Title of This Blog Post Is Only Slightly Inflammatory”
It REALLY FROSTS MY SHORTS when people say that they "give someone free reign". The aphorism you're thinking of is "free REIN", like reins on a horse. Yes, your spell checker says that "free reign" is okay, butt tats be cause the spill chocker is a maroon.
"
One of the photos I put on the dating site was of me with my arms crossed and a grim expression. I captioned it "i are serious (DensityDuck). this are serious photo."
My wife said that this photo/caption combination was one of the things she liked about my profile.
On “Muslims Don’t Need Better PR, Americans Need More Tolerance”
"People may make kiddie-touching jokes about Catholics, but is anyone calling for Congressional hearings? Boycotting the construction of a church near a school?"
It isn't newsworthy when they do, because people do things like that all the time. Maybe you missed the endless debates about removing Christian symbols on government-operated property, eliminating Christian references in public activities, etcetera.
"...despite the contrived War on Christianity, Muslims are a far more marginalized group who get more than their fair share of criticism, while Christianity and Christians often get a pass; my intent is to offer more nuance to the conversation."
A: "contrived"? My well, she is poisoned. I like how you insist that there's no such thing as anti-Christian sentiment, but take it, as it were, on faith that pervasive anti-Muslim sentiment is real.
B: What Tim's post was trying to ask is whether the reason that Muslims find themselves "marginalized" and receive "more than their fair share of criticism" is their refusal to act like Christians when confronted with criticism.
On “The Title of This Blog Post Is Only Slightly Inflammatory”
This comment snidely declares that there's no such thing as bigotry.
"
At least Robert Cheeks acted like he was taking the conversation seriously, and he can't even post on the front page!
On “Muslims and the need for reform or, at least, better PR”
Wow, just wow.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.