I tend to agree. When I worked at the restaurant, we had *TONS* of (legal) Mexican workers who lived 6-8 to a two-bedroom apartment and who worked very long hours and whose entertainment needs were met by a small television and a bag of marijuana. The rest of the money was sent home. They lived for the 3-6 months that they could go back to Mexico and spend time with their wife and kids. (I saw pictures!)

They weren't interested in learning English, they weren't interested in staying in the US. They wanted to collect money and send remittances and then go back home and enjoy the fruits of their labor.

I guess I just never saw this as particularly "liberal" or "progressive" on anybody's part.

@Maribou
I think if you are going to make a claim of untruth(factually untrue), you need to demonstrate the truth is resolved before you can leverage it against Mikes "NOTHING objectionable".

I'm asking this more as a running through the paces to make sure that social objectivity is resolved in these matters, when it is claimed to be resolved.

"Show me where I’ve ever said anyone had an obligation to exercise rights in any particular way."

and then you say

'These people aren’t principled or saving democracy, they’re cashing in, and taking advantage of people."

so

i guess you said it right there in the same comment

That sounds awfully liberal and progressive of you. And also openly capitalistic since it would allow labor demand to actually ebb and flow. Most of the major declared democratic presidential candidates have stood for those ideas in some form or another at some point in their careers.

I have seen this tendency a lot more among liberals in the last few years.

I agree. Liberals in general are much, much angrier than they were a few years ago. I think the reasons why are not tremendously mysterious, but whether you agree with our behavior, you are correctly perceiving it.

(To be really clear - this is me speaking as a person, a member of the community, not as a moderator in any way.)

I counted three lies that Shapiro is more than intelligent enough to know not to make in the first 2 minutes of that video. Not just disagreements, but things I'm sure he *knows* are factually untrue.

I'm not going to quote them because I have no desire to spread his hateful fake news.

That's what you see as "NOTHING objectionable"? It's okay to lie all you want if it makes an earnest and worried college student look stupid to your hangers-on?

How many offensive positions do you need to put a pin in to comfortably participate in conversation here, @mike-dwyer?

And have you ever considered that maybe the reason you've run out of center-left and leftists who are willing to be endlessly patient and helpful in wooing you away from the temptations of the far right (as you referenced in a comment earlier this week, and kinda implied when being a real jerk to Pat over and over) is because *you wore us all out*?

Come *on*.

I will also add, you've been honest before that you have a habit of insulting and cursing people you disagree with. I guess I don't see the utility in that. I have seen this tendency a lot more among liberals in the last few years. Typically when someone challenges them on it their counter is that if someone makes an argument they perceive as bad faith or trolling, it's the equivalent to an insult, so they are free to take the gloves off. I would suggest that 'bad faith' is subjective while name-calling is not. It appears they were really just looking for an excuse to behave that way.

"But I might want to.

I might decide that, since they are a nuisance and, frankly, being kind of shitty, I don’t, uh… what’s that phrase… care about their feelings and I might as well be mean to them for fun.

Why not?

It’s harmless, right?"

My intentions don’t matter, and their feelings don’t matter, and whether they’re a dumb college kid or a dumb 40 year old they might need to be taken down a peg."

I think you and I probably fundamentally disagree what tools are needed in the toolbox to knock someone down a peg intellectually. It's hard for me to wrap my head around the impulse to name-call someone or drop F bombs to accomplish someone's goals.

Perhaps the girl in that video wasn't enjoying the experience but surely she knew what she was getting herself into. And let me be clear here: I watch that video and find NOTHING objectionable about Shapiro's behavior. I think you and I watching that video and having two very different reactions is probably proof that we're not going to reach an agreement on him specifically. My question is, do you think Shapiro is so harmful that he should be prevented from speaking on college campuses?

I would think you can come at that person with both guns blazing, and I would be thankful you did, and you never have to name-call or label him.

But I might want to.

I might decide that, since they are a nuisance and, frankly, being kind of shitty, I don't, uh... what's that phrase... care about their feelings and I might as well be mean to them for fun.

Why not?

It's harmless, right?

My intentions don't matter, and their feelings don't matter, and whether they're a dumb college kid or a dumb 40 year old they might need to be taken down a peg.

Right?

Is what he is doing really problematic?

I think so. Here's an example: a link to him
to Ben allegedly destroying a transgender argument.

And I know you don't want to address the subject, Mike, but the problem is that Shapiro doesn't just argue against transgender identities being valid, he does so in a shitty way, both logically (he doesn't actually answer the question, he begs it) and normatively: he says it mockingly for an applause line.

And if you look at the girl he's going after and think she's enjoying this and the challenge, I want some of what you're smoking.

There's all kinds of others pressures, both formal and informal that come from outside immigrant communities. Again, it shouldn't be viewed as some nefarious thing to encourage immigrants to become Americans.

I'm not looking for textual meaning, necessarily.

I'm looking for what makes it take off more than merely engaging stories, poetic turns of phrase, or simple rhymes.

I mean, some of it is merely survivor's bias on our part (maybe there are some really good Aesop's Fables that got burned at the Library of Alexandria, for example, and they never made it to us...).

But some of it is due to the fact that there weren't *THAT* many people who could read/write, they chose to transmit *THIS* story instead of that one. The people who couldn't read/write chose to tell *THIS* story instead of that one to their kids.

Some of the stories are more evolutionarily fit.

Why?

where does the manual say it’s all in the manual?

The default wasn't supposed to be "everything is in the manual", the default was supposed to be "Priests have special knowledge".

Let's do a brief review of history. 2000 years ago basic literacy was far from universal, so your need for someone to read and interpret the book was obvious.

Priests were the backbone of organized society because they were the educated class. Religion was science, political power, governmental administration, and how knowledge was transferred between generations. If the Priest says "X" is in the book, you have no way to argue with him. He could even make stuff up on the spot.

Then the inventor of the printing press did his thing in the mid 1400's. Literacy became common and so did books. The idea that everyone has access to the word of God is a magic meme although the Priests continue to claim they're supposed to be in charge.

Two centuries later, the scientific revolution raises the bar on what "facts" are and what "works" a LOT. Scientists greatly restrict God's realm, lightning because electricity and not gods fighting, magic is greatly reduced. The Earth (despite what the Bible claims) is shown to be both round and not the center of the universe.

The alternative to "everything is in the manual" (i.e. everyone has access to the words of God) is the Priests are superheroes with special powers and knowledge. "Special knowledge" worked for many centuries, however that's not viable in a world with mass education, literacy, and the Priestly class not running everything.

Some groups take "everything in the manual" to an extreme and that's where you get the literal word groups, however that's mostly posturing. Each group needs (or at least wants) to be able to claim they're special and uniquely important. Often that becomes why their interpretation of the book is better than everyone else's.

To quote Justice Wilson:
“To the Constitution of the United States the term Sovereign, is totally unknown.”

(Which is probably why the pluralism thing somewhat worked, until it didn't)

Sure. And you know what helps?

"I feel sympathy! Oh, no! Seriously, I feel sympathy! Please don't send us the Undocumented Dreamers that we said would be so good for the country! We don't want them in *OUR* neighborhood! But, seriously, I have a lot more sympathy than the other people!"

the ‘Well, uh, okay, if you’re really wanting to do that and have some logical plan, okay.’ basically drowned them out.

It did?

I was not aware of this.

" they are only intertwined if someone is being really intellectually lazy."

That's tarring most of Western science around human biology for the entire 19th century (actually quite a bit longer on either side) as 'intellectually lazy'.

Which... sounds a lot more like something a careless and stereotypical SJW would say than something you want to get attached to saying.

I mean, there was a LOT wrong with eg Galton or Alfred Russel Wallace (one of whom was kind of terrible and the other one it still breaks my heart to see his racism on the page).... but intellectual laziness was not, at all, the problem.

This is one of those issues where I've never understood the need to use as a hill to fight on if only because there's almost no upside and all downside, even with articles I've read that treat the material and subject fairly.

Seriously, it's to the point where I disagree with your characterization but don't see a point in engaging it. We probably have more important things to discuss.

Individuals aren't sovereign in the constitutional framework. Sovereignty is a collective people hence the reason why collective rights make more sense in the federal constitutional framework than individual rights, which, to the extent those existed, were simply limitations on federal power.

This is what I like to call Madison's originalism, especially since the whole Madison-based compact theory best explains the original Constitution and why any originalist-type interpretive structure fails.

“I weep for you," the Walrus said:
“I deeply sympathize.”
With sobs and tears he sorted out
Those of the largest size,
Holding his pocket-handkerchief
Before his streaming eyes.

But it has exposed some racists on the left who actually reacted like President Trump _thinks_ all people would react to the news that poor foreigners were going to be living near them!

This was, as far as I can tell, the point.

To set up a situation where Trumpists can pounce on these racists and use them as reasons to say "see? The second we ask them to put their money where their mouth is, they sound just like us."

Hypocrisy is one hell of a balm for a pricked conscience.

If your notion of "pressure" is telling immigrant people that they have to do what they have to do, just like everyone else, then I guess we don't have a disagreement. Odd notion of "pressure," though.