tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post2900333114270617572..comments2024-03-18T21:52:45.757-07:00Comments on CONTRARY BRIN: Five devastating rebuttals to use with our worst allies... the mad ones who would "split" our coalition.David Brinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comBlogger178125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-75618944403017525802021-11-17T21:34:06.015-08:002021-11-17T21:34:06.015-08:00Very good points. The splitters, usually the puris...Very good points. The splitters, usually the purists, are really just intellectually lazy... in my well-founded opinion. If they bothered to both do the research (read the Congressional Record, follow the money, etc) AND think things through, they'd come to the quite correct conclusion that we have to be realistic and pragmatic.<br /><br />Though I did do an article on a sharp young propagandist a few years ago. In it, I broke down for just how long the Dems had super-majority. It wasn't even two years.<br /><br />"The first thing we need to look at to get to the bottom of this is just what the circumstances of the Democratic super-majority back in 09′-10′ were. A quick synopsis: In the 2008 elections, Democrats won 8 seats in the Senate and 21 seats in the House. This gave Democrats a 257/435 or 59% majority caucus in the House and a 57/98 or 58% majority caucus in the Senate.<br /><br />Wait, what? Aren’t there 100 Senators?<br /><br />Actually, 2009 was a disaster. In the spirit of still desperately trying to keep this all succinct, it went like this: Al Franken was facing election challenges and wasn’t sworn in until July 7th, 2009, Ted Kennedy was unable to vote for pretty much the whole year until he died in August, and Robert Byrd spent most of the year hospitalized.<br />It wasn’t until Paul Kirk was sworn in on September 24th, 2009 that Democrats had a functional 60 vote majority in the Senate. They held that majority for 11 weeks until winter recess, and then 3 more weeks until Scott Brown was sworn in to fill Kennedy’s seat. That period spanned late 2009 thru early 2010, which is what makes An0maly’s statement: “During some of the years of the Obama administration, they had control of the house and the senate…”, a very clever way of telling a ‘truth’ while actually lying to make it sound like there were perhaps multiple ‘years’ when Democrats had control of Congress. In reality it was just 14 weeks that horseshoed around the end of one year to the beginning of the next. “Some years” is therefore ‘Some bullshit’.<br /><br />But then, when did Democrats actually have a 60% filibuster-proof majority in the House?<br /><br />In November of 2009, the Democratic majority caucus in the house hit a high of 258/435, or 59.3% majority. I guess we could round up?<br /><br /><br />So no, there was never a functional ‘filibuster-proof majority’ except on magical paper. But there’s more to passing legislation than the possession of a mere super-majority. In fact, when the ‘filibuster-proof’ Congress tried to pass an actual piece of gun legislation, it was sent to its respective committees where it died."<br /><br />https://bsbuzzsaw.com/2018/02/26/outrageous-fakery/Lynne Viciahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10624647439193320194noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-31537081387143141422021-10-25T19:41:44.769-07:002021-10-25T19:41:44.769-07:00This isn't one of your best takes David. For e...This isn't one of your best takes David. For example, the ACA was a Republican idea dreamed up by the Heritage Foundation in the 90's and first implemented by Mitt Romney when he was governor of Massachusetts. It is literally the worst possible combination of government coercion and the most expensive corporate health "care" in the industrialized world, forcing people to buy overpriced catastrophic insurance with huge deductibles or suffer a yearly fine.<br /><br />If Mitt Romney had won in 2012 they would have rolled out virtually the exact same plan except calling it Romneycare instead of Obamacare and Democrats would have endlessly pilloried its shortcomings. DougieGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07791413373637273481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-81341545188646378592020-10-30T15:49:11.935-07:002020-10-30T15:49:11.935-07:00I believe you are confusing "debt" with ...I believe you are confusing "debt" with "deficit". Since dent is bought by the monied class, they are incentivized to help it succeed. Hamilton's brilliant concept. Deficits are how much is spent (on wars, infrastructure, or boondoggles) than is recovered in tax revenue.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-733056241495134792020-09-29T17:40:51.824-07:002020-09-29T17:40:51.824-07:00Thanks for trying, David, but I'm afraid you s...Thanks for trying, David, but I'm afraid you started off on a very wrong foot.<br /><br />It seems you remain unaware of who is behind the "Justice Democrats" and what their goals are.<br /><br />They are the splinter-throwers.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-60277756517444849502020-07-27T23:42:10.753-07:002020-07-27T23:42:10.753-07:00I might draw the line at an exception for small ca...I might draw the line at an exception for small calibre pest control. With a .22 long barrel center pull pistol, I can easily put 5 rounds into a half dollar sized grouping at 50 feet in 6 seconds (the last time I went shooting, I did this several times). I TRIED shooting with a 9mm glock that a friend of mine had, same day. My grouping was EMBARRASSINGLY bad at 30 feet. But with that .22, I could easily put rounds through someone's eye socket, if I could actually make myself fire at a person instead of a piece of paper.<br /><br />No, I'd rather put the magazine limit on all civilian firearms, without exception. Small calibre is still deadly in the hands of someone who knows how to shoot.Niall Shaperonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-8811792176884016562020-05-26T19:40:42.036-07:002020-05-26T19:40:42.036-07:00"A Free and Fair Market Society would seem to..."A Free and Fair Market Society would seem to rest on at least three principles: "Don't initiate Force", "Keep what you Make/Pay for what you Take" and "Tax Bads, not Goods."<br /><br />It is not going to be anything like fair when there is unequal access to information. What you don't know will hurt you.<br /><br />So no corporate secrets. Corporations that are at war with each other should wage their wars without secrecy.<br /><br />And minimize government secrets.J Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03201350482758221085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-85823792909839859632020-05-26T16:07:25.667-07:002020-05-26T16:07:25.667-07:00A Free and Fair Market Society would seem to rest ...A Free and Fair Market Society would seem to rest on at least three principles: "Don't initiate Force", "Keep what you Make/Pay for what you Take" and "Tax Bads, not Goods."DANIEL E TWEDThttp://permatrail.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-38033846952135220202020-05-26T16:05:12.776-07:002020-05-26T16:05:12.776-07:00A free and fair individual life and a functional f...A free and fair individual life and a functional free and fair social organization within which to live it has and will rest on at least three principles: "Don't initiate Force", "Keep what you Make/Pay for what you Take" and "Tax Bads, not Goods." (...and it's not too early to start designing for access rights to unblocked steller output ...thinking eventual Dyson sphere)sustaintegriphilehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09141675646439806017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1356771270339771012019-08-10T08:21:06.471-07:002019-08-10T08:21:06.471-07:00"I'd support spending money doing that sc..."I'd support spending money doing that science, but not as an environmental concern over kerosene/LOX engines."<br /><br />I basicly agree with you there. We don't need research aimed at stopping progress. We need research to find out what's going on. If it turns out that the way we're planning to do things is likely to hurt us badly, then we need to make better plans. But we sure don't need to fund science to advance partisan politics.<br /><br />The "nuclear winter" controversy is an example of partisan politics. The whole thing was designed to persuade politicians that we couldn't depend on a nuclear first strike against the USSR to go as planned. And after a whole lot of money spent it on average failed; the research concluded that there would be a "nuclear autumn" which could be reduced by staging the first strike at the right time of year.<br /><br />The "research" extrapolated way beyond available evidence. There is no particular reason to expect the results to be accurate. A giant system with complicated interactions, and they hoped to model it well enough from the little scraps of physics and chemistry they knew to apply.<br /><br />To me the obvious conclusion was, don't expect you can do a large nuclear first-strike safely, regardless how the research comes out. J Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03201350482758221085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-53124849829554958442019-08-09T17:53:43.042-07:002019-08-09T17:53:43.042-07:00I'm all in favor of generous funding of sober ...I'm all in favor of generous funding of sober investigations of "impudently dissenting" science.<br /><br />We're moving onward, now. But I do ask at least some of you to consider whether you'd find it fun/worthwhile to help compile a quick collection of my very best blogs around the topic of JUDO POLEMICS. Suggest potential tables of contents and existing blogs and postings that might fill in each slot?<br /><br />But take your time. Post your suggestiong under whatever blog is most current... but NOT the first day it is published! We want comments the first day or two to be about that particular blog's topic.<br /><br />Thanks all.<br /><br />onward<br /><br />onward.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-67620873243085823402019-08-09T17:48:54.359-07:002019-08-09T17:48:54.359-07:00I should add that "net-zero" voting is a...I should add that "net-zero" voting is a bad name to use for the system that I proposed. Calling it something like an "upvote/downvote" system would make it more understandable (and in accord with the way that a lot of "voting" is already done on things like YouTube videos and some internet forum comments). Jerry Emanuelsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14401970213448886158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-92007315536958708732019-08-09T17:19:08.200-07:002019-08-09T17:19:08.200-07:00Duncan,
I agree about comparing to volcanoes... w...Duncan,<br /><br />I agree about comparing to volcanoes... with one careful exception involving catalysts. If a rocket has an exhaust component that catalyzes interesting chemistry, I'd side with people who want careful studies. If not, I'd invite them to study us as we punch holes in the sky.<br /><br />I seriously doubt soot from kerosene/LOX engines does much of anything up there except what our other particulates do in shading the ground a bit.<br /><br /><br /><br />One thing I'd add about the science, though, is there is a lot of basic work to be done about the upper atmosphere. We could study rocket plumes and not have enough of a baseline to compare against because the basic science needs to get done. I'd support spending money doing that science, but not as an environmental concern over kerosene/LOX engines.Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-53199209483417466002019-08-09T17:04:00.077-07:002019-08-09T17:04:00.077-07:00Some election officials would initially object to ...Some election officials would initially object to "net-zero" voting on the grounds that it would make the ballots and election results too complicated, but that is simply not the case. <br /><br />There would be one section of the ballot for (for example) candidates A, B, C and D. This would immediately be followed by the next section of negative votes listed as ANTI-A, ANTI-B, ANTI-C and ANTI-D. (The "ANTI" must always be in all upper-case bold letters on the ballot.)<br /><br />The election officials would only have to count the positive votes (as they do now), then total up the negative votes for each candidate. The final step in calculating the election results is a matter of simple subtraction. If election officials and their computers cannot do elementary school subtraction, they should not be in that job.<br /><br />Net-zero voting would also be easier for the voters because (unlike today's system), the ballot choices would be laid out more closely to the way they actually think. If they weren't sure who they actually preferred, but knew who they were strongly against, they could just vote against the hated candidate. <br /><br />Once the voter registers the negative vote, the candidate that the voter is actually for may more clearly come into focus for the voter. If not, the positive vote could just be left blank in that particular case.<br /><br />Unlike other alternatives, net-zero voting could be very quickly adapted because it matches what most voters already want, and how they actually think.<br /><br />The only thing that complicates this system is the particular election contests where no candidate gets a positive number of votes. The extra complication of needing a rapid follow-up election is more than worth the added trouble and expense. <b>We had better stop putting candidates in office that, on average, people do not want, and candidates for whom a net number of voters actively object to having in office.</b><br />Jerry Emanuelsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14401970213448886158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-72377522930270298522019-08-09T16:20:33.892-07:002019-08-09T16:20:33.892-07:00When we are talking about space launches we should...When we are talking about space launches we should compare them to natural events<br /><br />I'm thinking volcanoes<br />Mount Pinatubo in 1991 - 20 Million tons of Sulphur dioxide - 5 cubic kilometers of dust <br /><br />duncan cairncrosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14153725128216947145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-44510057095753471682019-08-09T16:20:14.554-07:002019-08-09T16:20:14.554-07:00Alfred, good thoughts. And Jerry's summer dayd...Alfred, good thoughts. And Jerry's summer daydream sounds pretty solid... it's basically a version of RCV that's less flexible but easier to understand.<br /><br />The aim of this compilation of blogs would be to get it out before the end of the year.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-3002130462405606612019-08-09T16:17:29.095-07:002019-08-09T16:17:29.095-07:00LH. The Ayn Rand take down is here:
http://www.dav...LH. The Ayn Rand take down is here:<br />http://www.davidbrin.com/nonfiction/aynrand.html<br /><br />Oh, I'd link to it in my section about libertarians. But I don't think it's apopos as a chapter in that book.<br /><br />Jt is welcome here. He seems naive and historically ill-informed... but flexible and able to adjust to a shifting argument based on evidence. I have a lot of confidence in this young feller.<br /><br />And good point. If the GOP is crushed and incinderated and the dems do all 29 of my "consensus goals"... and then some... one potentiality would be for the DP to schism. And with all growth potential on the right... from GOP refugees... it does make sense that that wing would be "business oriented." But wanting capitalism to function without cheating has long been a Democratic theme, even in days of AFL-CIO power. That's not different from republican oligarchis by DEGREE. It is different by KIND.<br /><br />Moreover, there are millions who would not feel welcome in the blue dog party. They might become true confederates without masks... or else perhaps the Romney-centered cabal that I am sniffing will burst forth this winter, aiming to pick up the pieces on the right.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-3050411173642547692019-08-09T16:10:48.300-07:002019-08-09T16:10:48.300-07:00Regarding voting systems: I have been in favor of ...Regarding voting systems: I have been in favor of Ranked Choice Voting for as long as I can remember, however I haven't seen it gaining a bit of traction in the United States over the past decades. Most people actually give only a minimal amount of actual thought to their election choices. Ranking candidates is just too much mental work for the vast majority in this country.<br /><br />Instead, we need to look at the thought process behind how people in the United States actually vote.<br /><br />Increasingly over time, the main concern of U.S. voters has been who they are against. The choice on current ballots only allows for a positive vote, but most people choose the candidate most likely to defeat their most-disliked candidate.<br /><br />So let's give everyone one positive vote and one negative vote. The positive vote goes to the candidate that you are voting for, and the negative votes are subtracted from a candidates total positive votes.<br /><br />Voters would always have the option of leaving either the positive vote choice or the negative vote choice blank.<br /><br />It would not be uncommon for some candidates to end up with a net negative number of votes. If no candidate gets a positive number of votes then either a new election would have to be quickly held or (where constitutional) the office would remain vacant until the next scheduled election.<br /><br />If no one gets a positive number of votes for a city council seat, it is often best to leave that seat vacant. In the case of something like U.S. president, we had better have someone in office who receives a positive number of votes, even if it takes several elections, each less than a month apart. <br /><br />Candidates who receive a net negative amount of votes would be ineligible to run again for that same office for that particular term, so political parties would need to have secondary slates of candidates ready to run in cases where no one receives a positive number of votes. (That would also be a beneficial effect of such a system.)<br /><br />Under this "net-zero" system, many elections (especially local ones) would have the winner elected by very narrow margins (like +7 to -2) so this would encourage more people to vote because they would see the results of their individual votes much more clearly.<br />Jerry Emanuelsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14401970213448886158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-80495765977603965942019-08-09T14:34:53.656-07:002019-08-09T14:34:53.656-07:00David,
I'll look at your proposal in more det...David,<br /><br />I'll look at your proposal in more detail this weekend. <br /><br />The first thought that comes to mind, though, is it better be something you can get out the door before the end of the year. I can imagine the book sitting among the 'current affairs' books on the table near the front of my local bookstore, but those things move to the discount rack real quick as the political situation changes.<br /><br />The second is that your citizen action chapter shouldn't be a chapter. It should be a response section to each of the other chapters. Chapter X.a explains some unpleasant thing going on. Chapter X.b explains what citizens can do directly to 'do something about it.' The citizen action section should be short and repetitive. Proxy sponsorship, successful citizen group examples, expectation management, age of amateurs, etc.<br /><br />The third thing involves wasting your time. While I might be interested in what you have to say regarding Libertarians, I doubt it will do you much good to explain it in any detail for the book. You could point out how many have been sucked in by Confederate notions in the Civil War chapter and how some of their factions have lost their way in the parts where you talk about competition and numerous talented participants in the markets, but I doubt we are worth a distinct chapter. Same goes for how group X wages war. Just include your horizons of inclusion descriptions near the immigration discussion and you'll cover that ground.Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-25860583820348951672019-08-09T14:18:27.646-07:002019-08-09T14:18:27.646-07:00J Thomas,
That's an improvement. It's st...J Thomas,<br /><br /><i> That's an improvement. It's still worth careful study to see how much of this we can afford to put into our ionosphere. </i><br /><br />You go right ahead. As the cadence increases, you'll have plenty of data to study.<br /><br />Their engines currently rely on kerosene and LOX, but it is a jet fuel kind of refined kerosene. Doesn't have all the extra crud in it. What comes out the back is carbon dioxide, water, and some soot. We know the basics of what each of those does up there, so I'd have no qualms with supporting many launches. I'd be able to look our grandchildren in the eye and say we took the health of the atmosphere into consideration.<br /><br />Future engines will rely on methane and LOX, but not to reduce the soot content. Their intent is to re-use those engines on Mars. No kerosene is available on Mars, but CO2 and H2O can be found. If they fly the equipment up there, they can convert those to CH4 and O2 and fill local tanks. [ISRU is the way to go.] With that longer range goal, might as well shift engine types on Earth and get engineering practice with them here where it is cheaper to learn.<br /><br />I wouldn't be surprised if they use both types of engines. The lower stage of the new vehicle doesn't go to Mars in their plans. They could keep the cheaper kerosene/LOX tech where they have a lot more experience. We shall see.<br /><br />What's more interesting is what might get flown. The Planetary Society got a light sail in orbit and tested it a few different ways. Why not again to push technology readiness? Why not something else too? Doesn't have to the TPS next time. Why not Joe Citizen? Why not amateur radio relays at L5? Why not amateur astronomy? Amateur weather watches in high orbit? High altitude meteor impact alert systems hanging at L4 and L5? Why not hardware testbeds for certifying rad-hardness of equipment? Both non-profits and for-profits could be interested whether there is money to be made or a public mission to be served. Cheap/Frequent access changes everything.Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-47399722717033493382019-08-09T13:44:39.701-07:002019-08-09T13:44:39.701-07:00'One part a lot like the GOP used to be, and t...'One part a lot like the GOP used to be, and the other full of progressives.'<br /><br />"Used to be... when? Seriously, you live in such a smug, convenient fantasy world, JT. You know nothing whatsoever about history. The roots of "blue dog" democrats do not go to any common heritage with Republicanism... whatsoever."<br /><br />As usual you are jumping to conclusions.<br /><br />I didn't say that the DP Establishment is or was like the GOP used to be.<br /><br />The way I'm imagining it, the GOP falls apart because it can't hold together. And then the DP falls apart because it can't hold together either.<br /><br />And then two fragments of the former DP grow until they are the two parties, because the details of our system result in two main parties. (Duverger's Law, which applies mainly to the USA but which seems to fit very well here.)<br /><br />Then which party do all those XGOPs go to? To the less progressive of the two main parties. Do the factions which currently dominate the GOP dominate that? No, they couldn't hold the GOP together doing that and they couldn't hold an xDP party together either. It would be the more-or-less-sane xGOP guys who hold the balance of power in that group. <br /><br />You're unlikely to get a Progressive revolution without a solid majority of Progressive voters. As long as there are a lot of xGOP voters who haven't changed their opinions much, they will influence the politics. We can hope that they die of old age and don't replace them selves. We can hope that they change their minds. Maybe we can kill them. Possibly there could be an ethnic cleansing or a voluntary migration and they go somewhere else. Without one of those, we are likely to get something kind of like what we have, except the crazy unstable coalition that supports Trump might fall apart.<br /><br />So I doubt we could wind up with two "good" major parties. But this is just opinion. Nobody really knows what the future will bring.<br /><br />In 2000 I thought I had a pretty good idea where we were heading. I did not predict 9/11, and it changed a whole lot very fast. Maybe something else I don't predict will change a whole lot very fast. J Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03201350482758221085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-76982334883559433892019-08-09T13:40:27.096-07:002019-08-09T13:40:27.096-07:00Scientology is solution for everything. Dr. Brin i...Scientology is solution for everything. Dr. Brin is scientist so he knows the prophet (peace be upon him). You can make me, Samira, queen of country. This is because I much intelligent and very beautiful.Samirasun0808https://www.blogger.com/profile/14929971423994780669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-8480294038066993382019-08-09T13:36:05.379-07:002019-08-09T13:36:05.379-07:00@Dr Brin,
It does sound worthwhile, and I don'...@Dr Brin,<br /><br />It does sound worthwhile, and I don't mind slogging through some of the archives. I've even done so for fun a few times.<br /><br />I will remind you that the format doesn't make it easy to search for particular topics without already remembering when they were posted. I know you did a big Ayn Rand/libertarian column in November 2011, but I'm not going to remember anything else that specifically.Larry Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01058877428309776731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-40480172297309311312019-08-09T13:23:19.045-07:002019-08-09T13:23:19.045-07:00AGAIN, MY PRINCIPAL GOAL IN THE REMAINDER OF THIS ...AGAIN, MY PRINCIPAL GOAL IN THE REMAINDER OF THIS THREAD IS FOR SOME OF YOU TO READ MY PROPOSAL -- two comments up from here -- and ponder whether the project seems worthwhile and worth some of you helping.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-43682202799270004712019-08-09T13:21:26.382-07:002019-08-09T13:21:26.382-07:00"One part a lot like the GOP used to be, and ..."One part a lot like the GOP used to be, and the other full of progressives."<br /><br />Used to be... when? Seriously, you live in such a smug, convenient fantasy world, JT. You know nothing whatsoever about history. The roots of "blue dog" democrats do not go to any common heritage with Republicanism... whatsoever. They go down to the AFL-CIO, Which was the most dedicated anti-communist force in American life. And yes, cultural rifts opened between what we now call "progressives" and the old school union guys. But find for me RIGHT NOW ANY(!) blue dog democrat who wants to - say - put social security in the stock market... a primary-central goal of the GOP until they gave up on it, a few years ago. <br /><br />Big money wanted that, all right... and not... one... single... democrat did, despite the blandishments of Wall Street firms.<br /><br />You toss out these fantasies of yours as if they are rooted in anything other than a smugness and sanctimony that you ought to be able to outgrow, as you learn actual, actual history and facts. If you are willing. Right now, you are wandering around in a fog.<br />David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-29251620611778882019-08-09T13:16:35.128-07:002019-08-09T13:16:35.128-07:00J Thomas said...
"We've had close to 50 y...J Thomas said...<br /><i>"We've had close to 50 years of shaming racists for being racists, and that's probably worked a bit better than we can expect it to work in the future.<br /><br />Republicans have tried to shame poor people for being poor, and I doubt that will work as well in the future as it has in the past either."</i><br /><br />There is a crucial distinction between these two examples.<br /><br />Another related distinction regarding shaming, it's one thing to say something to or about someone else criticizing something about them that is beyond their control or something that was imposed on them, with the explicit intent to shame them. It is something very different to say something to or about someone that happens to be accurate and pertinent criticism about something that they are free to choose to do or not do, to be or not be, and which just also happens to shame them. To simplify it, if you are a racist shit and someone points that out in the context that your racist tendencies led you to vote for another racist shit for high office, that claim is accurate and pertinent. I hope to hell it does shame you but that's not necessarily the primary purpose of pointing it out.<br /><br />Arguments along the lines of I shouldn't call a racist a racist because I might shame them which might lead them to do something I won't like are nuts and don't deserve any respect.Darrell Ehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14054311762477388637noreply@blogger.com