1.5M ratings
277k ratings

See, that’s what the app is perfect for.

Sounds perfect Wahhhh, I don’t wanna
argumate
afloweroutofstone

Goldwater’s also somewhere you can look to understand how far right we’ve come. He was considered so extremely, radically conservative in 1964 that his defeat was one of the biggest landslides in American presidential history. Yet, if I remember correctly, in “Conscience Of A Conservative” I think he says something along the lines of “many unions are good and do important work, I’m just opposed to the huge ones and the radical ones.”

When was the last time you remember any Republican saying anything good about any unions? Like, even if he didn’t actually believe that, the fact he even felt the need to make that qualification speaks legions to the power and acceptance of labor unions in America at the time.

discoursedrome

I feel like the loss of the communist bloc as a looming threat went a long way toward radicalizing American capitalism. There was a long period there where communist revolution was understood to be “plan B” for the working public, which meant the powers that be had a strong interest in making plan A look appealing. After the fall of the USSR the capitalist argument drifted toward “you’ll take what you get because you’ve seen the alternative,” and it’s not a coincidence that the upper crust became a lot more extractive over that period.

Of course this is the thing that leftists always complain about – how market socialism was guided by the CIA, how labour reforms were a sop to protect capitalists – and there’s room to criticize, in that the earlier concessions facilitated an exclusionary guildism that maintained the existence of an (especially black) underclass. On the other hand, I do like leverage and I don’t think the loss of it has been good for American workers or for the “first world” generally.

The leftist criticism is that these concessions stole momentum from an unborn revolutionary movement that could have fixed everything if only it had been brought to term, but I have no expectation that it would actually have worked out that way, so I’d be plenty happy to have a movement like that back again even if only for the express purpose of stealing momentum from it.

mitigatedchaos

On the other hand, pressure for automation has pushed the UBI from the fringes to slowly creeping into the mainstream, and with the new President rising on Populism, we may see the emergence of a new equilibrium.

Source: afloweroutofstone politics

People’s Action Party (SG): * wins election with 60% of the vote, down from 70% last time around *

People’s Action Party (SG): This is a rebuke of our governing performance!  We need to reconnect with voters and do more things that people want!

Democratic Party (USA): * loses election by narrow margin *

Democratic Party (USA): We lost because our opponents are racist, sexist, xenophobes!  We need to call them out repeatedly on their lack of virtue!  No mercy and no deals for Fascists!

politics shtpost
argumate
argumate

Mum, Dad, I’m not sexually aroused by Japanimation.

No, it doesn’t do anything for me at all.

Don’t cry, I’m still the child you always knew, I just don’t crank it to cartoons.

I’ll explain to Grandma next time I see her, she’ll understand.

mitigatedchaos

The year is 2078, a group of owls congregate in cyberspace…

Argumate Jr, your mother and I are worried that you’re getting too close with those Normies.

No, your other mother.

That isn’t the point.  These are the kinds of people that want to ban bishounenification surgery.  What if you start kinkshaming?  What if you start bodyshaming?

They tried to ban something as harmless as moe overlays.  Do you really think they’ll treat you like - they are not your friends!  Hey, don’t you -

ARGUMATE JR, YOU GET BACK HERE THIS INSTANT!

shtpost
argumate
argumate

It is vitally necessary to defend him because the attack on communism begins with the argument that communism leads to genocide. Rehabilitating Stalin would very definitely improve the cause of socialism worldwide.

X implies Y is a problem because X is good and Y is bad, therefore X does not imply Y.

mitigatedchaos

It is vitally important to defend Chernobyl because the attack on Nuclear Power begins with the argument that Chernobyl killed people and caused large amounts of radioactive contamination.  Rehabilitating Chernobyl would improve the cause of Nuclear Power worldwide.

I mean, I suppose we could alternatively argue that Chernobyl was managed terribly (which has the advantage of being true), and alternative plants with containment domes and different reactor designs don’t have the same safety record (also true), and commercial nuclear reactors generate utterly enormous amounts of economically-valuable electricity with a long-lasting power source, low area footprint, and low carbon output.  And we could devise and test better methods to make nuclear plants safer.  We might do that.

And if we did that, people wouldn’t find out that we were lying about Chernobyl being this great thing that never hurt anyone who didn’t deserve it, since we didn’t go the route of trying to “rehabilitate Chernobyl”…

Hm…

politics
bambamramfan
blackblocberniebros

Also let’s please not act like minisoc’s antisemitism is in any way unique. Other tankies on here like marxism-leninism-memeism have said worse things, like that Jewish people ought to be thanking Stalin for saving them from the Holocaust.

Let’s eradicate this preposterous notion that you can be a defender of Stalin and not simultaneously be a raging antisemite racist homophobe. There are no non-problematic tankies. If you defend Stalin, you defend ethnic cleansing, the arrest, enslavement, and murder of gay men, antisemitic purges, and a million other atrocities.

Tankies like to pretend that Stalinist mass murders and systems of forced labor camps were substantially different and in no way comparable to the Nazis because the Stalinists at least on the surface espoused the values of internationalism and anti-racism. But in practice the gulags and the purges were systems of racist terror. Hitler killed more people but Stalin sure gave him a run for his money.

ranma-official

I can’t wait for people to performatively denounce the ““““tankies”“““ for five seconds while doing literally zero self-reflection

theaudientvoid

Wasn’t that called McCarthyism?

honeylazors

Stan’s body count is miles higher than Hitler’s last I checked. Unless I’m having a moment of bad memory at 430AM

blackblocberniebros

If you compare intentional murders, Hitler’s is higher. Famine deaths were definitely caused by Stalin’s policies, and the word genocidal certainly qualifies in the case of the Ukrainian famine, but I think it’s not quite the same to say that famine deaths should count equally as people being rounded up and arrested, and then shot or gassed to death or killed from overwork and brutal conditions in a prison camp.

Still though, counting only intentional murders, Stalin’s death toll easily makes it into the 7 figures.

ranma-official

the key difference here imo is that both angles are incorrect: Nazism inherently leads to mass murder as per Generalplan Ost, since the whole plan is to lebensraum new territories and get rid of or enslave the population there, however, communist governments ended up with such an enormous death toll because the countries where communism was enacted were so big. so this implies three things: authoritarianism equals mass murder even if you are the “””good guys”””,  communism doesn’t scale well at all, and “hey you thought my ideology murders the most people in history, whereas it only murdered the second most people in history” does not sound enticing

shieldfoss

I feel like

If you take somebody’s food

That they say they need

And then they starve to death

That’s murder, even if you didn’t believe them when they said they needed the food.

bambamramfan

Yes but if you do that you have to start accounting for capitalism’s death toll too. But no one wants to say it’s the government’s fault that a bunch of people without money starved when the crops failed, that was just like, completely external or something.

mitigatedchaos

It’s one thing to have people suffer in a famine, it’s another thing to cause one that otherwise wouldn’t happen.

Anyhow, suppose there is some baseline level of famine that occurs in any country as a result of environmental conditions, and some minimum number of people who will die from it. Ideologies/economies are judged by how far above that number they come in. Does Capitalism do better on that metric? Does it do better than Feudalism?

But if we’re going for this level of detail, then slow economic growth counts against Communism, too. How many have died because of less wealth for healthcare, or for safety procedures? How many have died due to a slower pace of technological development? How many have died because Communist governments were so bad that they created massive amounts of corruption that persist to this day?

I guess I’m just annoyed with that comic with a Communist sitting on a tiny hill of skulls while a banker stands next to a small mountain of them. Even after you account for, for instance, the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire, which can be attributed to Capitalism, Communism is still going to end up responsible for more net deaths, and yet so many people smart enough to know better want to try it again.

Source: blackblocberniebros politics
bambamramfan
argumate

Anon:

TIL, secondhand, that some people won’t accept the earned income tax credit (a US federal tax credit for people with low/moderate income, especially ones with kids. As income increases the credit amount increases, then flattens, then decreases) because they think it’s “welfare” or “political control of their lives”, or that it’s somehow wrong to accept help from anyone other than family or church. What can you even do. :|

Anyway, I guess the lesson here is it’s only okay to receive government assistance if it’s very heavily disguised as being something else, preferably through an unrelated third party (such as a corporation that’s being “incentivized” to build factories near you or whatever). Sort of like money laundering, in concept.

yes, one of the downsides of basic income that I think about a lot is that it’s going to piss some people off to think of themselves as dependent on others unless they can reframe how they spend their life as providing some vital function that everyone else benefits from.

shieldfoss

Isn’t that rather easily solved by making it something you apply for, and automatically granting it to those who apply?

bambamramfan

My feeling here, as all such similar questions that devolve to “would you tell this to a 55 year old Walmart stocker that (we wont give her free money to live on because her job gives life value)(her job has no value)?” is to ask the people involved. We should like, poll some working class people and ask them which system they’d prefer.

If it’s significantly split, well you’re fucked no matter which policy you go with. But you know, you asked, rather than played some thought experiment about What The Middle America In My Head Wants.”

(Not faulting anyone in this thread for this, just, the dynamic shows up in way too many discussions about UBI)

balioc

Unfortunately, I think your proposed (reasonable, common-sense) approach fails on basic predictable human-psychology grounds.  In this case, anyway, and cases like it.

Like…I’m pretty sure we know what most people’s first-best choice here is.  “I want a job that rewards me both with a substantial wage and a substantial status boost, in which I provide a needed good or service to the world, demonstrating that I am a worthy worthwhile person deserving of pride and also that I am better than all those lazy unskilled slobs who might have some use for welfare.”  We could run a poll to see whether that’s actually the outcome that people would prefer, if you believe it valuable, but I’m really quite confident in it.  It is the ideal promulgated by pretty much every facet of American culture, and if it’s not your first-best choice, it means that you’re some kind of weirdo who’s broken away from your cultural training. 

But of course that doesn’t get you very far, because that option is Definitely Not Available for many many many people.  The real choice is often between, say, Welfare or Subsidized Makework Job or Poverty.  (Or something like that.)  That’s the polling data you actually want.

Except that…

A. It is really hard to get people to believe that their first-best choice (to which they feel entitled) is unavailable and that they have to consider second-best options.  If it is at all possible for them, they will find a way to delude themselves into believing that one of the proffered options will lead to the thing they actually want.

B. It is really really hard to get people to believe this when “your first-best choice is unavailable” continues into “…because you have no presently-desirable skills and the free market has no use for you as anything more than a warm body.” 

C. It’s especially really really hard to get people to believe this when you have malicious actors actively lying to them about it.  And make no mistake, that is a thing that is happening, and will continue to happen.  Someone is going to be pushing the line that the Republicans are pushing right now: “as soon as we gut the welfare state and free the market, all those Real Jobs that gave you Real Dignity will come roaring back!” 

I am strongly of the belief that there are many people for whom decent welfare would be much better than any job they could ever get (or at least “extremely desirable as a supplement to wages”), but who will never ever admit this even to themselves, because they are strongly invested in not being the sort of losers who would need to think that way. 

In short: poll all you want, but good luck getting people to face up squarely to the question long enough to give you a genuine answer. 

mitigatedchaos

While hourly direct-to-employee wage subsidies would still have some of these marketing problems, the massive cuts to the minimum wage (with no loss in living standards) they would allow one to make can at least create lots and lots of jobs that don’t look entirely makework since someone in the economy is at least willing to pay some amount for them.  

One side effect is that it could make a lot of people feel more in demand, since there would be so many job offers going unfilled.

Source: argumate politics
roguetelemetry

LOL NAZIS

roguetelemetry

blackflagcapitalist

“That’s funny.  Your side are the ones covering their faces as they stifle free speech, destroy property, and attack innocent civilians.  Maybe, just maybe, you guys are the bad ones…”

OR… WAIT FOR IT… YOU’RE A FUCKING NAZI THAT WANTS ALL OF AMERICA’S RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS FOR YOURSELF BUT NOT FOR OTHERS <insert race that isn’t white trash here>

So #1 Go Fuck Yourself  and #2 Go Get Me a Sandwich Bitch 

mitigatedchaos

It’s all fun & Nazi punching until you pepper-spray a woman wearing a “Make Bitcoin Great Again” hat and attack an immigrant in a business suit.  (That actually happened, by the way.)

Because when you encourage “punching Nazis”, that’s what actually happens, because lots of people love punching more than they care about figuring out whether who they are punching is an actual Nazi.

You could have had Nazi punching if the Nazi punchers were the kind of person that didn’t support punching Nazis, since they tend to do a better job figuring out who is and isn’t a Nazi.

But now people that aren’t Nazis have to defend the physical security of Nazis because Tumblr thinks the proper answer to “but what if I thought I was punching a Nazi but it was just a white guy with a shtty haircut” is “run” and not “don’t be a dumbfk that punches people without checking whether they’re actual Nazis first”.

That doesn’t even get into what happened with the actual Nazis and street violence (it didn’t stop them), or the threat level they represent right now (fairly low), or whether they can be won over by other means (one black man got some huge number of dudes to quit the KKK by befriending them), or ideological consistency (you also have to punch Tankies), or whether there will be retaliatory violence (oh Nazis would love that) or whom that retaliatory violence would fall on (hint: usually people more marginalized and vulnerable than the punchers).

politics violence
bambamramfan
bambamramfan

While I don’t agree with much of it, it occurred to me that anyone engaging in these debates about “what the Democratic party should focus on” and ideology in general, should at least be familiar with this post from David Chapman.

mitigatedchaos

Haha, fun read.  It occurs to me that in some worldbuilding I’ve been doing, I already split the cultural functions of government off from the boring policy functions, divided between royalty made of formally-recognized national heroes and a subtly, quietly terrifying postcyberpunk state bureaucracy that had what we would think of as prediction markets in the 1980s, and is now using what comes beyond that.