Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Well, the fact that these bills keep getting introduced despite the outcry against them indicates that the industries that promote them believe that eventually they'll erode the public's attention span and get one through. It's disheartening, but at least Clinton has said she won't sign TPP if she gets elected.
I oppose TPP and TTIP not because of the Internet and environmental provisions specifically, but because they are being sold deceptively and would not produce any actual trade benefits; in fact, the provisions to make capital mobility easier are the most troubling from an economic perspective.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"The ostensible reason for keeping TPP under wraps is that it keeps China from opposing it effectively. That strikes me as slightly facile. I have my doubts that either it or TTIP will pass, to be honest.
Capsace, I have to say that the Leave vote somewhat undermines your assertion that people can democratically make smart decisions.
edited 27th Jun '16 1:03:29 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
My argument was in the context of America, and in the context of earlier assertions that many aspects of our system is extremely undemocratic by the standards of our peers (the rest of the first world). Obviously, society is not sufficiently mature for direct democracy to work, but we can and should aspire to eventually achieve a completely pluralistic system.
On an international scale, I'd say that yes, as of the present, there needs to be a limit to how democratic we allow our system to be. That said, in general, much of the "stupidity" of the masses arises from deliberate manipulation of elite interests looking to distract and divide the masses; Trump and Brexit (and fascism in general) are great examples of how that can backfire spectacularly.
edited 27th Jun '16 1:10:59 PM by CaptainCapsase
Aspire, yes, but let us not ignore the fallacies of such systems. That many people believe a thing does not make it true or correct, and the idea that the "man on the street" carries some natural wisdom that is lacking to the rich and/or highly educated is just plain baloney. Jeffersonian democracy got us into our current mess every bit as much as oligarchic capitalism.
Fundamentally, my problem with a lot of the opposition to TPP and TTIP is that they seem cut from the same cloth as the arguments that want to roll back NAFTA and other trade agreements. These are bad arguments: globalization is not inherently harmful, and withdrawing from the global community would not help our economy.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"In defense of the "Energy companies might sue over environmental regulations!" claim, we do have the ongoing lawsuit by Philip Morris against Uruguay for Uruguay's anti-smoking legislation
.
And, as pointed out on last night's episode of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, the top two search terms the day after the Brexit vote were "What does it mean to leave the EU?" (which is fair enough, as even those that voted Remain would be curious as to how much shit they'll be having to wade through in the wake of the Leave vote), and, depressingly, "What is the EU?"
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"Corporations are not inherently evil, you know. Even I wouldn't make that argument. They are self-interested, of course, which means that there must be a counterbalance to their influence; lacking that is what is responsible for many of our current problems with them.
edited 27th Jun '16 1:18:29 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Hardly. Even in a worst-case scenario, these laws can't override Fair Use, which governs much of our content; further, there would have to be a financial motive for a company to issue a takedown order. TV Tropes makes no money and exposes a lot of people to media; it's a win for them.
It's not like we're reproducing content in its entirety here; you can't watch pirated Netflix shows on our site or read entire comic books. There is literally zero threat, and we already actively police infringement claims (usually, when someone plagiarizes Wikipedia or IMDB).
edited 27th Jun '16 1:18:12 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Actually, if I understand it corrently, the last drafts call for a severely restricted "fair use" clause compared to the one on books now (part of the effort to standardize IP law), which wouldn't override the laws in and of themselves, but would prompt lawsuits against the US government that would provide major pressure for US copyright law to be rewritten in line with the TPP's fair use restrictions.
And as far as corporations go (a big part of the economic elite), no, they aren't evil, and neither are any of the other groups of elites. Like all sufficiently large groups of humans however, they tend to act out of bounded rational self interest. Since the masses tend to be less informed, less organized, and possess fewer resources than elite interests, the relationship between the ruling class and the working class is inherently unequal.
edited 27th Jun '16 1:26:25 PM by CaptainCapsase
No, TVT is governed by U.S. law, where applicable. The servers actually live somewhere in California, unless the new owners changed something when I wasn't looking.
Edited to add @Capsase:
Or, as the case may be, a racist orangutan in a suit who's never held political office but is an expert at show business.
edited 27th Jun '16 1:27:46 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
The same TPP/TPIP provisions would encourage other signators of the treaty to modify their own IP laws (and to enforce them!) to be similar if not identical to the standards of the treaty, since companies will be able to sue them if they don't abide by those standards.
I don't disagree with you, and to be honest, I've amended some of my opinions, particularly in terms of timeframes, but I still believe the system that the United States' uses is unnecessarily undemocratic.
Also, even in our modern society, people rarely come to power out of merit, and its even worse in the private sector, with the notable exception of salespeople, whose primary job skill is the same as the skill responsible for the 15% or so of jobs that don't come about via networking.
edited 27th Jun '16 1:32:16 PM by CaptainCapsase
@ Capsase:
Does that apply to a small, privately-owned family business somewhere out Midwest?
It was designed that way — the Founding Fathers didn't trust what they regarded as "Mob Rule".
Keep Rolling OnTo be quite frank, homogenizing international copyright law is a good idea on paper. I don't really like the idea of companies being able to write said laws, and would definitely support changing that provision, but ultimately, we are going to be dragged into global government sooner or later unless we have some kind of large-scale catastrophe first, and that means giving up some sovereignty. Can't be helped. As part of that, we'll have to find compromise between our principles and those of other nations.
edited 27th Jun '16 1:32:45 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
It does apply to family businesses, but the relationship is in most cases far less unequal between such businesses and their employees, and thus the inherent problems are far less apparent. The same is true of the relationship between a citizen and their local government in small towns (versus that same citizen and their head of state), and to some extent between a local sheriff and his constituents (versus Joe Average and a five star general).
edited 27th Jun '16 1:36:39 PM by CaptainCapsase
Hey, lay off the orangutans. They are smart, intilligent and will rip your arms off if you mess with the books.
![]()
![]()
And the older I get the more I suspect they were right with that mistrust.
![]()
Small towns can be among the most autocratic, racist places to live that you've ever heard of, and we spend way too much time glorifying the "small business owner" in this country.
edited 27th Jun '16 1:40:05 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
"in most cases" was my stipulation, and I made no statement about either party's morality; if both the small town citizen and his elected leader are shockingly racist, then the local government reflects the will of the people.
As far as the small business owner goes, I'm not trying to glorify them, just pointing out that the employee-employer relationship between a janitor working at a local deli is much more equal than the relationship between a janitor working at say Goldman Sachs.
edited 27th Jun '16 1:47:03 PM by CaptainCapsase
Which is wrong by general standards, so I'm not sure how that helps make your point. We should let people be stupid because they voted that way? That's a poor argument for democracy. One of the main reasons for our federal system is so that larger (and presumably more rational) governments can override local governments that do dumbass things.
Edit: And yet large companies can provide benefits for their employees that smaller businesses can't afford. My employer offers us retirement savings, very good health insurance with a minimal employee premium, annual merit increases and bonuses, and a wealth of other amenities. Let's see the mom and pop coffee shop do that.
edited 27th Jun '16 1:50:24 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
I wasn't saying that state of affairs was right because I wasn't discussing morality; the entire point was that the relationship between the ruled and the rulers becomes less and less unequal as you progress towards a smaller and smaller scale to the point where the "ruled" will quite frequently turn the tables on their so called ruler when you get down to the level of individuals (which part of how some people come to the conclusion that racism no longer exists in America because they know some extremely successful minorities and haven't personally witnessed any serious examples of racial prejudice), in response to a question about whether the relationship between small business and their workers was exploitative, which it is, though usually not to the extent that big businesses are capable of being if organized labor is not present as a counterbalance.
edited 27th Jun '16 1:54:34 PM by CaptainCapsase

edited 27th Jun '16 12:54:56 PM by CaptainCapsase