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
![]()
Let's take my wife's office as a counterpoint to the generosity of my employer (which is not a union shop, by the way). They are ruthlessly exploitative, offering the bare minimum hourly wages they can get away with, constantly finding new ways to reduce benefits such as insurance subsidies and time off, treating employees like high school students who get "unexcused absences" for not giving 24 hours notice for being late, then not bothering to enforce their own rules and fire people who abuse the system, and more. They would rather people who've earned merit increases quit out of frustration at the lack of opportunity for advancement so they can hire new workers at the starting level. To them, turnover is a plus, and the value of service to the end customer is an afterthought.
This sort of business, where the race is to the bottom, is one that could benefit the most starkly from strong federal regulation. Small-town democracy won't cut it.
edited 27th Jun '16 1:59:58 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
And I'm not arguing in favor of small town democracy; I'd dispute the assertion that your example is a counterpoint, since I'm talking about the relative power of the individual worker versus their employer when I'm talking about the equality of the relationship; just as on the macroscale, those with power tend to be as oppressive as their constituents allow them to be; if the entire town decided one day they were sick of the local business's practices, it wouldn't last a single day if it didn't relent.
edited 27th Jun '16 2:04:40 PM by CaptainCapsase
But the small town has no power against Wal-Mart, or my wife's employer for that matter — aside from abandoning the rule of law and burning it down, I suppose. Only a strong federal government can wield enough clout to rein such businesses in.
edited 27th Jun '16 2:05:07 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
You do realize that Wall-Mart is the quintessential example of big business right? I was under the impression we were talking about a locally based small business, which absolutely would go out of business if it refused to change in the face of major opposition to its exploitative practices, and due to the smaller scale, that major opposition could consist of one or two extremely determined individuals.
edited 27th Jun '16 2:09:18 PM by CaptainCapsase
Agreed, but those are small potatoes. I don't really care about them because they don't matter at all on a national scale, never mind a global one. Joe's Diner may be an important part of the social fabric of BFE, but in the big picture it's just a statistic.
edited 27th Jun '16 2:09:32 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
Yes, but to return to the original topic, that's not the point I was trying to make; if there was a point beyond political philosophy, it was that, when you combine a highly organized and well educated workforce with a situation in which the relative power between employer and employee is much less in favor of the employer than is typical, the relationship is far less exploitative.
edited 27th Jun '16 2:13:27 PM by CaptainCapsase
Yeah, but none of the scenarios you've proposed are even remotely related to that ideal, which I absolutely agree with. Like it or not, we need to use the system to fix the system, because as it stands, throwing everyone out and starting over would put those idiot racists from BFE in charge every bit as much as it would put us "smart people". We would probably be outnumbered, in fact.
edited 27th Jun '16 2:17:11 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Once again, that wasn't really my point; this whole line of discussion got rather sidetracked from what it was originally, which was about "free" trade deals. The air quotes comes from the fact that, particularly with the TPP, the lowering or removal of tariffs is accompanied with measures that are blatantly protectionist if you bother to look at the big picture.
edited 27th Jun '16 2:19:12 PM by CaptainCapsase
I'm not contesting that, although I oppose TPP (and TTIP) on slightly different grounds; those being that they are giveaways to companies that want to offshore income for tax purposes. My point is that judging Obama solely on the basis of his support for those agreements is missing all the good things he's done — or that were done on his watch, if you're going to insist on not giving him credit.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"@Fighteer: Saying that the treaty can't be trusted to the voters kind of misses the fact that the US are a democratic republic, and if our leaders start saying "fuck the public, we want this treaty and we know it's good for us," then Donald Trump will be elected on a platform of Amexit.
See, your attitude towards small town Southern democracy is one that most everyone who's not a white racist shares. So you marginalize these folk, and they form their own political movement. And if you try to wrap that movement in a cordon sanitaire...well, how's that working out now?
You either have to suppress and disenfranchise these people or accept that they have a right to a voice. Neither option is appealing, but unfortunately the first is less appealing.
I don't think he was actually saying that about the treaty being negotiated in secret, just that it was the excuse the politicians were giving.
Agree with this, for better or worse. The most you can do is fight them in the court of public opinion. Unfortunately, even that can lead to giving them a persecution complex.
edited 27th Jun '16 2:32:53 PM by Elle
I wouldn't even say that should necessarily be the first resort. I believe there is a quote of Marcus Aurelis on the lower class to the effect of "If you cannot tolerate them, than educate them." People can and have moved past their prejudices, and that's a door that should always be left open. As difficult as it can be to try and engage such people in a polite and empathetic manner, shaming someone is only a tactic that works against people who have already realized they are in the wrong.
edited 27th Jun '16 2:44:51 PM by CaptainCapsase
Those individuals are the trickiest sure, but it's still valuable to try and reach out to such people in my opinion, on the off chance that you can change their mind. Though in the most extreme cases, you'd be better off starting out with trying to impress upon them the value of critical thinking, self reflection, and being open to debate.
edited 27th Jun '16 2:52:27 PM by CaptainCapsase
More to the point, you legitimize the use of the state to crush your political opponents. Pretty soon, you'll see civil rights protesters declared to be Black Power Commie-Nazis.
"Educating the lower classes" is difficult. It is especially difficult in America, where everyone is committed to the idea of meritocracy, which in their minds means their opinion is always somewhat valid, that simple statements like "government knows what is best for you", will lead to you getting the crap kicked out of you. Every government that has attempted to "educate the masses", usually from a position of smug progressive superiority and self congratulation, has been voted out of office, often replaced by one much more right wing. John Quincey Adams gave way to Andrew Jackson because though he was a smart principled man and a modernizer, he was also a puritanical snob. And the American people HATE being told that they are stupid. The same thing happened with his father, with Carter,and the only reason it won't happen with Clinton, at least for now, is because the country is nearly majority minority and Donald Trump is so an idiotic racist.
I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.For a country that so hates being belittled, fiction based on characters being utter morons, sometimes jubilantly so, is surprisingly popular. It seems like recklessness, self-destruction, and inconsiderate selfishness have come to form a celebrated part of the national identity.
If Americans hate being called morons, why do they love South Park, The Simpsons, Family Guy,Futurama, and so on, so dearly?
edited 27th Jun '16 4:51:51 PM by TheHandle
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
You say selfish I say entrepreneurial. You say stupid I say fuck off. That's the American way. And that's what made us the largest economic and Military power on the planet, that and everyone else deciding to blow themselves up in the first half of the 20th century.
Edit: Because they are funny. Americans as a rule don't like to think to much with their TV, if their is a moral or a lesson it is supposed to be stated.
Edit 2: Also everyone of those apart from Family Guy is a bit more than idiot jerks being idiot jerks.
edited 27th Jun '16 4:54:47 PM by JackOLantern1337
I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.![]()
Not necessarily-or rather, the social reasons for it are more complex than "America likes stupid people". In the case of MTV reality shows, it's largely so that we have someone to feel superior to. Many people don't know how to write smart characters that are also funny. It's really only a comedy trope. Usually, people like shows that call everyone but them dumb. Also, I don't think the shows like Family Guy really appeal to die-hard American patriots or people who really like American culture. They appeal to the counter-culture primarily. NOTE: this is not to say liking these shows is un-American.
As said before, it's also a comedy trope for the most part, action and dramas don't tend to have stupid, selfish protagonists per say.
EDIT: Also, in addition, those are all works within exact same genre (cartoons appealing to adults), which tend to take after South Park and share a particular demographic and tone. Also, IIRC the characters in Futurama aren't really dumb (but I don't really watch that show), and the characters you're supposed to like in South Park aren't the dumb ones.
edited 27th Jun '16 4:59:57 PM by Protagonist506
Leviticus 19:34

Also, as much of a reason for a federalized system is so that local governments can actually handle the details of local issues.