US and NA Politics (General)

[Emblematic Wolfblade]

Jul 22, 2019 20:17:57 GMT -5 whemblycthulhu said:

Jul 22, 2019 20:07:58 GMT -5 Emblematic Wolfblade said:

You are DEEP in that delusion aren't you?

Stop lying and gaslighting everyone.  You had no intention of engaging... just admit that you wanted to troll me.

No, I actually wanted you to confront your bullshit, which you refused to do. You just handwaved everything I pointed out (including lies, goalpost moving, and admitting to refusing to read sources) as "a difference in opinions."

Fuck off with that.

[whemblycthulhu]

Jul 22, 2019 20:07:58 GMT -5 semipotentwalrus said:

Whembly, please explain to me how you reconcile the idea that the left is the political side that is overly emotional with the argument that it is impossible to make an argument about something that you have not experienced yourself. The only way to reconcile those two statements that I can see is if you claimed you were left-wing yourself.

I'm not tracking you here.

Science makes theory about things the scientists haven't experienced all the time, by the way. That you think it impossible is not exactly supporting your position of the political right caring about facts.

Right. In political science, do you also discuss human nature and psychology?

Just because *you* have a system of governance with a taxation structure to support it that offers goodies to its citizens doesn't mean that such system is easily applied to a different group of people in a different regions.

We're not cogs that can fit in your political science widgets.

[whemblycthulhu]

Jul 22, 2019 20:20:23 GMT -5 Emblematic Wolfblade said:

Jul 22, 2019 20:17:57 GMT -5 whemblycthulhu said:

Stop lying and gaslighting everyone.  You had no intention of engaging... just admit that you wanted to troll me.

No, I actually wanted you to confront your bullshit, which you refused to do. You just handwaved everything I pointed out (including lies, goalpost moving, and admitting to refusing to read sources) as "a difference in opinions."

Fuck off with that.

I did no such thing.

You handwaved my responses and resorted to things like "but her emails!" and such without engaging.  It became apparent that you were only interested in trolling me.  Fuck that.

You are a fucking coward.

[dusa]

[whemblycthulhu]

[semipotentwalrus]

You said I didn't know what it's like in the US because I don't live there, but we make judgments about things we have no personal experience with all the time. You also said, earlier in the thread, that the left is the political side that relies on feelings while the right relies on logic.

These two statements are contradictory unless you were left-wing. The "you don't know anything about what you haven't experienced" is textbook identity politics. Having to rely on your experiences to make an argument about something rather than relying on reasoning is by definition relying on feelings over facts. Which of your two arguments do you consider true?

If applied to abortions, would you consider "you haven't been pregnant, you don't understand the question" to be a valid argument for discarding your arguments?

Actually,let's draw it to an extreme: do you conceded that you don't know what concentration camps are like since you've never been a prisoner of one and that we should therefore let those that have define whether your country's border camps are concentration camps or not?

If not, why can you make an argument about something you have no experience of while rejecting my arguments because you think I have no personal experience about the thing I argue about?


"Human nature" has been the rallying cry for people wanting to justify pretty much anything since the dawn of time and yes, this is an incredibly well-researched field, albeit with a bunch of disagreement. It's pretty much the basis for all of Foucault's research (such as his "History of Sexuality" and "History of Madness"). Suffice to say that I am unimpressed by your appeal to human nature as a reason for why universal healthcare or college would not work in the US. I realize this wasn't what you had in mind when you asked whether we study psychology and human nature, but the fact that we actually do (extensively!) study the history of the kind of argument you made is rather telling.

[Emblematic Wolfblade]

Jul 22, 2019 20:27:08 GMT -5 whemblycthulhu said:

Jul 22, 2019 20:20:23 GMT -5 Emblematic Wolfblade said:

No, I actually wanted you to confront your bullshit, which you refused to do. You just handwaved everything I pointed out (including lies, goalpost moving, and admitting to refusing to read sources) as "a difference in opinions."

Fuck off with that.

I handwaved your responses away and resorted to saying things like "but her emails!" and such without engaging.  It became apparent that you were only interested in having a discussion.

I'm a fucking coward.

FTFY

[semipotentwalrus]

Edited in a paragraph on "human nature" in my last post.

[whemblycthulhu]

Jul 22, 2019 20:37:43 GMT -5 semipotentwalrus said:

You said I didn't know what it's like in the US because I don't live there,

Correct. Just like I don't know what its like where you live.

but we make judgments about things we have no personal experience with all the time.

Sure.  But, do you appreciate what it would take for the US to go to a universal healthcare system?  OR free colleges?

You're talking about a massive change in our economy and things like taxation that we've never have done before.

You also said, earlier in the thread, that the left is the political side that relies on feelings while the right relies on logic.

Eh... I'd like to clarify that. I think the left in the US is guilty of that more. Probably because it's a reaction that they don't have as much control of the Federal government as they like. The right isn't immune to this flaw either.

These two statements are contradictory unless you were left-wing. The "you don't know anything about what you haven't experienced" is textbook identity politics. Having to rely on your experiences to make an argument about something rather than relying on reasoning is by definition relying on feelings over facts. Which of your two arguments do you consider true?

But... I wasn't describing identity politics. It has nothing to do with "right-wing" or "left-wing"

What you think works where you live, it's naive to believe that the same template would work elsewhere.  It's the same naivete that got us in that mess of the post-Iraq War, where the neo-con thought by "giving Democracy" to the Iraqi, the situation would take care of itself.  (you can't "give" Democracy to anyone... they have to earn/fight for it).

If applied to abortions, would you consider "you haven't been pregnant, you don't understand the question" to be a valid argument for discarding your arguments?

Sure.  Happens all the time.  Doesn't mean I have to accept it. 

Actually,let's draw it to an extreme: do you conceded that you don't know what concentration camps are like since you've never been a prisoner of one and that we should therefore let those that have define whether your country's border camps are concentration camps or not?

Except, this detainment facilities that you hyperbolically describe as "concentration camps" are the same infrastructures that we have had for several decades. Contextually, using "concentration camps" you are either trying to or inadvertantly implying shades of nazism or Japanese internment camps. It's meant to elicit outrage by overstating it.

For you to say "Trump is putting these people in concentration camps"... you'd have to AGREE that Obama did as well. Just as Bush... Just as Bill Clinton... etc...

But, no, I don't think you're doing that.

So, no, I disagree with the premise of your argument here because you are being disingenuous.

If not, why can you make an argument about something you have no experience of while rejecting my arguments because you think I have no personal experience about the thing I argue about?

I reject it because it's not a plan.

You can't just say:
-lets raise taxes similar to our European breathan and then...
-lets have Medicare-for-all single payer and then...
-lets have free colleges and then...

That's not a fucking plan and totally ignores the realities involved.

"Human nature" has been the rallying cry for people wanting to justify pretty much anything since the dawn of time and yes, this is an incredibly well-researched field, albeit with a bunch of disagreement. It's pretty much the basis for all of Foucault's research (such as his "History of Sexuality" and "History of Madness"). Suffice to say that I am unimpressed by your appeal to human nature as a reason for why universal healthcare or college would not work in the US. I realize this wasn't what you had in mind when you asked whether we study psychology and human nature, but the fact that we actually do (extensively!) study the history of the kind of argument you made is rather telling.

Very well. Look, I know I'm outclassed by you as Polisci is your given profession.

Here's the thing wally.

We're a nation of 350,000,000 people and growing.

What's the size if your nation?

Then think about this. Given the size of California and New York (some other states tried too, but let's stick to these two), there were recent push to expand Medicaid (or state sponsored single payor system) to everyone.

Why hasn't it passed? What is it stopping them? Both states have the extremely liberal/socialist leaders, with enormous tax-base and still failed to pass universal healthcare.  The federal government won't stop them.

Why?

What makes you think, nationally, it's ever going to be popular enough to pass federally?

Try to be pragmatic here.

Here's why:  The sheer size of the US matters a lot. As well as we are a lot more "diverse" naturally than other countries since we are all at one point or another immigrants with probably one of THE most generous immigration policies. We also have extremely diverse industries across the nation competing for various influence.  One of our biggest issues as a country as far as I am concerned is we really don't much like each other and certainly don't spend much time trying to. See me and wolfie   Also add an unhealthy amount of distrust to the government and you can see why we have a hard time getting things done nationally.

The solution? Preach federalism. Get back to advocating states rights.

Devolve as much as you feasibly can back to the states and let the people there choose what kind of states they want it to be.

Let California be California. Let them figure out how to pay for universal health care and free college education. Let Texas be Texas.  If Alabama wants to ban all abortions, let them.

Then, the citizens will either vote with their feet to find a state that aligns with the world view, or work with the political environments within their state to affect change.

It'd be a lot easier to do that, than it is to either leave the country or to have national political parties pushing their agendas.

[whemblycthulhu]

Jul 22, 2019 20:41:29 GMT -5 Emblematic Wolfblade said:

Jul 22, 2019 20:27:08 GMT -5 whemblycthulhu said:

I handwaved your responses away and resorted to saying things like "but her emails!" and such without engaging.  It became apparent that you were only interested in having a discussion.

I'm a fucking coward.

FTFY

[A Town Called Malus]

I would argue that the fact that so much of the world doesn't saddle its population with crippling personal debt in order to access medical services, even developing and third world countries, is more a testament to the true human nature of co-operation, empathy and compassion than the twisted corporate oligarchy of the USA.

Arguing human nature doesn't work when such a large percentage of humanity is doing the thing you are arguing is against human nature.

[Least censored on the planet!]

So, the British seized an Iranian tanker full of oil, the Iranian responded in kind. They also arrested a franco-iranian scholar, likely as a bargaining chip. The conflict strategy pushed by the US is at full swing and damn the collateral damage. I hope the US lose a lot out of it.

[semipotentwalrus]

Canada makes free health care (used as a shorthand for what we're discussing) work despite facing geographical challenges similar to the US, as does Australia.

The EU has 508 million inhabitants and yet its member states, in a manner of speaking analogous to your states, have no issues fixing free healthcare despite there in some cases being a millennium of on-and-off warfare between some of them. The cultural differences between, say, France and Poland are every bit as big as the internal ones in the US, but that doesn't stop the French or the Poles. Last year Sweden had wildfires half the size of those in California in a country with nowhere near California's population or economy; Poland sent over a hundred fire engines to help us out despite our current government and Poland's government sniping at each other politically every now and then.

This leaves the argument about the US not being ready, which is in my opinion the strongest of the objections you raised. You're right in the claim that it's very difficult to get a country to accept changes on such a scale, but I'd like to make two counter-rebuttals:

1: Iraq. The crucial difference between Iraq and our hypothetical US is that in Iraq an outsider came in, bombed the country, put people in torture-jails and generally fucked the country up for what would turn out to be phony reasons. In our hypothetical US there would already have to be internal support for something like free health care to pass (although if it passed due to Gerrymandering or some similar gaming of the system rather than through genuine support I agree it'd have to, as they say, "get bent"). You're not going to have the US Air Force go Shock and Awe in downtown Dallas followed by shipping people off to Guantanamo or a local equivalent of Abu Ghraib.

2: Cultural reluctance. I'll start this one off with a brief example from Swedish history. In 1979 Sweden banned corporeal punishment against children, and when I say ban I mean it: no exceptions for anyone, anywhere. At the time this decision wasn't very popular and people grumbled about it, but 40 years later it's an integral part of Swedish identity, to the part where we (including yours truly) have a tendency to snobbishly look down on nations were corporeal punishment against children is legal. The point is, "culture" is not set in stone; it changes along with people over time. When combined with the point made above that any change like this would be internal, there would be far greater support for such a reform than the corporeal punishment ban in Sweden, and that worked out well in the long run despite being handed down from on high.

[bobtheinquisitor]

Corporal punishment. Corporeal punishment is punishment that can't float through walls.

[Emblematic Wolfblade]

60% of people in the US believe healthcare coverage is government’s responsibility and (near the bottom for the poll) 70% of americans support Medicare-for-all, aka single payer.

There is no cultural "we don't want this!" except from republicans (the majority of which still want it).