Lord Ratner

Add to that stopping illegal immigration and late term abortions. You are citing selective polls. The Medicare/Medicare poll results flip once the cost is added to the question. It's like asking "who wants to be an astronaut" vs "who is willing to do what it takes to become an astronaut." Minimum wage is a combination of not understanding economics, employment, or the reality of who makes minimum wage. But that's another topic.

The free market does not mean the stock market. One of the ugliest manifestations of crony capitalism, supported by both Democrats and Republicans, is to favor any policy or legislation that directly supports the prices in the stock market.

What a cool conversation. I wanna thank the black guy for participating. Really adds a lot. I think the biggest part missed is that racism is human nature. If you disagree, you probably haven't spent much time in other parts of the world. It's *everywhere.* Like so many other negative elements of human nature it takes tremendous effort to overcome. We're doing that, and in fact is working. America is, systemically, no longer racist. There are no laws, organizations, or functions that discriminate based solely on skin color. But like all major societal changes, the time required to get from point A to point B isn't measured in days, months, or years, it's measured in generations. And for better or worse, we probably need one or two more generations to die off before we truly get there. But step one is to fix the system, which we largely have. There's no justice for the past. The racists and their racist acts will not be avenged, they will fade into the past. I think that's why we have such incendiary rhetoric about the evils of modern America from the experienced activists. They *know* that America has gotten better, but they're worried that if they admit it, everyone will nod approvingly and move on, without holding the perpetrators to account. They want justice for what was done to them and their families, and it's getting between them and the mission. Understandable. My fear is that the intentional misrepresentation of the systemic reality by motivated activists in America will disenfranchise the youngest generation of white kids who have no experience or attachment to the racist past. They look at their lives and experiences and see nothing like what the older generation screams about. They look around and say "what else can I do?" And it's never enough. We have to remain vigilant in keeping racism at bay, but we also need to be patient and allow the species to evolve in thinking. It's not fair, it's just life. Until then, shame the racists into oblivion, and let their kids inherit a better country.

It's not absurd at all. The only evidence that exists is that our system overwhelmingly produces results, and the other systems don't. Claiming that we will somehow socialize medicine *and* remain the development powerhouse that we are is nothing more than a proclamation of faith. Besides, the "better outcomes" argument is a tired, shallow analysis of the medical landscape in the US. https://www.forbes.com/sites/physiciansfoundation/2018/04/09/u-s-health-outcomes-compared-to-other-countries-are-misleading/#349bc17d1232 It's not a complicated concept, and the experiment has been run dozens of times. Our system produces a level of wealth that creates billionaires on one hand, while flooding the rest of the planet, and especially the poor and destitute, with quality of life they otherwise wouldn't have on the other. The European countries that are pointed to as examples to follow became so precisely because they moved in our direction, *especially* the Nordic countries. The rest, such as the UK, have a system that most Americans would recoil from, especially the middle class, as soon as they found out how difficult it is to get "elective" surgeries done. And unsurprisingly, the well-off in the UK pay extra for insurance that gets them better care. So less innovation and development, but the rich still pull ahead. We have the same goals. Provide better care for everyone. But your way leverages the future to pay for the present, and that is the definition of a bad trade off.

It's not an "if." We have plenty of countries with what you seek. The US has better medicine, better research, and better outcomes. It's not like you're suggesting something new with a "what if it works better" as incentive. The left is pushing for what much of the world has already tried, and we know the trade-off. So, as I said, is it worth a 50 year delay to curing cancer? For the whole planet?...

The ultimate and foundational failing in modern progressive thought. Fixing today's problems without considering tomorrow. I have never gotten a decent answer to this paradox, because most have never considered it. If providing universal health coverage guarantees that the cure for cancer is delayed 50 years, is it worth it? 25 years? 10? It is indisputable that there will be a delay, yet most won't even grant that. The world's poor are *dramatically* better off due to the output of the United States over the past 100 years, and the output disparity between the US (fierce capitalism), Europe (blended capitalism), and the communist countries is a pretty clear demonstration of what we sacrifice with these changes.

And the only reason it all works is the capitalist piggy bank keeps it running. The military is a necessary compromise, but it is also all the evidence you need to prove socialism isn't effective on a broader level.

Neat. More strawman arguments. I don't think a single person in this thread has made such simplified arguments, but your inability to interpret nuance explains your comically shallow responses. I'd like to push back against calling FLEA a troll. He's engaging in a good faith debate, and what he's saying is subscribed to by many people in academia, politics, and they media. If he believes it, I think he's dead wrong, but not disingenuous.

Another redefinition. Just keep confusing language until debate is no longer possible. You are using definitions for terms that were created after the fact. Academic gobbledegook that covers for the fact that the argument on its face is absurd. The few kings of the world, who had it better than 99.999% of the remaining men on the planet, were matched by queens who had it 99.999% better than the very same peasant males. To imply that peasant women had a better than peasant men is to ignore history. It sucked, a lot, for everyone. But women largely avoided the horrors of war and industrial labor, whereas men were disposable throughout those periods. Redefining evolutionary gender roles as the patriarchy does not make modern society a patriarchy. And you don't have to redefine reality to justify trying to make things better than they were yesterday. Redefining reality to create villains to further justify the agenda is immoral and counter productive. That is not directed at you specifically, btw.

You don't think there's an agenda? BLM has a website. Their agenda is spelled out. I think you're presenting a very inaccurate portrayal of the conversation. One side is repeatedly and now violently lying about the realities of crime and policing in America. When the other side tries to discuss these statistics, it turns out you're a racist for saying so. I'm not ascribing these tactics to you, but considering federal politicians are actively making this argument and Pulitzer winning media figures are repeating it, I don't think I'm mischaracterizing the movement. This stuff is not haphazard. When you control the language you control it all. They know that even if you don't.

The obvious response is that if we change racism to encompass the arguments put forth today, then racism isn't that big of a deal anymore. Certainly not when compared to what it used to mean. You're being either ignorant or unfathomably generous if you don't believe they are repurposing the word "racism" in the hopes it will impart the deep emotional response to a vastly different and less urgent phenomenon. Same argument has been made with "gender." Same silliness.

This is generally my most reliable indicator that a movement lacks a foundation in reality. If you have to redefine (verbal appropriation?) the language to make your point, you probably don't have one. It does not seem coincidental that the people trying to change what words mean are the same ones equating speech with violence. The first amendment is the most powerful tool in the world for discovering truth. I do not trust those that seek to restrict it.

2. Pop sociology is a good term. A huge amount of the scholarly output from sociology departments in the last 20 years is unsupported. Pull up some of the papers on Critical Race Theory, and the only thing they cite (if anything at all) are other papers on CRT. It's just a big loop of non-support. 1. https://www.thejournal.ie/gender-equality-countries-stem-girls-3848156-Feb2018/ 3. Absolutely a discomfort. A noble and morally necessary discomfort. That doesn't change the timeline. It's like a G-ex. Pull too hard and the plane stalls. Keep the stick in your lap forever and the plane falls out of the sky. Some of the framers wanted to abolish slavery, but they recognized that the time wasn't right. So they did what they could, and established the new country on the philosophical basis that would eventually be used by Lincoln. You don't have to like it, I don't, but things take time. One of the biggest pushes for gay rights in the US was Will and Grace, not protesting. That doesn't mean you don't protest, but the "how" matters just as much as the "why." Dr. King and Malcom X disagreed vehemently on the "how," where X thought King's strategy was too gentle, too slow. But it worked, eventually. Further, King didn't rely on statistical misrepresentation to make his point. The BLM movement does. That matters, because when you hit someone in the face over and over with evidence of injustice, don't give them a reason to ignore your message. Misrepresenting crime and policing statistics does just that. 4. It's nothing cosmic, nor deeply philosophical. How do people think? Confirmation bias, group think, rationalization, confabulation, etc. How do they act? What do they do? As an example, people like to have stuff. They just do. Cars, TVs, jewellery, golf clubs, you know, stuff. Any culture, any era. Give them the chance to get more stuff, and they'll work surprisingly hard. So hard that they produce an overflow of wealth that enriches the society. So hard that the economy of a country that recognizes property rights and personal freedom to choose will dominate every other economy on the planet that instead tries to determine what stuff and how much stuff you should have. The brilliance of capitalism is that it accepts human nature and channels it. Racism is an ugly form of a natural phenomenon, grouping. If humans don't group, they die. You can't fix racism without addressing grouping. The American dream is a set of ideals that do not exclude anyone based on unchangeable characteristics. You don't get rid of racism, you replace it. "Black people are Americans too." That's a winning message that made a difference. But by its very nature it excludes people who aren't American. That gets into cosmopolitanism, which is another thing all together, but fits into my point that you ignore human nature at your own peril.

I'm not sure I would call it quibbling, but if you consider the entirety of Waco, TX, Lawton, OK, and Oshkosk, WI to be part of the Urbanization we are talking about, then we're having two separate conversations. For multiculturalism, let's go with the Stanford explanation: Multiculturalism First published Fri Sep 24, 2010; substantive revision Fri Aug 12, 2016 The idea of multiculturalism in contemporary political discourse and in political philosophy is about how to understand and respond to the challenges associated with cultural and religious diversity. The term “multicultural” is often used as a descriptive term to characterize the fact of diversity in a society, but in what follows, the focus is on its prescriptive use in the context of Western liberal democratic societies. While the term has come to encompass a variety of prescriptive claims, it is fair to say that proponents of multiculturalism reject the ideal of the “melting pot” in which members of minority groups are expected to assimilate into the dominant culture in favor of an ideal in which members of minority groups can maintain their distinctive collective identities and practices. In the case of immigrants, proponents emphasize that multiculturalism is compatible with, not opposed to, the integration of immigrants into society; multiculturalism policies provide fairer terms of integration for immigrants. As the first American-born child of Cuban immigrants, I'm not completely removed from the concept. Nations (all groups actually) need a shared identity. The neat thing about America was the use of ideals (espoused in the constitution and bill of rights) to generate that identity rather than ethnic origin, skin color, or other immutable characteristics. Freedom of speech. The rule of law. Individualism. Abandoning the melting pot is a threat to shared identity, which seems pretty clear these days. Why reply? For the exact reason I "shit on you" in the first place. You use strawman arguments regularly to support your own position. For example: "and my wife is paid the same as any other person doing her job regardless of gender (general equality). Life is good! If you'd like to live differently feel free" Absolutely no one has argued for women to make less money for the same work. And they don't. But discussing the reasons why only 4% of airline pilots are women is easier when you can just blame discrimination. Mostly though, like you I simply enjoy the mental sparring.

I'm not sure. I like that it makes a distinction between Democratic and democratic, but if there's a broader movement behind it I've been unwittingly conscripted. Your definition of multiculturalism is what I would call ethnic diversity. Very different things. And using anecdote to make a point isn't particularly useful. Of course *you* like raising a family in an urban center. You have the resources to choose, and to live in a manner that is better than how the lower class lives. If you didn't like it you would leave, like so many do. But statistically you are in the minority, and that matters for policy decisions. But I agree, there's not much of a point. You have the tendency to mischaracterize opposing views by their most cartoonish representation then act enlightened that you don't agree with what no one said. Like I said, strawman.

1. Absolutely. Urbanization has created high densities of poor (mostly minority) citizens living in the most expensive places in America to live, without the earning capacity to get out. Meanwhile the upper middle class can afford what most people want (human nature) for their families. A house for their kids, a yard to play in, a pool to swim in. So they move out to some suburban paradise (with their tax dollars) and commute to work while the very people meant to benefit from urbanization have to send their kids to terrible schools and rely on ever decaying infrastructure and public services. Equality of outcome for the genders is an obvious one, look no further than the Nordic countries where the world's most gender-equal society has greater occupational disparity between the genders. Turns out women statistically want be be nurses instead of engineers, veterinarians instead of pilots, and teachers instead of welders (human nature). Affirmative action put minority young adults into universities they weren't prepared for, resulting in a higher dropout rate. That doesn't mean you abandon the cause. It means you have to be very, very careful with the policy you develop and willing to abandon it when the results aren't what you hoped for (or after you've succeeded even). 2. We can go with "science" if that suits you. Considering that there is ample research into human nature based on scientifically validated research and data, outside of political theater we actually have a pretty developed sense of how humans work. Now, the wide body of sociology writing that has no cited material, no supporting data, and no basis in reality? That we can and should ignore. 3. Many of the founders were deeply conflicted with the inclusion of slavery. Even the ones who owned slaves did not do so under the guise of human nature. Racism *is* human nature, but it's human nature that impacts the ability of others to be free. Eliminating the manifestations of racism that oppress minorities is a worthy and noble goal, and one that has been largely accomplished in the US. Eliminating racism itself is a much bigger endeavor, and will take generations. Pushing the timeline too hard will inflame the issue and delay eventual progress. 4. Same-sex attraction is an abnormality of evolution, but still a part human nature. One of many. It exists in nature outside of humans, and has existed in humans for as long as we have kept track. More importantly, human nature or not, it does not impact the lives of others, so the government should stay out of it. Interracial marriage isn't even an abnormality, it's a feature. 5. It's hardly foolish and it's supremely relevant. It may be impossible to put the toothpaste back in the tube on existing policy, but a whole lot of dangerous new policy ideas are floating around, and the Democrat party is competing with themselves as to who can endorse the most extreme options. We can and should seek to prevent further damage.

Nonsense. "We" don't know shit. I have virtually no progressive friends who are aware of even the simplest facts surrounding their platform, and hypergamy is blasphemy. Meanwhile the right denies income inequality as a threat because the left mischaracterizes it as "income" inequality when really we may be facing a completely unintentional eugenics program. Both sides have their heads firmly in the sand. Do not mistake your own awareness as common. That aside. I'm not sure what the answer is. The system is *great* for me. My partner is a doctor, and I'm a pilot. We will make a fortune and our children will have amazing opportunity, as long as they don't lose the genetic lottery. To me it's just one more example of a narrowly-focused goal that overwhelmingly disregards human nature. Which one needs to be fixed first? Urbanization? Multiculturalism? Equality of outcome for the genders? Affirmative action? I think we would be just as stupid to assume we can do something to fix all of the problems these programs have caused with another narrowly focused policy. We probably need a broader return to the concept of human nature. This is not a new concept considering the founders crafted our entire system around it. I don't think most people actually want what the modern world is providing in many cases. Suicide rates in the developed world support the idea. Maybe we stop telling people what they *should* want from a young age. Viciously protect and provide opportunities for all kids. Remove any and all government policies or programs that discourage two-parent homes. Stop incentivizing behavior unless the behavior limits someone else's rights and freedom. Overall, stop thinking that you can reengineer the human race quicker than over the course of several generations. Beyond that, 🤷‍♂️. Hopefully a broader conversation on the above rather than sloganeering and sign waving will result in some specific answers.

Strawman. Weak. There is lots of interesting conversation about the after effects of the feminist revolution. That revolution (first and second wave) was necessary and good, but as usual, no one took the time to look ahead. The introduction of women into the workforce at all levels, not just a few select professions, is having profound impacts on social norms far beyond workplace humor and who watches the kids. Again, worth it, but many are pretending like those changes are either fabricated or not nearly as impactful. Specifically to the topic of incoming quality, female professionals are a driving factor in the separation between successful families and unsuccessful families. There's a fantastic podcast on Sam Harris discussing this, and it's something that I've noticed over the past few years. It goes something like this (very short version): Modern income inequality has nothing to do with the historical carries, that is to say family wealth. Now that women are an active force in the workplace, their performance in the business world is something that is now measured, both societally and by themselves. However unlike men, women (statistically) prefer a mate who exceeds their own abilities. There's a lot of debate as to why this is, or if we even have a firm understanding of the cause, but statistically it remains. So that leaves us now with an entirely different dating dynamic, and women who might have partnered with men of a lower income or professional level are now aiming higher (than their new, elevated position in the world). This creates a dynamic where intelligent, driven men are partnering with intelligent, driven women. What do you think the odds are that their children will have the best schools the best resources the best tutoring and overall the best opportunities? This dynamic was made possible by the second order effects of the feminist revolution. Again, for those perpetually seeking something to get upset about, I'm not arguing that the feminist movement was a mistake, but as with all movements the after effects can be just as or even more devastating than the prior condition.

Here's a thread where pilots can solve complex societal issues without contaminating other threads. Consider this a safe space for no one and a trigger warning for all. Mods, feel free to move the cross posting from the WTF thread to here. Or don't, I'm not your mother.

Jesus dude, I would hope if someone treated you like that you'd have some choice words for them too. It was, however, an excellent example of your analytical perspective. As you indicated, we have no basis for discussion.

Well then by all means, what has he said that's so cringy? Include context. Comparing him to AOC is the second silly thing you've said.

So the only thing you've ever watched of his comes from videos made by people who hate him? That's like asking for a fair account of Barak Obama's presidency from Sean Hannity. JLP is one of the most inoffensive intellectuals in modern history. The hate for him is indicative of the mental flimsiness of progressive philosophy. If you're message is garbage, go after the person instead of the point.

This is a massive and important distinction. There *are* racists. Varying degrees of intent and magnitude, but they absolutely exist. The timeline and procedures for eradicating racism (if possible at all) is a long, nuanced conversation. But that doesn't translate into the existence of systemic racism, or a racist America. Or for that matter a racist police force, even though there are definitely racist cops. (Both once were, but no longer are) The statistics don't lie, there is no systemic extermination of black people in America. Even the Washington Post pegs the number of unarmed black men killed in the US in 2019 at nine. Nine out of 30 million is not a result of systemic racism. Why does it matter? Because people react violently and unpredictably to narative lies. We have an insane president because the Democrat party told a story about illegal immigration that just didn't jive with the American people. Despite what the Twitterati and talking heads say, the average American cocks their head to the side when they are told that America in 2020 writ large is a racist nation. Many times this fallacy is exaggerated to the point to say that it's *just as racist* as it was 200 years ago. Really? Why is this narative being pushed? Counter intuitively I think it's because the warriors of the bad old days, the survivors of a time when America *was* systemically racist, see the end of their crusade to change the system, and while they were successful (thank god), there hasn't been any sort of obvious retribution for the perpetrators of hate. This is why reparations are being brought up again. If we can't punish the people who bear the blame, we can at least extract a measure of compensation from the group as a whole. Or riot. Break their stuff. But thats just the way of things. The timeframe for wide scale societal change is measured in generations, not days or months or years. And the previous generation doesn't change so much as get overruled by their progeny. And they don't pay for their sins, they just die eventually, leaving their kids to sort it out. Dr. King understood this: Americans do not believe in the sins of the father. It's the generational version of "one guy shits his pants and we all wear diapers." It's a bad strategy in the military, and it's a bad strategy in social change.

That's not the definition of racism. But yes, the second and third order effects of overwhelmingly-liberal policies are exactly to blame for the disparate outcomes between the races in America. Will they ever see that? Nope. Double down and just keep doing what doesn't work.

Lighten up, Francis.