Democrats and Republicans both don't care about poor people.

[Macaquerie]

Ah the crux of it.

This was a "technocrats are evil" thread in disguise all along.

Every one of Theodarzna's threads seems built around re-fighting the philosophical debates of the 1700s.

[Theodarzna]

Ah the crux of it.

This was a "technocrats are evil" thread in disguise all along.

Not really no, but the conversation drifted that way, and I mentioned it.

But the core of my statement remains true. One can justify any horrific crimes as being "for the Greater Good."

But more importantly, its easy to sacrifice someone outside your social circle for the greater good, it would be another matter if it was ones own personal sacrifice.

To put it this way, I would be much more convinced by the vision of Globalization and/or Globalism if for example its biggest proponents were personally sacrificing for it. For me the mere presence of "net benefits," is not enough to make such sacrifices acceptable.

I would not for example see it as morally justifiable for say a doctor to murder a drifter with a rare blood type so as to harvest that mans organs to donate to others. I would only see it as a noble act for the greater good if the doctor chose to sacrifice his own life for that purpose.

[PC2]

Theo is the savant of morality experiments?

[Theodarzna]

I believe in starting from the present, rewarding work, studying, productivity.

Edit: Oh you are concerned about authoritarianism apparently.

I am concerned about it to an extent. In this specific context I am concerned about people making sacrifices that cost them nothing to make.

I think those all sound nice but would require one to define productivity, work and studying. Those mean different things to different people.

- - - Updated - - -

Theo is the savant of morality experiments?

I am? Great!

Though sad to see the usual suspects are unable to entertain such a dangerous idea.

[I Push Buttons]

Though sad to see the usual suspects are unable to entertain such a dangerous idea.

Because your argument is absurd and its the same argument almost every single thread you make devolves into.

"AMG Democrats are evil technocrats and must be destroyed! Technocrats are so evillllll! "They would genocide a billion people if it meant saving a billion and one people because utility!" "They are obviously 100% immoral for no reason and based on no evidence other than my saying so!"

[PC2]

I am? Great!

Though sad to see the usual suspects are unable to entertain such a dangerous idea.

I enjoy a good though experiment. Particularly Sam Harris' with 2 initial choices that seem conflicting but only to find out one of them is an ultra low-hanging fruit that drives the other point into a dead end.

[Theodarzna]

Every one of Theodarzna's threads seems built around re-fighting the philosophical debates of the 1700s.

What sort of discussions would you like to have?

- - - Updated - - -

I enjoy a good though experiment. Particularly Sam Harris' with 2 initial choices that seem conflicting but only to find out one of them is an ultra low-hanging fruit that drives the point home to a skeptic.

Sam Harris' is interesting but its been ages since I've looked into his material. I just recall he has gotten into some hot water with the SocJus crowd after he appraised Islam as an ideology.

I think Utilitarianism is fun to go after because Star Trek has made it so popular that its somewhat fun to pick apart, plus its way more widely known than say talking about Sartre or Camus.

- - - Updated - - -

Because your argument is absurd and its the same argument almost every single thread you make devolves into.

"AMG Democrats are evil technocrats and must be destroyed! Technocrats are so evillllll! "They would genocide a billion people if it meant saving a billion and one people because utility!" "They are obviously 100% immoral for no reason and based on no evidence other than my saying so!"

I am actually not stating an original thought when I say "Democrats have a technocratic outlook," in that I am actually quoting the author of Whats the Matter with Kansas and Listen Liberal!

And also I have provided numerous reasons why Technocracy is not what it seems and why Utilitarianism is morally bankrupt. Simply saying "Not its not!" isn't really a response.

[PC2]

What sort of discussions would you like to have?

- - - Updated - - -



Sam Harris' is interesting but its been ages since I've looked into his material. I just recall he has gotten into some hot water with the SocJus crowd after he appraised Islam as an ideology.

I think Utilitarianism is fun to go after because Star Trek has made it so popular that its somewhat fun to pick apart, plus its way more widely known than say talking about Sartre or Camus.

So you go around to Star Trek communities pointing out all their flaws? Moral, techno-causal, flaws? What's your beef?

[Theodarzna]

So you go around to Star Trek communities pointing out all their flaws? Moral, techno-causal, flaws? What's your beef?

No, I just know a few Trekkies in real life and have had party discussions with them about it.

[Wells]

You've advocated for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. When it comes to morality I think you've missed a few key points.

[Elegiac]

And also I have provided numerous reasons why Technocracy is not what it seems

Largely based on bullshit moralising that isn't reflective of how humans actually operate in a social setting.

[Macaquerie]

What sort of discussions would you like to have?

Perhaps ones that are pertinent to the 21st century, rather than the 18th? There is no chance now of the developed world reverting back to the insular, agrarian society that it once was, regardless of how much people love to quote and idolize Jefferson, the Hamiltonian globalist vision won out a long time ago. The only question now is how to reshape that model to better accommodate those on the bottom rungs of the socioeconomic ladder.

[Theodarzna]

Largely based on bullshit moralising that isn't reflective of how humans actually operate in a social setting.

Actually, if you want, I can restate it.

Technocracy is a political ploy used to implement unpopular policies using alleged "skill and knowledge" of a particular person as a justification as opposed to "will of the people" that traditional political activists use to back theirs. Technocrats are usually put in power as a face to a specific policy platform - not as independent experts given political influence to solve a problem the best way possible.

When a technocrat is nominated it means that the special interest backing such person is already winning the political battle. This is born out by history, in which technocrats are rarely ever brought in to harm to the powerful. That means they represent a very clear and specific political interest and very often an already agreed-upon (behind the closed doors) plan of action. Similarly when popular politicians get elected they don't start wondering what to do with the issues facing the country. They were elected on a specific platform already.

When Mario Monti - the so called "independent" technocrat - was put in power in Italy it was because the consensus of the elite was that some control was needed to put Italian economy and budget on a proper (EU/EBC approved) road. When Syriza won in Greece it was because the people knew what they wanted very specifically (their campaign promises and pledges).

The main reason for the lack of popularity of technocrats is that in most cases technocrats are being introduced to maintain status quo which has grown unpopular and faces popular unrest or opposition or to implement unpopular reform which faces the same (for example the economic reform in post-soviet countries in 1989-) I have never heard of a "technocrat" being implemented to radically overhaul the economy or the government in a fashion which was popular. Do you know why? Because the same second they suggest a professional, logical, smart reform that aligns with the views of the majority (or sufficiently large plurality) of voters they are being pained as "populists" while the people defending the status quo are being painted as "technocrats". And it doesn't matter if the "populist" is a dumb farmer or a scientific genius with three doctorates just as it doesn't matter that the "technocrat" made the career thanks to friends and political connections. A technocrat is near universally a defender of both the status quo and powerful interests, not "optimal solutions."

- - - Updated - - -

Perhaps ones that are pertinent to the 21st century, rather than the 18th? There is no chance now of the developed world reverting back to the insular, agrarian society that it once was, regardless of how much people love to quote and idolize Jefferson, the Hamiltonian globalist vision won out a long time ago. The only question now is how to reshape that model to better accommodate those on the bottom rungs of the socioeconomic ladder.

Did I say it will?

And am I now precisely discussion just that in this thread?

Starting with how various people see the world. I.E. What frame do you use to understand the world you see and the people in it.

[Elegiac]

---

So the reason technocrats are 'bad', in your view's is that they are not implementing reform utilising data driven expertise, i.e. not being technocrats.

Remind me how this is even remotely an indictment of technocracy or meritocratic government?

- - - Updated - - -

Did I say it will?

And am I now precisely discussion just that in this thread?

Not really. It just amounts to 'fire is bad, globalisation is scary, and Thomas Edison was a witch'.

[Macaquerie]

Did I say it will?

And am I now precisely discussion just that in this thread?

Starting with how various people see the world. I.E. What frame do you use to understand the world you see and the people in it.

The thing is, people have already moved on from debating utilitarianism - we don't live in isolated little bubbles and just about every action we take negatively impacts others some way or another. Therefore, we ARE constantly choosing to cause harm to others, directly or indirectly, every waking minute of our lives, so the only moral choice is to try and analyze the trade offs and do what is best for the greater good if possible.

[Slybak]

My ideology depends on nothing of the sort, I am not making an ideological or policy statement. I am asking for your thoughts on a group of people. I predicted what they would be and you, Connal and company all proved to be excellent examples of my prediction.

Your prediction is that I think poor whites who vote Republican are too stupid to know whats good for them, and thus deserve nothing but bad things. This prediction was wrong.

Leftists, being human, have a considerable number among their membership who wear their politics as an affectation. Whose commitment to equality is solely predicated on a need to feel superior to others of their cohort. Of the two of us, I'm not the one engaging in this type of behavior.

[Theodarzna]

Your prediction is that I think poor whites who vote Republican are too stupid to know whats good for them, and thus deserve nothing but bad things. This prediction was wrong.

Leftists, being human, have a considerable number among their membership who wear their politics as an affectation. Whose commitment to equality is solely predicated on a need to feel superior to others of their cohort. Of the two of us, I'm not the one engaging in this type of behavior.

You are not? I suppose Connal's decision to post a Bill Mahar video was the kind consideration of a 'totes "nice man," that we should all sing the praises of?

Saying you are not that is one thing, actually proving it is another. Your actions betray what you are claiming about yourself.

- - - Updated - - -

The thing is, people have already moved on from debating utilitarianism - we don't live in isolated little bubbles and just about every action we take negatively impacts others some way or another. Therefore, we ARE constantly choosing to cause harm to others, directly or indirectly, every waking minute of our lives, so the only moral choice is to try and analyze the trade offs and do what is best for the greater good if possible.

Move on? People debate the value of utilitarianism today.

Perhaps you've never gone to school or you've decided your political outlook is just beyond critical examination. OR you've decided that evil is okay when its done by you?

Was my core objection wrong? Or are you just handwaving away to avoid that specific topic? If you, Push, Connal ect didn't want to actually engage in the OP topic or any discussion here perhaps you all should go back to the Megathreads and discuss Hillary Clinton and/or Donald Trump?

- - - Updated - - -

So the reason technocrats are 'bad', in your view's is that they are not implementing reform utilising data driven expertise, i.e. not being technocrats.

Remind me how this is even remotely an indictment of technocracy or meritocratic government?

Not really. It just amounts to 'fire is bad, globalisation is scary, and Thomas Edison was a witch'.

It is an indictment in the same way the historical examples of Fascism and Monarchy can be seen as an indictment. Sure on paper or in the minds of people who imagine THEY will be the technocratic leaders it sounds great, if we just ignore every instance where it is implemented.

[Slybak]

You are not? I suppose Connal's decision to post a Bill Mahar video was the kind consideration of a 'totes "nice man," that we should all sing the praises of?

I'm not responsible for the things that other people post.

You referenced me directly. Provide proof that this is what I believe, or get my name out of your fucking mouth.

[unbound]

In this, Liberals and Lefties ...

This is the primary problem in your understanding of what is going on in the US. The majority of Democrats are not actually Liberals / Lefties. They are actually pretty conservative in general...they just happen to be left of the extreme right position that the majority of Republicans occupy.

From a world perspective, here is how the candidates lined up:



Notice where Clinton sits on the chart? Pretty much the same location as most Democrats. Sanders (actually an Independent that ran as a Democrat, which is part of the reason many Democrats didn't back him) isn't even an extremist Liberal / Leftie...while left-leaning, he is actually much closer to a true moderate than even Clinton. Again, from a neutral / world point of view.

This has been a slow and steady pattern for the past 35 years or so. In the mid 80s, most Democrats were more like Sanders, and most Republicans weren't even as right-leaning as Clinton is today. By the mid 90s, most Democrats were leaning slight left and right of center, while most Republicans were getting closer to where Clinton is today (even Bill Clinton was actually a slight-right leaning politician as President). By the mid 00s, most Democrats were right of center, and most Republicans were where Clinton is today. And now...well, you can see from the image above where we sit today.

So, when you say neither party cares about poor people, you are largely right. But don't confuse Democrats as a whole with Liberals, since that ship sailed several decades ago.

[Theodarzna]

I'm not responsible for the things that other people post.

You referenced me directly. Provide proof that this is what I believe, or get my name out of your fucking mouth.

You have stated repeatedly what your framing is of those people, you've merely refused to critically examine it and how it effects your treatment of such people.

Your framing, it's just a mirror image of the other framing:

-A: how am I supposed to help these people if they don't want to help themselves: they keep trashing their neighborhoods, they keep selling drugs, they keep disrespecting the authority. They're irredeemable thugs.
-B: well, we could start with being less racist
-A: I'm not racist, you're putting words in my mouth.

There's a thousand different iterations on that exchange: feel free to distill it however you want.
How that conversation feels (hurting your head) is exactly how that A person I constructed above felt. They could be some diet bigot or something, or simply a person trying to make sense of an issue while not understanding it fully -perhaps willingly-.
Not understanding the motivations of the rural poor is a fairly common problem among urban dwellers. We're entirely disconnected from their plight; and we like to pretend the façade we paint, the superficial exposition -like that video you posted-, to be the only thing that's going on.
To any outside observer, disconnected with the issue, the Ferguson riots look exactly like your video: a bunch of dumbfucks trashing their own future. Mind you, they were dumbfucks; and they did trash they neighborhoods; but there's an entire backstory to that picture that we could and should explore.

OP's not addressing solutions or policy, but the partisan framing. And both frames are full of it to the brim.

Offering help is one such hideous framing. Bound to disenfranchise them even more. They don't want to be helped, not because they reject help, but because they reject the framing. They reject the implication that they're the exclusive actor in their disgrace.
Charity is condescending as fuck. And it doesn't go down well if not accompanied with a pinch of sugar.
When we "help" the black, the homosexual, the woman, the migrant, etc. we do so because they are us, and we need them as much as the next person. When we "help" the rural poor, we are fixing their wicked ways.

If you're interested in policy, you do well in thinking about the increasing urbanization. But I think you should also stop considering that as something that just so happens; as something in the natural order of things. The increased migration to the cities is something we're actively and consciously pursuing. But cities by themselves are not the solution: it's how exactly we implement them. There are pretty horrible, inhumane, nonfunctional cities all around after all. Cities will need to integrate the rural areas in their planning at the regional level. They need to be constrained to ensure some urban density and avoid sprawl. Interconnecting the rural areas, in green belts, for instance, constrains the city, and has the rural flourish. There's more options, of course; but it'll generally imply structuring different velocities of development: an urban speed, and a rural speed, instead of focusing every resource into urban growth and leaving the rural to perish in a painful future.

- - - Updated - - -

So, when you say neither party cares about poor people, you are largely right. But don't confuse Democrats as a whole with Liberals, since that ship sailed several decades ago.

I am not talking about political parties, just the people who vote for them. I am talking about the activist on the ground, the person watching John Oliver videos or Bill Mahar.

- - - Updated - - -

I think his point is that republican or democrat controlled, shit still the same, you're part of the problem if you only blame one side.

I would say its deeper than that, its akin to what mindset you have going in.

If your attitude towards a people is essentially a colonialist one, that <x> group must be reformed from their wicked wicked ways, then you are already failing.