Trump presidency

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

Chen
Posts: 5577
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Chen » Thu Oct 04, 2018 11:39 am UTC

eran_rathan wrote:I'm down with that, as long as Canada is in charge.


The grass is always greener on the other side. Consider we just had a provincial election where the new majority party got 74 out of 125 seats with ~38% of the popular vote. The new party also vowed to use the Notwithstanding clause in our equivalent bill of rights to push through their religious symbols on public servants ban.

For those who are unaware that clause can be added to a law so that the law is legal, notwithstanding other sections of the bill of rights. So I could make a law saying
“Muslims can no longer be teachers, notwithstanding section 2(a) (Freedom of Religion) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms” and the law would be unchallengeable in court on the basis of violating your freedom of religion. Be careful what you wish for. Can you imagine what the impact of that type of clause would be under Trump?

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10495
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Oct 04, 2018 11:55 am UTC

Grop wrote:
Pfhorrest wrote:I want open borders. I also want generous public services. If every country everywhere had open borders and generous public services those two things could work out great. But if we're the only ones with both of those things, and everywhere else is either the hellscape other people are fleeing from or else closes their doors to those fleeing, then that puts an undue burden on us.


I wouldn't worry too much about the US having more generous public services than their neighbors.


Name one non-Canadian country in the Americas with better public services.

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1841
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: in your ceiling, judging you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby eran_rathan » Thu Oct 04, 2018 12:35 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:
Grop wrote:
Pfhorrest wrote:I want open borders. I also want generous public services. If every country everywhere had open borders and generous public services those two things could work out great. But if we're the only ones with both of those things, and everywhere else is either the hellscape other people are fleeing from or else closes their doors to those fleeing, then that puts an undue burden on us.


I wouldn't worry too much about the US having more generous public services than their neighbors.


Name one non-Canadian country in the Americas with better public services.


not certain, but I'd be willing to bet some of the Carribbean island nations have decent services as well.
"Does this smell like chloroform to you?"
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6800
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Thu Oct 04, 2018 12:47 pm UTC

I say maybe Argentina or Chile before they went downhill. Wasn't Argentina or Chile a developed country before bad trade/currency policy destroyed them?

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10495
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Oct 04, 2018 12:54 pm UTC

eran_rathan wrote:not certain, but I'd be willing to bet some of the Carribbean island nations have decent services as well.


That depends on whether Aruba is technically a country or not, being a Dutch territory and all. It's currently having problems with illegal immigrants from Venezuela and it's only getting worse.

iamspen
Posts: 485
Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 2:23 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby iamspen » Thu Oct 04, 2018 1:08 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Name one non-Canadian country in the Americas with better public services.


Cuba.

Wouldn't care to live there, but accessing public services doesn't seem much of a problem.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10495
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Oct 04, 2018 1:34 pm UTC

Access yes. Amount and support received after you access...

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26766
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Oct 04, 2018 1:44 pm UTC

The US's neighbors are Canada and Mexico, of which 50% have better public services. If we add Cuba based on closeness to Florida, that increases to 67%.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Oct 04, 2018 2:01 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:I already started a thread just about this a while back, but it seems to me that there is a conflict between offering free services to everyone within a geographical area and letting just anyone into that geographical area, a conflict very similar to the "no borders on your bank account" concept Jose mentioned.


Yeah. You end up with free rider problems.

Even things like law enforcement and national defense can be services in this context. Building a safe, stable country isn't free. Or even easy, necessarily. The US has tried to build democracies elsewhere, and it's been...challenging. It's a hard thing to force. The US's record on nationbuilding was pretty good immediately post WW2, but dropped off pretty harshly afterward.

And that leaves us with the question of how best to manage them. To which I don't really have any good answers, hence that thread I linked at the start wherein I invite discussion of what immigration policy I should support, since I've kinda got no idea.


Everything does have tradeoffs, yeah. There's at least sane positions on both sides of how strongly we ought to enforce borders. These, sadly, are not the only opinions being expressed. We've got everything from overt racism to utterly impossible solutions(let them all in, pay for them). If we could at least axe those ideas, we'd still have differences, but at least the range of solutions being discussed would be more reasonable.

CorruptUser wrote:I'm snarking when I say that we should invade/annex Guatamala and give everyone there citizenship, since 1/5 of that country has already emigrated to the US, so we might as well make things easier and bring the border to them.

Maybe that should be the ideal immigration policy. No more sabotaging the third world, just straight up annexation and invasion until the planet is one giant one world country. Then there will be no such thing as a border.


Colonialism is a real world solution that's been tried. There are significant tradeoffs. Mostly, it's just really expensive. Dealing with Guatemala's problems would probably be a project roughly as expensive as Iraq? They're not identical, so this is pretty fuzzy math, but maybe order of magnitude accurate. If it's expensive to take people in and fix their problems, it's far more expensive to go to them and fix their problems if they want help or not.

sardia wrote:Opening your own home, and letting others spend your money is a false dichotomy. With more people, especially people you didn't waste money growing from birth, the economy grows. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... lp-economy

So the kiddie/brown people concentration camps. Is that not an outrage anymore? Are we just stuck with a huge pile of them because we caught too many before we stopped jailing them?


It appears to have fallen out of media favor relative to Kavinaugh. I still see the occasional article, but it seems like it's viewed as much less of an outrage, yes.

As for the false dichotomy, yes, they do add resources, and grow the economy somewhat, but they are initially costly. Unskilled labor is of relatively little economic value. Currently, we screen to maintain fairly high value legal immigrants, as every other developed country does. This means they're not costly to the economy, but a full-on open border system certainly would be. Illegal immigrants already are, even with efforts to mitigate them. This doesn't mean you need concentration camps, but you do need some enforcement.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10495
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Oct 04, 2018 2:10 pm UTC

My Guatemala annexation scenario wouldn't be colonialism; Americans would not be moved there to displace the locals. Rather, all Guatemalans would become US citizens, something that definitely never happened large scale when a European country practiced either colonialism or imperialism. Unless I was asleep in history class when they taught about that time when a hundred million Indians became UK citizens and were all allowed to vote in the House of Commons.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Oct 04, 2018 2:28 pm UTC

All the same, you're invading and subjecting them to a government. That's a bit messy.

Are you going to let them all vote for independence the next day?

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10495
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Oct 04, 2018 2:36 pm UTC

Sure... but the Guatemalans already in the US also get a vote, and they and all other Guatemalans lose citizenship if Guatemala goes independent.

Like I said, it was a snarky comment about.

User avatar
Euphonium
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 11:17 pm UTC
Location: in ur bourgeois bosses' union, agitating ur workers

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Euphonium » Thu Oct 04, 2018 4:31 pm UTC

ucim wrote:
Euphonium wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Borders are necessary.
That is not a reality-based statement.
Is the border between your home and the outside world necessary? Is the border between your bank account and my bank account necessary? What changes when the scale changes?

Jose


This is just pure nonsense, and reveals a complete failure to think about the issue for more than a twentieth of a second.

It's a difference of kind, not degree.

A country is not a house. If I want to let someone into my house, or if I have a house I don't want anymore and want to sell it to someone else who wants to live in it, who are all the other house-owners within whatever arbitrarily-defined geographic region to tell me I can't let this person into my house or that that person can't go into the house they just bought just because they came from the wrong side of an arbitrarily-defined and morally-irrelevant line on a map?

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10495
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Oct 04, 2018 4:37 pm UTC

Euphonium wrote:
ucim wrote:s the border between your home and the outside world necessary? Is the border between your bank account and my bank account necessary? What changes when the scale changes?

Jose


This is just pure nonsense, and reveals a complete failure to think about the issue for more than a twentieth of a second.


*cough*pot*cough*
*cough*kettle*cough*
*cough*black*cough*

User avatar
Euphonium
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 11:17 pm UTC
Location: in ur bourgeois bosses' union, agitating ur workers

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Euphonium » Thu Oct 04, 2018 4:50 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:
Euphonium wrote:
ucim wrote:s the border between your home and the outside world necessary? Is the border between your bank account and my bank account necessary? What changes when the scale changes?

Jose


This is just pure nonsense, and reveals a complete failure to think about the issue for more than a twentieth of a second.


*cough*pot*cough*
*cough*kettle*cough*
*cough*black*cough*


No, I'm not the one conflating fundamentally different categories. Nice try, though.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5447
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Pfhorrest » Thu Oct 04, 2018 4:51 pm UTC

Euphonium wrote:A country is not a house. If I want to let someone into my house, or if I have a house I don't want anymore and want to sell it to someone else who wants to live in it, who are all the other house-owners within whatever arbitrarily-defined geographic region to tell me I can't let this person into my house or that that person can't go into the house they just bought just because they came from the wrong side of an arbitrarily-defined and morally-irrelevant line on a map?

That's not analogous. The people debating who to let into the country are all people who live the country, not people in nearby countries. The analogue would be a family who live in a house, some of whom wants to let some homeless people stay with them, some of whom object to that. (Say dad wants to let his homeless friend sleep on their couch and mom objects, and the kids each have opinions but don't get a vote).

Or in a real-world example: I used to rent a bedroom in a four-bedroom house full of strangers, not family, just other random people on the same lease as me, with an absentee landlord who just collected money through a property manager, because that's how fucked up living situations are in Santa Barbara. A younger friend of mine lost her place to live, and I came across her huddled under a tree in the neighborhood one rainy day, along with her boyfriend who I hadn't met before, with whom she had been living. I offered to let them sleep on our living room couch until they got back on their feet, so long as my other housemates were okay with it, because it's not just my house, it's their house too. And they were okay with it until the boyfriend stole food from one of them, and then that housemate asked them to leave, as he had a right to do, because it's his house too. At least inasmuch as it was any of our house.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10495
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Oct 04, 2018 5:01 pm UTC

Euphonium wrote:
No, I'm not the one conflating fundamentally different categories. Nice try, though.


No, you are a fool who puts out completely inane statements like "borders are a crime against humanity". Nevermind that 1) they aren't recognized as such by any treaty or international organization I'm aware of 2) no major organization such as the UN or Amnesty International has ever pushed for this to be included in the definition of crimes against humanity let alone recognized the mere existence of borders as a crime against humanity and 3) your claim is basically stating that every single nation on Earth is committing such a crime.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6800
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Thu Oct 04, 2018 5:02 pm UTC

Your example breaks down depending on what we are emphasizing. For example, did the accused go through due process, or did your roommate put 2 and 2 together? Great, now do it for a million people in a timely manner. That's our deportation process for criminal illegals.
maybe a better example would be hiring someone down on their luck. Sure you spent money on them, but they live on their own, and provide services.

Edit https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/ ... ort-869433
Flake and Collins have voiced support for FBI report on Kavanaugh. Looks like his nomination is secured.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10495
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Oct 04, 2018 5:09 pm UTC

Have we ever had such a controversial SC justice? I was too young to remember Clarence Thomas, so I don't know the Anita Hill story from anything other than wikipedia.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6800
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Thu Oct 04, 2018 5:26 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Have we ever had such a controversial SC justice? I was too young to remember Clarence Thomas, so I don't know the Anita Hill story from anything other than wikipedia.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/br ... iet-miers/
Kagan and Gorsuch according to 538.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Oct 04, 2018 5:49 pm UTC

Euphonium wrote:A country is not a house. If I want to let someone into my house, or if I have a house I don't want anymore and want to sell it to someone else who wants to live in it, who are all the other house-owners within whatever arbitrarily-defined geographic region to tell me I can't let this person into my house or that that person can't go into the house they just bought just because they came from the wrong side of an arbitrarily-defined and morally-irrelevant line on a map?


If analogies bother you, consider the case of an invasion. Basically, it's folks who come in uninvited, and do as they wish. Historically, folks have not liked being invaded, and have generally described it as a bad time.

If you've got an entirely uncontrolled border, you can't really prevent an invasion. In fact, the line between wholly unchecked immigration and invasion grows fuzzy, and depends pretty much on who is making the laws. The newcomers, or the existing people. If anyone gets to move in and set up their own laws, you essentially lose that land as a country. In the end, territory ends up being controlled by those who care enough to control it.

This is why control of territory and borders is part of being a state.


And, if we're discussing the analogy, then yeah, adding a new roommate to a house without first gaining the general assent of those currently living there is a bit of a dick move.
Last edited by Tyndmyr on Thu Oct 04, 2018 6:40 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5447
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Pfhorrest » Thu Oct 04, 2018 5:57 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Your example breaks down depending on what we are emphasizing. For example, did the accused go through due process, or did your roommate put 2 and 2 together? Great, now do it for a million people in a timely manner. That's our deportation process for criminal illegals.

If this is in response to me, then I should point out that my housemate didn't owe my friend any due process. My housemate didn't have to agree to let some homeless kids sleep on his couch to begin with. I had a right to let them sleep on my couch, but it was the same couch, so then what? That living situation suffered terribly from lack of any way of actually making and enforcing decisions among the housemates about the commons of the house / house rules / etc, but supposing we'd had some kind of democractic process, and the three other people living there did not want my friend and her boyfriend crashing on our couch, that is a legit choice that they/we could make. Certainly we'd have all been unanimous in not wanting some complete stranger homeless person sleeping on our couch, and that's a choice we'd have the right to make, yeah?

Now extend that to a country-sized home and decisions made about it by the people who live in it and there's your analogy.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10495
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Oct 04, 2018 6:14 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:Now extend that to a country-sized home and decisions made about it by the people who live in it and there's your analogy.


I've often wondered_if/felt_that immigration and citizenship should work in a similar manner as you've described, e.g., the immigrant pleads their case, and the 4 people already in the house decide whether or not to let them move in. Not unanimous vote by 320 million people for each individual, but more like a person explaining how they've been a help to the local community and why they should be granted citizenship before a group of people (perhaps chosen by the same process as a jury) who then decide whether or not to grant the person citizenship.

My main concern is with how much personal biases would play a role in that process, but devil's advocate, if a group of people don't want you in the country you aren't doing yourself all that many favors by immigrating.

User avatar
Yablo
Posts: 633
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 9:57 am UTC
Location: Juneau, Alaska

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Yablo » Thu Oct 04, 2018 6:46 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:Now extend that to a country-sized home and decisions made about it by the people who live in it and there's your analogy.

Right. This is the same method Plato used in the Republic to examine the concept of Justice. He said that in order to understand Justice at the individual level, it is easier to examine it at the state level. Fundamental concepts don't change with scale.

The household/stranger analogy is fundamentally the same if "household" is expanded to "country" and "stranger" is expanded to "millions of strangers." If the anti-borders ideology is going to be convincing, the anti-household argument has to be convincing.
If you like Call of Cthulhu and modern government conspiracy, check out my Delta Green thread.
Please feel free to ask questions or leave comments.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6800
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Thu Oct 04, 2018 6:48 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:
Pfhorrest wrote:Now extend that to a country-sized home and decisions made about it by the people who live in it and there's your analogy.


I've often wondered_if/felt_that immigration and citizenship should work in a similar manner as you've described, e.g., the immigrant pleads their case, and the 4 people already in the house decide whether or not to let them move in. Not unanimous vote by 320 million people for each individual, but more like a person explaining how they've been a help to the local community and why they should be granted citizenship before a group of people (perhaps chosen by the same process as a jury) who then decide whether or not to grant the person citizenship.

My main concern is with how much personal biases would play a role in that process, but devil's advocate, if a group of people don't want you in the country you aren't doing yourself all that many favors by immigrating.

If where you are coming from is on fire, some of your new neighbors hating you isn't that bad.

Pforest, it was a remark about the difference between person and country via analogies. Little things matter when you scale things up to a country. Another example, the boyfriend stole (allegedly), but you deported both of them. If you applied that to a country level, you'd deport the family/significant other when 1 person commits a crime? No yablo, houses aren't the same as countries. I was hoping my examples would make that clear.

Back to judges. How legitimate was the FBI investigation? I didn't like how cursory and limited it was. No drinking, no testimony from Ford. Limited witnesses. It's still pretty bad, similar to Anita Hill in terms of outcome. Though with less backstabbing by old white males (Biden.)

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10495
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Oct 04, 2018 7:05 pm UTC

sardia wrote:If where you are coming from is on fire, some of your new neighbors hating you isn't that bad.


And if your neighbors blame you for the fire and are concerned that they don't want to let a possible arsonist in their home?

Mutex
Posts: 1472
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Mutex » Thu Oct 04, 2018 7:07 pm UTC

Is that an argument for locking people in a burning building?

User avatar
Yablo
Posts: 633
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 9:57 am UTC
Location: Juneau, Alaska

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Yablo » Thu Oct 04, 2018 7:09 pm UTC

sardia wrote:No yablo, houses aren't the same as countries. I was hoping my examples would make that clear.

I wasn't saying they are the same. I was saying the fundamental concept of uninvited strangers doesn't change when the scale does.

Back to judges. How legitimate was the FBI investigation? I didn't like how cursory and limited it was. No drinking, no testimony from Ford. Limited witnesses. It's still pretty bad, similar to Anita Hill in terms of outcome. Though with less backstabbing by old white males (Biden.)

The most recent FBI investigation was cursory and limited, but it was stated from the beginning that it was only going to be a brief supplemental background check. Kavanaugh had been through six other checks already over the course of his career, and nothing was turned up.

I understand the FBI has a job to do, but they just completed their sixth check. Why would anything be different with the seventh in-depth check coming so soon after? Ford and Kavanaugh already gave sworn testimony in front of congress. Senators who were already going to vote for or against Kavanaugh weren't going to change their votes, and those against Kavanaugh were never going to be happy with the effort and the scope of the new investigation. This was really just to appease Flake, Murkowski, and Collins anyway.

Mutex wrote:Is that an argument for locking people in a burning building?

It's an argument for directing those people to a non-burning building while you make sure none of them set the fire.
If you like Call of Cthulhu and modern government conspiracy, check out my Delta Green thread.
Please feel free to ask questions or leave comments.

Mutex
Posts: 1472
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Mutex » Thu Oct 04, 2018 7:18 pm UTC

Ok, but how do you determine that? Would "comes from a country with lots of fire" be sufficient evidence?

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 2106
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Sableagle » Thu Oct 04, 2018 7:32 pm UTC

"Comes from a country where a majority of people have handspans greater than one ninth their height" might be enough for someone, or maybe "aren't blonde." That's "More of the world should belong to people who are more like me," a very common sentiment.
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10495
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Oct 04, 2018 7:37 pm UTC

Mutex wrote:Ok, but how do you determine that? Would "comes from a country with lots of fire" be sufficient evidence?


For some asshats, yes, that's enough.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu Oct 04, 2018 7:40 pm UTC

Yablo wrote:The most recent FBI investigation was cursory and limited, but it was stated from the beginning that it was only going to be a brief supplemental background check. Kavanaugh had been through six other checks already over the course of his career, and nothing was turned up.

I understand the FBI has a job to do, but they just completed their sixth check. Why would anything be different with the seventh in-depth check coming so soon after?
Because there's a world of difference between a general background check and an investigation into specific claims.

Remember: All six of those background checks failed (presumably) to uncover the fact that this guy thrust his penis into some lady's face (corroborated with emails), or Ford's accusation, or the extreme drinking. Now that these are known values, the FBI actually has something specific to investigate -- besides "does this guy smell funny".

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6800
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:40 am UTC

Yablo wrote:I wasn't saying they are the same. I was saying the fundamental concept of uninvited strangers doesn't change when the scale does.

Back to judges. How legitimate was the FBI investigation? I didn't like how cursory and limited it was. No drinking, no testimony from Ford. Limited witnesses. It's still pretty bad, similar to Anita Hill in terms of outcome. Though with less backstabbing by old white males (Biden.)

The most recent FBI investigation was cursory and limited, but it was stated from the beginning that it was only going to be a brief supplemental background check. Kavanaugh had been through six other checks already over the course of his career, and nothing was turned up.

I understand the FBI has a job to do, but they just completed their sixth check. Why would anything be different with the seventh in-depth check coming so soon after? Ford and Kavanaugh already gave sworn testimony in front of congress. Senators who were already going to vote for or against Kavanaugh weren't going to change their votes, and those against Kavanaugh were never going to be happy with the effort and the scope of the new investigation. This was really just to appease Flake, Murkowski, and Collins anyway.
It's an argument for directing those people to a non-burning building while you make sure none of them set the fire.

the thing with metaphors is they do what you want to sound good. Doesn't make it true. The response to a stranger in need does change based on scaling. Hurricane disaster vs minor flooding. One releases emergency funds, the other yawns.

As for the FBI investigation, I wonder if this is how Republicans felt when Bill Clinton had his tarmac chat with Loretta Lynch. Those pinky swear promises that nothing conspiratorial happened didn't satisfy you then. It takes a rare fish to recognize the partisan water he swims in affects his thinking.

duodecimus
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 12:25 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby duodecimus » Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:44 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:Remember: All six of those background checks failed (presumably) to uncover the fact that this guy thrust his penis into some lady's face (corroborated with emails), or Ford's accusation, or the extreme drinking. Now that these are known values, the FBI actually has something specific to investigate -- besides "does this guy smell funny".


Did
A: the FBI did not do their job.
B: the FBI was told not to do their job.
C: they did their job and the results were never read or used.
D: they did their job, and the results were read, and deemed acceptable.

The apparent decision to keep the nomination going despite the perjury leads me to think it was D, but the lack(?) of any remaining documentation from those prior investigations also supports A and B. How could they possibly not catch the drinking?

I wonder if they just sat back and ran a criminal background check, 6 times.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Oct 05, 2018 5:31 am UTC

Also, as an aside:
Yablo wrote:
Pfhorrest wrote:Now extend that to a country-sized home and decisions made about it by the people who live in it and there's your analogy.

Right. This is the same method Plato used in the Republic to examine the concept of Justice. He said that in order to understand Justice at the individual level, it is easier to examine it at the state level. Fundamental concepts don't change with scale.

The household/stranger analogy is fundamentally the same if "household" is expanded to "country" and "stranger" is expanded to "millions of strangers." If the anti-borders ideology is going to be convincing, the anti-household argument has to be convincing.
This is a really bad analogy for so many reasons that it's hard to unpack them all.
  • Typically, houses are owned by one or two people. Typically, countries are not.
  • There's a lot of houses in the world. If you refuse to let me stay at yours, I can probably just go ask someone else. But if you refuse me entry into your country...?
  • Baked into this analogy is the notion that these strangers are taking resources that belong to you (rooms in your house). That's not what immigration is.
  • Also baked into this analogy: A failure to understand the sheer size of the "house", how little it costs you to allow strangers to live in it, and how much harm it can do to those strangers when you turn them away. Cue Mr. Burns: "I like to put my feet up."
  • You don't need to share your house with anyone to keep it functioning. But if you want your country to keep functioning...
  • While I'm at it, can I also just point out that Plato is maybe not the guy we should look to in order to formulate our ethics? Just sayin', the dude who thinks we'd be better off serving underneath a benevolent philosopher-king who understands the good better than everyone else is maybe not the best authority on what is and is not just.
I don't think borders are inherently tyrannical, but I also don't think they're inherently good. Both border control and immigration are complicated subjects with a lot of nuance. You're not going to figure them out with a metaphor about who does and doesn't get to live in my house.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6579
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Fri Oct 05, 2018 7:34 am UTC

Saw this on reddit earlier today, thought it was appropriate:

Spoiler:
Image
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5447
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Pfhorrest » Fri Oct 05, 2018 8:08 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:I don't think borders are inherently tyrannical, but I also don't think they're inherently good. Both border control and immigration are complicated subjects with a lot of nuance. You're not going to figure them out with a metaphor about who does and doesn't get to live in my house.

The point of the metaphor was just that the people who already live in a place reasonably get to decide amongst themselves who they let move in with them. All the differences between a single family home and a country that you list are things to consider when we, the people already living in a country, are deciding on who and how many and under what conditions other people get to live in the country with us. But we the people already living in the country do get to make that decision, and aren't under any moral obligation to be completely indifferent about who moves in with us.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Oct 05, 2018 9:21 am UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:The point of the metaphor was just that the people who already live in a place reasonably get to decide amongst themselves who they let move in with them.
Except that, in practice, the policies and decisions those people end up making aren't always reasonable or fair.

Here's a metaphor that actually works: Should communities get to decide who lives in them? How much control should they get to exert over who can be part of that community and who can't?

The answer to that question is much more complex -- but also a bit more relevant.
Pfhorrest wrote:All the differences between a single family home and a country that you list are things to consider when we, the people already living in a country, are deciding on who and how many and under what conditions other people get to live in the country with us. But we the people already living in the country do get to make that decision, and aren't under any moral obligation to be completely indifferent about who moves in with us.
If all you're saying is that I'm not morally obligated to be indifferent to whether or not an active, violent serial killer gets to move in next to me, then sure.

The question we should be asking, though: Am I permitted to turn away desperate people from my country's borders because I find their presence to be, in some way, inconvenient? And if not, at what point am I permitted to turn them away?

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7594
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Zamfir » Fri Oct 05, 2018 10:06 am UTC

@Phorrest: It's a question-begging metaphor. Sure, if a country is like a private house owned by the citizens, then you can draw such conclusions. But there is nothing obvious about that. Its a debatable whether a country is a like a house,or to what extent, and whether it should be.

To give an example: my country had no border controls before the first world war, virtually no one had a passport, and immigration from abroad was considered fairly similar as immigration from another part of the country. People might still hate on immigrants, or control them by various formal and informal means, but that could happen to internal migrants just as well. Registration of nationality was haphazard, even non-existent in some periods. Except for one other period: the years around 1800, not coincidentally the other large war. And of course, the borders have opened substantially after world war 2, as part of the European community.

In that light, the country-as-house metaphor doesn't look like a natural state. It's more like an exceptional response to warfare, gradually relaxed again in times of peace.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3989
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Dauric » Fri Oct 05, 2018 11:57 am UTC

Spoilered for tangential:

Spoiler:
Thesh wrote:Saw this on reddit earlier today, thought it was appropriate:

Image


Something to consider in counterpoint:

There's a recent study on the "Open Offices" trend, where companies are getting rid of cubicles in favor of shared desks and spaces. What it found was people in so-called Open Offices tended to isolate themselves with headphones and being focused on their computer screens rather than collaborating face-to-face with their co-workers the way they were 'supposed' to.

I've worked in both 'open offices' and 'cubicle farms' doing technical support work (so I end up going through most of the building talking to a lot of different people), anecdotally I've seen that people decorate cubicles with more of their personal effects and imagery than I see in open offices with less privacy. Open office decorations look more ... 'expected' for lack of a better word. Staged family pictures (professional photographer, studio background or school pictures), local sports team logos, the kinds of things you'd expect to see on someone's desk that show they fit in to the broader social system proof of a conventional family and support of broader social-construct institutions.

When I've worked in closed offices or cubicle spaces more spaces had decoration, and the decorations were more personal. There were the staged studio family photos and sports paraphernalia of course, but those were accompanied by more family vacation pictures or pictures of fiends at local venues. I see more statues, desk toys, even potted plants in cubicle workplaces than open offices. I've seen more personal artwork in cubicle offices over open-plan offices, I've seen more expressions of one's faith in cubicle-plan offices than open-plan.

My point: We as a species have an important need for personal privacy to feel comfortable actually being our individual selves. We have strong brain wiring to be socially conscious of what others think of us (an important factor in being social creatures), this wiring however means we often feel a need to conceal our individuality when out in an unrestricted or minimally restricted open environment in order to fit in with the larger social tribe. The ability to "Own" a private space, to "Own" the objects in that space is important to our sense of individuality. When deprived of that kind of space we retreat in to ourselves, with headphones and the -appearance- of concentrated focus on screens, or the -appearance- we are busy in conference calls, the -appearance- that we are fitting in to the broader social construct in order to maintain our place in that construct.

Personal property, the ability to feel some degree of ownership and control over access for a space are important to us as individuals, to our ability to -be- individuals outside of our deepest thoughts, to feel comfortable that we have a place to be individuals without being judged by those in the social constructs that surround us for our individuality.

It's with this regard that personal property, the ability to "own" places and things, -is- important to people so that we can manifest evidence of our completeness as people and to 'own' the choice of how much we want others to see that individuality.


I'm not saying the above observations have direct applicability to immigrants and national borders, but it does hit a tangent.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests