Trump presidency

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

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6563
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ucim » Thu Oct 11, 2018 4:28 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:Like, literally, the only thing you can do to come up with a way that everyone can have a home is that you have a single global authority dictate where everyone lives.
You said without conflict. Explain how that could happen. Without essentially saying "oh, people would just agree".

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5805
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Angua » Thu Oct 11, 2018 4:39 pm UTC

Someone please tell me how the US can harp on about its constitution and inalienable rights for all humans (guns!!!!!), and then also say x/y is allowed because people aren't US citizens/not on 'US' soil.

Oh right, because the US is built on hypocrisy.
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

elasto
Posts: 3568
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby elasto » Thu Oct 11, 2018 4:48 pm UTC

All animals are equal. But some are more equal than others.

To be fair though, the US craps on all the downtrodden within its borders, immigrant or native.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6298
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Thu Oct 11, 2018 4:57 pm UTC

ucim wrote:
Thesh wrote:Like, literally, the only thing you can do to come up with a way that everyone can have a home is that you have a single global authority dictate where everyone lives.
You said without conflict. Explain how that could happen. Without essentially saying "oh, people would just agree".


What the fuck are you talking about? Are all you doing is thinking "Well, people might disagree who gets a particular house, so therefore there is conflict?" because then you certainly are a troll, because that's completely fucking irrelevant to this conversation, or even the analogy itself; and fuck, that doesn't even justify your dumbass fucking comment about how this would require a dictator - because the dictator resolves conflicts, doesn't make them go away, and there are a million better ways to handle it (like the fucking market system). Hippo already explained to you the difference between wants and needs, which you obviously don't care about as you have already shown that you believe your comfort takes priority over other people's lives.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5805
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Angua » Thu Oct 11, 2018 5:03 pm UTC

In other news, Melania decided to tackle cyberbullying because she is the most bullied person in the world.

Can't make this stuff up, folks.
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6538
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Thu Oct 11, 2018 5:09 pm UTC

Angua wrote:In other news, Melania decided to tackle cyberbullying because she is the most bullied person in the world.

Can't make this stuff up, folks.

I Like how she ratted out her co-workers. She could have chosen to share any story she wanted, and she chose that one. I wonder if she knows why people dislike her and Trump.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6563
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ucim » Thu Oct 11, 2018 5:30 pm UTC

Well, you must be right, since there are five "fuck"s in your post, even though it doesn't explain how everyone could be housed without conflict. And who are you to determine whether somebody else's issues are "wants" or "needs"? And as for hyperbole, wouldn't "you believe your comfort takes priority over other people's lives" qualify?

Thesh wrote:Are all you doing is thinking "Well, people might disagree who gets a particular house, so therefore there is conflict?"
At a minimum that would be true, and it is not irrelevant to the conversation, it is the very point you were countering. Unless by conflict you mean "non-overlapping" in a mathematical and geometric sense. In which case it's a pointless point.

But I don't really care, so I'll drop it.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6298
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Thu Oct 11, 2018 5:49 pm UTC

I'm expressing my feelings towards you exactly how they are; you are a fucking troll, and the only thing you do is prevent actual discussion from taking place, just because of how obviously unwilling to acknowledge any point that argues against you. Instead of trying to actually make an argument, or apparently understand the point, you focus on one usage of language that you can nitpick on, apparently not understanding the concept of scale.

Look, it's obvious you are a troll; there is no way you can be that stupid. You have successfully prevented anyone from talking about the parts of the argument with substance, which was obviously your goal. You don't contribute anything at all here, so please just drop these forums entirely.

But, maybe I'm wrong, maybe you are just so blinded by your status quo bias, that you are incapable of actually having a real discussion. Either way, it's fucking annoying, and you do nothing but take giant shits on the discussions here with the most asinine nitpicking imaginable.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

ijuin
Posts: 904
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:02 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ijuin » Thu Oct 11, 2018 6:34 pm UTC

Angua wrote:In other news, Melania decided to tackle cyberbullying because she is the most bullied person in the world.

Can't make this stuff up, folks.


I’m sorry, but unless you are actually fearful that your harassers are going to attempt to kill or rape you or your loved ones, then you are nowhere near the most bullied in the world.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6298
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Thu Oct 11, 2018 6:49 pm UTC

She is married to Trump.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
SDK
Posts: 669
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 7:40 pm UTC
Location: Canada

Re: Trump presidency

Postby SDK » Thu Oct 11, 2018 7:11 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:You have successfully prevented anyone from talking about the parts of the argument with substance, which was obviously your goal.

You should probably take a look in the mirror here, Thesh. You've had some good conversations that I enjoy reading about, but no one on these forums shuts down conversation as much as you do. I'll grant you that ucim can be nitpicky, but this is not one of those times. I think you'd realize that if you actually tried to understand what he's saying instead of attacking strawucim.
The biggest number (63 quintillion googols in debt)

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6298
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Thu Oct 11, 2018 7:20 pm UTC

He evaded the point entirely, by ignoring that there is a difference between just the day to day conflicts over personal preferences and conflicts that require significant political effort to resolve, and he ignored the difference between people conflicting over which personal space they want and the fact that when they have their personal spaces, those spaces aren't in conflict. He decided to interpret my use of conflict in the way that didn't make sense, while ignoring the interpretation that does: "if everyone has their own house, then no one is prevented from living the lifestyle they want if people restrict entry to their own house". There is no reason at all to even consider petty personal preferences within this conversation.

Sorry, there is no way that his nitpicking makes sense within the context of this conversation. This is what he does in every single debate- he ignores the points being made, and look for some way that the other person is wrong, without considering how it relates to the conversation.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

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

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Oct 11, 2018 7:28 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:He evaded the point entirely, by ignoring that there is a difference between just the day to day conflicts over personal preferences and conflicts that require significant political effort to resolve, and he ignored the difference between people conflicting over which personal space they want and the fact that when they have their personal spaces, those spaces aren't in conflict. He decided to interpret my use of conflict in the way that didn't make sense, while ignoring the interpretation that does: "if everyone has their own house, then no one is prevented from living the lifestyle they want if people restrict entry to their own house". There is no reason at all to even consider petty personal preferences within this conversation.


Of course there is reason to consider it. If everyone wants to live in, say, California, and nobody wants to live in the midwest, you run into issues. These issues already exist in the world even with prices excluding some people from some markets, and limiting competition. In a world where a home is guaranteed, how do you handle everyone wanting the same homes? It's a legitimate question.

Everyone having different preferences is a significant reason for politics and conflict. Relabeling it and ignoring it doesn't solve the issue.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6298
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Thu Oct 11, 2018 7:37 pm UTC

So if people have identical preferences to live in a certain place, independent of where they grew up or where their friends and family are, then it's a problem. But in reality, where people behave like human beings then it's just a pointless nitpick for the sake of ignoring the larger point.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

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

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Oct 11, 2018 7:41 pm UTC

It appears that, regardless of where they grew up, a great many people prefer to live in areas of pleasant weather, on the coast, with nice scenery. So folks would generally prefer to live in the nicer parts of California than a swamp in the midwest.

It isn't just a pointless nitpick. Human beings behaving like human beings has resulted in a lot of disagreement in the past. Historically, resolution of these disagreements has sometimes been problematic.

idonno
Posts: 217
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 3:34 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby idonno » Thu Oct 11, 2018 7:42 pm UTC

ijuin wrote:
Angua wrote:In other news, Melania decided to tackle cyberbullying because she is the most bullied person in the world.

Can't make this stuff up, folks.


I’m sorry, but unless you are actually fearful that your harassers are going to attempt to kill or rape you or your loved ones, then you are nowhere near the most bullied in the world.

To be fair, 9% (4 out of 44) of presidents been assassinated? It seems like the risk of threats being real is probably a lot higher for her than most people.

Fun fact, I just decided to figure out historical percentages and it peaks at 12.5% with McKinley.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7187
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu Oct 11, 2018 7:46 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:You guys do get that by even having this discussion of how many is too many and who should be turned away for what reason, you're already conceding the point the house analogy was meant to defend, which is that we the people already living here get to decide on things like that? The point wasn't "it's our country, everyone else should fuck off", but "it's our country, so we get to decide who and how many we can afford to take in". The point was just that we're not obligated to let absolutely anyone who wants in, in; we can be selective, and it's not wrong to be.
And is it wrong if we decide not to admit any black people?

There are a lot of problems with the house analogy; the one you seem to keep missing (?) is that while we have both an interest and a right to be selective about our neighbors, this right is neither absolute nor above question.
Last edited by The Great Hippo on Thu Oct 11, 2018 7:47 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6298
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Thu Oct 11, 2018 7:46 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:It appears that, regardless of where they grew up, a great many people prefer to live in areas of pleasant weather, on the coast, with nice scenery. So folks would generally prefer to live in the nicer parts of California than a swamp in the midwest.


Did you know that the entire population of the world could live in Texas with the population density of Manhattan? Did you know there are places in the world with good weather besides California? Did you know that some people prefer the mountains over the beach, or the woods over either? Did you know that for many people, making major life decisions involve things other than weather? Did you know that even if some people don't get to live specifically where they most prefer to live, it still doesn't prevent them from living the lifestyle that they want?
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3941
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 » Thu Oct 11, 2018 7:48 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:So if people have identical preferences to live in a certain place, independent of where they grew up or where their friends and family are, then it's a problem. But in reality, where people behave like human beings then it's just a pointless nitpick for the sake of ignoring the larger point.


... In what reality are you living in?

Fuck man, your tag says you live in Colorado, you have to be aware of the influx of population in to our state and what it's done to property values. Sure not -everyone in the world- wants to move to our state, but -enough- people aren't tied to the location of (equally mobile) friends and family to stay wherever they live and move here that there are consequences for that preference of residence.

People are able to move from place to place for jobs or lifestyle, they're not tied to the lands they grew up in (hell, I was born in New Jersey, Raised in California, and moved to Colorado when my dad's job took him to Colorado).

I mean, seriously, moving from where we were born and grew up is about as fundamentally human a behavior as there is. It's why we're found on every continent in the world, unlike species that don't move and are only found in one place.
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.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6298
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Thu Oct 11, 2018 7:55 pm UTC

Sure, but people are largely moving because of other larger conflicts (e.g. drug laws, economic distress), and the massive shifts in property prices is partly due to an unwillingness to build houses if it will result in less expensive housing as well as the profit motive leading to more rental vacancies, and it still doesn't prevent everyone from having a home somewhere that they are happy with. The real conflicts we have over housing are with vacancies and construction, not with filled housing, which was what the analogy was specifically about.

Also, people migrated across the world chasing food. They settled where food was plentiful.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7187
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:03 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:Did you know that the entire population of the world could live in Texas with the population density of Manhattan? Did you know there are places in the world with good weather besides California? Did you know that some people prefer the mountains over the beach, or the woods over either? Did you know that for many people, making major life decisions involve things other than weather? Did you know that even if some people don't get to live specifically where they most prefer to live, it still doesn't prevent them from living the lifestyle that they want?
While this may all be true, remember that there are -- and likely always will be -- people who want to live in a space for reasons that have nothing to do with the actual environment or logistics.

Maybe I want to live here because it's where my family grew up. Maybe I want to live here because it's where all my friends are. Maybe I want to live here because it has deep cultural or religious significance to me.

I agree that there is more than enough land and resources for everyone to live in relative comfort in theory, and that we can get everyone what they need -- but human beings are not exchangeable, movable units in a game of Civilization. The things we want and the places we want to live are full of complexities that no system of living assignment can appropriately control for. Any such system will eventually displace people from the spaces they feel they have a right to exist in.

There is no reason everyone in the United States can't have their own house, though. They might not all be *happy* with where it is, but there's no good reason we can't all have one.

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

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:08 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:Sure, but people are largely moving because of other larger conflicts (e.g. drug laws, economic distress), and the massive shifts in property prices is partly due to an unwillingness to build houses if it will result in less expensive housing as well as the profit motive leading to more rental vacancies, and it still doesn't prevent everyone from having a home somewhere that they are happy with. The real conflicts we have over housing are with vacancies and construction, not with filled housing, which was what the analogy was specifically about.

Also, people migrated across the world chasing food. They settled where food was plentiful.


Some conflicts will still exist. Hate your family or the culture where you grew up? Moving elsewhere is a good way to avoid it. Even if, in a very highly optimistic reading, you can somehow resolve all of these other conflicts, people often wish to move for reasons other than fleeing conflict. Maybe they like the area.

What happens if you really enjoy a nice, unspoiled view of nature in an area. You'd be perfectly content to be the only person living there, with lots of wilderness around. And so would many other people. Who gets what they want? Or do you all get to live there, getting part of what you want? These sorts of problem solving are necessary for any scarcity resolution, and geographic locations are intrinsically scarce.

When people ask you how your solution will deal with conflict, and you respond with "it doesn't have to, because no conflicts will exist", that seems like...not a realistic answer.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3660
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Soupspoon » Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:09 pm UTC

idonno wrote:To be fair, 9% (4 out of 44) of presidents been assassinated? It seems like the risk of threats being real is probably a lot higher for her than most people.
This made me want to look it up.
Letitia Tyler died of a stroke in 1842. Caroline Harrison died in 1892 of TB. Ellen Wilson succumbed to kidney disease in 1914.

In this universe, three mostly avoidable/treatable medical deaths (by today's standards) among 42 'official' first ladies and 11 stand-ins, actually makes for a fairly safe position, all things considered.

ETA: The role of Second Lady (whether so named at the time) is remarkably free of deaths-in-'office'. Unlike the 7 Veeps themselves who succumbed, but then 2 of the others resigned and 9 took on the mantle of President by direct succession (8 by death, and 1 by Nixon). So it's looking like a mixed bag for the Pences.
Last edited by Soupspoon on Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:33 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6298
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:13 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:While this may all be true, remember that there are -- and likely always will be -- people who want to live in a space for reasons that have nothing to do with the actual environment or logistics.

Maybe I want to live here because it's where my family grew up. Maybe I want to live here because it's where all my friends are. Maybe I want to live here because it has deep cultural or religious significance to me.


Yes, that's precisely the point; people aren't all going to be flocking to one place. People can be happy anywhere, as long as they have what they need. The reasons for these mass migrations are not petty personal preferences, but major political conflicts. The house analogy is just not relevant to this conversation, as this is purely about mass migrations. But still, everyone WOULD prefer to live with their friends and family, who are content to stay right where they were. This hypothetical doesn't represent reality, and it ignores what the conflicts are - again, it's that not everyone has a space of their own where they CAN be happy, because of things completely unrelated to logistics or environment.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

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

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:18 pm UTC

Naw. Plenty of people remain unhappy even when they have all of their needs and a great many wants. They want still more of other people's stuff. This is sort of a theme throughout history.

And a desire to live in the same place forever is not universal. I don't particularly want to live where I grew up. Need has nothing to do with it. It's the midwest, it's freaking cold there in the winter, and there's more to do where I live now that is relevant to my interests.

But hey, that could change if I get bored of living here and decide to live somewhere else. People are not houseplants.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6298
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:20 pm UTC

You do realize there's a difference between people deciding to move and mass migrations, right? Like, the scenarios you are worried about don't happen in reality, except for actual geopolitical conflicts. As for people being happy, our society is such that most people DO NOT have what they need to be happy, because consumerism is a distraction and you can only be satisfied with your consumption, never happy - that requires strong relationships, security, trust, equity, etc. that our society isn't built to provide.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

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

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:26 pm UTC

That depends what you consider happy, I suppose.

As for the idea that personal preferences can never result in mass activity, you have heard of fads, yes?

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7187
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:27 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:People can be happy anywhere, as long as they have what they need.
What if the only place where I can be happy is my ancestral home? What if my ancestral home is extremely important to me for religious reasons? And what if you already gave that home to another family? What if moving that other family would require you uproot their lives, their connections, their happiness?

How would you resolve this without conflict? Neither family can get what they want, despite both families wanting very reasonable things.
Thesh wrote:The reasons for these mass migrations are not petty personal preferences, but major political conflicts.
I agree that political conflicts have more to do with why mass migrations happen than personal preference, but people do migrate for other reasons. And I wouldn't describe personal preferences that give you sufficient cause to migrate "petty".

I agree the house metaphor is bumpkis, but I disagree that people can be happy anywhere so long as they have what they need. Again, that's treating people like units from a Civilization game: People are extremely complicated. Achieving happiness goes well beyond adjacency to the appropriate resources.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6298
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:33 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:As for the idea that personal preferences can never result in mass activity, you have heard of fads, yes?


Now you are just grasping at straws. If there is not enough space in one area to provide them with what they want, they will move somewhere else that can. Fads don't trump economics. But that's a temporary conflict over vacancies and construction, anyway, and not relevant at all to the conversation of whether people's ability to restrict entry to their own homes puts people in significant conflict; which, the only one you can come up with is mass migration, meaning the housing analogy itself just doesn't fit.

The Great Hippo wrote:What if the only place where I can be happy is my ancestral home?


Then you need therapy; it's not the rules over housing that's the problem, it's you. You are talking about two people being in dispute over something specific; no, not everyone will get their way all the time. I'm talking about the right to restrict people from their homes not being in conflict with others in general, not who has to move out after a breakup. Again, when people have their spaces, there is no conflict; this is only over people finding spaces, which is really not that big of a deal - sure, some people won't be happy but that's a personal issue not a political one. Either way, personal disputes are not the kinds of conflicts I'm interested in.
Last edited by Thesh on Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:39 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

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

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:37 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:As for the idea that personal preferences can never result in mass activity, you have heard of fads, yes?


Now you are just grasping at straws. If there is not enough space in one area to provide them with what they want, they will move somewhere else that can. Fads don't trump economics. But that's a temporary conflict over vacancies and construction, anyway, and not relevant at all to the conversation of whether people's ability to restrict entry to their own homes puts people in significant conflict; which, the only one you can come up with is mass migration, meaning the housing analogy itself just doesn't fit.


Fads, economics...both of these are reasons why people do things en masse. People frequently come into conflict over who lives where now, and have throughout history. There's different systems for dealing with this, but just assuming we can handwave the problem away is a bit ludicrous. Every functioning society I can think of has a justice system that handles who gets what. It's a fundamental part of society.

Look at Hippo's example. Two families, one house. It's a good, simple example. What happens if two siblings would both prefer to live in the family home and raise their own families there in turn? It's a modestly sized home, so there is not room for both, and anyways, the siblings don't get on well enough for that, and both think that they ought to get it now that their parents have passed on. Whoever doesn't get it will be unhappy. How do you solve this?

This ain't some odd hypothetical, comes up all the time.

Thesh wrote:Then you need therapy; it's not the rules over housing that's the problem, it's you. You are talking about two people being in dispute over something specific; no, not everyone will get their way all the time. I'm talking about the right to restrict people from their homes not being in conflict with others in general, not who has to move out after a breakup. Again, when people have their spaces, there is no conflict; this is only over people finding spaces, which is really not that big of a deal - sure, some people won't be happy but that's a personal issue not a political one. Either way, personal disputes are not the kinds of conflicts I'm interested in.


What's the boundary between the personal and the political, then?

Could you say that Trump's twitter feed is purely personal or purely political? What is the difference between a personal grievance and a political grievance to Trump? Do you think he makes a distinction, or even cares?

Politics, honestly, is just a bunch of personal grievances writ large. LGBT rights matter because they are the summation of many personal grievances. If actual people weren't being hurt/helped, would it matter as a political issue? The actual people involved are important at every level of politics.
Last edited by Tyndmyr on Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:44 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6298
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:43 pm UTC

But the point is that the conflicts are so minor as to not be worth discussing. You are literally talking about a temporary problem that resolves itself without any outside intervention. It's not worth debating as a political issue any more than a car auction. It's completely irrelevant to anything to do with this conversation.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3660
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Soupspoon » Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:45 pm UTC

I'm fairly sure that supposedly if the world's population were each offered two footprint's worth of land in Rhode Island, they'd jump at the chance. Or something like that.

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

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:48 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:But the point is that the conflicts are so minor as to not be worth discussing. You are literally talking about a temporary problem that resolves itself without any outside intervention. It's not any worth debating as a political issue any more than a car auction. It's completely irrelevant to anything to do with this conversation.


How will it resolve itself without any outside intervention? Both want the same thing, and no easy compromise exists. This is a scenario that exists all over society. Politics is largely about determining who gets their way when we don't want the same things. In the immigration debate, the desires of those who wish to immigrate are at odds with those who are anti-immigration. It will also not just resolve itself. If we decide to allow only so many immigrants, how do we decide who?

The question is how we decide who gets a scarce thing, and no known political system makes that question irrelevant.

User avatar
emceng
Posts: 3167
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 9:38 pm UTC
Location: State of Hockey
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby emceng » Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:50 pm UTC

I try to give people the benefit of doubt. Maybe Melania isn't a horrible person - oh wait: https://www.thedailybeast.com/melania-t ... too-claims
https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/11/politics ... index.html
When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up. - CS Lewis

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7187
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:52 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:Then you need therapy; it's not the rules over housing that's the problem, it's you.
Regardless of whether or not that's true, this is still a problem you need to account for. It's a problem that exists wherever you go. You can't argue that we can all be happy if our basic needs are satisfied while also arguing that all the people who aren't happy under those conditions clearly "need therapy".
Thesh wrote:Again, when people have their spaces, there is no conflict; this is only over people finding spaces, which is really not that big of a deal - sure, some people won't be happy but that's a personal issue not a political one. Either way, personal disputes are not the kinds of conflicts I'm interested in.
I honestly don't know how to respond to the notion that people having their personal spaces means no conflict. Like, dude. People get into fistfights over who won last night's football match. You don't think people are going to get into fights over Group X moving next door?

And yeah, 99 times out of 100, people ought to just get over it and let Group X move in... but what about things like gentrification? Should folks just get over being displaced from their cultural and/or ancestral home? Even if new homes in new areas are readily accessible? Getting angry over this sort of thing doesn't seem unreasonable to me; I certainly don't think you'd blame this one on a lack of "therapy".

I don't think there's any way to get to where you want to go without ignoring a lot of nuance.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4552
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby LaserGuy » Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:56 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:
The Great Hippo wrote:What if the only place where I can be happy is my ancestral home?


Then you need therapy; it's not the rules over housing that's the problem, it's you. You are talking about two people being in dispute over something specific; no, not everyone will get their way all the time. I'm talking about the right to restrict people from their homes not being in conflict with others in general, not who has to move out after a breakup. Again, when people have their spaces, there is no conflict; this is only over people finding spaces, which is really not that big of a deal - sure, some people won't be happy but that's a personal issue not a political one. Either way, personal disputes are not the kinds of conflicts I'm interested in.


I'm just going to point you to the now-defunct Israel/Palestine thread for a real-world example of this scenario writ-large.

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

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:59 pm UTC

I gotta say that it's a little weird to be arguing the same side of a thing with Hippo. But hey, when he's right, he's right.

And yeah, I am skeptical that Thresh found a perfect solution to Israel/Palestine, and that it's merely informing them that they need therapy. I mean, I guess he's welcome to try telling them about it? I'll be over here with a bucket of popcorn.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7187
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:59 pm UTC

LaserGuy wrote:I'm just going to point you to the now-defunct Israel/Palestine thread for a real-world example of this scenario writ-large.
I wasn't going to directly reference this because it's a super-complicated problem with a lot of angles I'm oblivious to, but it's the obvious parallel, yeah.

In more American-centric examples, though: Gentrification is good, or the displacement of Native Americans from lands that were traditionally theirs ("Hey, look, we've built you new houses over here. Stop whining about how this is your ancestral land, or how all your ancestors were buried here, and go live on the coast or something").

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6298
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:11 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:How will it resolve itself without any outside intervention? Both want the same thing, and no easy compromise exists. This is a scenario that exists all over society. Politics is largely about determining who gets their way when we don't want the same things. In the immigration debate, the desires of those who wish to immigrate are at odds with those who are anti-immigration. It will also not just resolve itself. If we decide to allow only so many immigrants, how do we decide who?



First, fads are temporary. Second, people usually don't move until they've secured housing first. Third, if housing is occupied, people aren't going to do anything but offer people money to move out. Fourth, there are individuals that are making competing offers, but there is no personal interaction between them; the market system resolves the conflict without issue. Fifth, the people who can't move to a new location simply move on with their lives.

The Great Hippo wrote:Regardless of whether or not that's true, this is still a problem you need to account for. It's a problem that exists wherever you go. You can't argue that we can all be happy if our basic needs are satisfied while also arguing that all the people who aren't happy under those conditions clearly "need therapy".


No, it doesn't need to be accounted for in this discussion. You are nitpicking over the word "conflict" while ignoring the nature of the conflicts we are talking about. Personal conflicts over specific objects, vs socioeconomic conflicts over available housing. The entire point I was making is that the analogy between countries and houses fails because everyone can have a place where they can live, and live the lifestyle they want - now, you are basically saying "well, what if the lifestyle they want is not possible" - well, if they don't have realistic expectations then that's a personal or social problem, not a problem with housing rules.

The Great Hippo wrote:And yeah, 99 times out of 100, people ought to just get over it and let Group X move in... but what about things like gentrification? Should folks just get over being displaced from their cultural home? Getting angry over this sort of thing doesn't seem unreasonable to me; I certainly don't think you'd blame this one on a lack of "therapy".


Gentrification is caused by economic inequality. It has nothing to do with whether or not everyone can have their own space without coming into conflict with others. That our society has people in a great amount of conflict has very little to do with whether or not people can have their own personal space, and everything to do with our social, economic, and political structures. No matter what, you can behave in a way that conflicts with others - but you are going to be in conflict regardless of whether people can restrict others from their home.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7187
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:22 pm UTC

To be more clear, here: Thesh, the problem with things like gentrification or the displacement of America's native peoples isn't *just* that they have no where else to go; even if they did, it would still be awful to displace people from the lands and homes they are familiar with -- the places that their ancestors came from. This is, in fact, a component of genocide; detaching people from the land to which they are connected -- removing their sense of history and belonging to their cultural and/or ancestral home. You can make their new house as nice and pretty as you want, and make sure all their friends are there -- but it still doesn't make this okay, or make their discontent any less credible.

You can argue that this isn't your point (I get that you're arguing these things happened not to address inequality, but to *enforce* it), but when you keep insisting that people can be happy regardless of where they are -- so long as their basic needs are met -- you start sounding a lot like the people who told Native American tribes they could be happy elsewhere. Especially since my example above with the ancestral home was based on that very idea.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests