2020 Democratic Presidential Primary | OT | and now we're throwing binders

Oct 25, 2017
604
Why? I don't think she'd have any major issues beating Trump. Most of her issues relate to winning the primary.
Part of the reason there are so many leaks from Trump's administration is because he treats everyone around him like complete shit. Unless Klobuchar changes her behavior (which I doubt she's going to do), we would see a similarly leaky administration from her.

We didn't get too many leaks from staffers during the Obama years because unlike Klobuchar, he's not a complete monster in private settings.
 
Oct 25, 2017
7,622
What if I were to tell you that morality doesn't exist and that moral arguments are philsophically bunk but it's still better to do things that treat people as humans and equals anyway because what if cogito ergo sum applies to everyone and they're not all robots or zombies and in that case we want to preclude power hoarding by individuals and groups.
 
Oct 25, 2017
408
I'm not feigning objectivity. I don't think Ethics are objective. They're just more than personal feeling-outs.



I'd argue the opposite. Bigots have misconceptions like "Illegal immigrants are criminals" that they use to justify their moral stance. It is pretty much impossible to get a bigot to see what they're doing wrong without first getting them to accept the information these use to justify their bigotry is wrong.
you literally have this backwards, the perception of immigrants as criminals comes from a normative belief that the american nation is superior to others and that allowing non American nationals in will dilute the nation. you're not going to convince them that this isn't true with a chart showing that immigrants aren't criminals
 
Oct 27, 2017
872
I'm not feigning objectivity. I don't think Ethics are objective. They're just more than personal feeling-outs.



I'd argue the opposite. Bigots have misconceptions like "Illegal immigrants are criminals" that they use to justify their moral stance. It is pretty much impossible to get a bigot to see what they're doing wrong without first getting them to accept the information these use to justify their bigotry is wrong.
show me a single case of a bigot being shown that crime statistics are lower for immigrants that made them stop being a bigot

show me a single case of a bigot being told that immigrants take lower paying jobs that white people don't want to do and are vital to a functioning economy that stopped being a bigot
 
Dec 26, 2018
2,229
No, it's concern trolling because you expect him to educate everyone on how bills are passed in a few tweets in response to two tweets about Medicare For All. Is he supposed to link to the wikipedia page or youtube video on how bills are passed every time he talks about it?
Who says its limited to MfA? He can do all of the above, and/or offer brief summaries of processes. He loses nothing by doing this, and considering his campaign will be one more affected by this due to having younger voters and voters who are new to the system it will help him long term so he won't go through New York City again. Since when was discussing civics something to be chided by the left? I know he's an old man but surely he has interns who can do this with his twitter account, like Kamala does.

Your mistake was assuming this is strictly about Bernie, when I could say that I'm ok applying this to all candidates.

Is he supposed to be managing expectations when he's not even declared yet let alone won the nomination?
Every candidate is supposed to do this. I'd be less worried about this if he weren't running but we all know he's running. Of course he loses nothing by doing this if he weren't either, since civics is important and too many voters don't understand the system.

This is not constructive criticism at all, it's concern trolling and you do it with everything Bernie or AOC does under the guise of "educating" others. It's tiresome.
I do it because despite some people who are supposed to know this, they don't engage with this in their arguments. You think it's tiresome? It's worse from my side of the fence. Maybe try to educate your side better in civics then I won't have to.

It's not a problem limited to Sanders, this can happen with any candidate unless no one really has any faith in them, which is another problem. Are any of the other potential and declared candidates educating people on how bills are passed? Is Klobuchar educating people on how her tax advantaged savings account is going to pass? Or Kamala's LIFT Act? Nope!


There's this and you do realise I can want all the candidates doing thing, right? There are more options than no civics ever and giving one hour lectures on twitter.

But somehow Trump’s mess wasn’t?
Trump is unique, not the average politician. His scandals would have destroyed a regular GOP administration a hundred times over, and ten times that for a Democrat. Democrats are held to higher standards by both the media and there voters. They have to be perfect, Republicans do not. Unlike them we give a damn about minority rights and putting kids in cages.
 
Last edited:
Oct 25, 2017
7,622
Hey, I'm just trying to figure out what he's arguing
Kirblar has made it pretty clear in other threads that he thinks economic self interest doesn't really work as an argument because of the Progressive's Dilemma (that countries with lower diversity have higher economic equality because their very homogeneity allowed people to see lower classes as part of a wider family).

From a white racist perspective, their economic self interest is in subjugating non-whites to keep themselves on top, relatively speaking, rather than reduce the power of the white ruling class and increase the power of the racialized underclass with whom they'd have to compete.

If I understand him right, and after all these years I think I'm close!, his position would be that we shouldn't bother trying to convince mass swathes of the country of anything and instead try to form whatever coalition we can to get around them, because people don't change.
 
Oct 25, 2017
19,710
Okay I didn’t expect kirblar to go full Randian

Let me take a super hot take position here and say actually morality is good and utilitarianism would see us all enslaved
Oh come on. And no I am not arguing for full objectivity/utilitarianism/etc. I'm just fundamentally uininterested in arguing morality. People are gonna believe what they're gonna believe. And it becomes a problem when those beliefs override any/all evidence to refute them.
 
Oct 27, 2017
7,003
That Booker clip was worse than I thought. Blackface is not complicated and isn't something we should be wasting our time on. Blackfacin' Whites know exactly what they're doing and its telling they only do it in White spaces.
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,843
you literally have this backwards, the perception of immigrants as criminals comes from a normative belief that the american nation is superior to others and that allowing non American nationals in will dilute the nation. you're not going to convince them that this isn't true with a chart showing that immigrants aren't criminals
My post itself says that they use false information to justify their bigotry. Which is to say their bigotry is originally based on morals and then amplified to the point of being unbending by the "illegals are criminals" blowhorn of Fox news or the like.

show me a single case of a bigot being shown that crime statistics are lower for immigrants that made them stop being a bigot

show me a single case of a bigot being told that immigrants take lower paying jobs that white people don't want to do and are vital to a functioning economy that stopped being a bigot
I'd sooner ask you to show me a single case of bigots being convinced by purely moral arguments. Bigots don't just snap and change their mind, their mindset is entrenched.

Let me put it this way for both of you: If Fox News disappeared and stopped blaring racist "empirical"* evidence 24/7, would there be less bigots?

*Stuff like Immigrant murders, terrorism shit 24/7
 
Oct 25, 2017
7,622
I was a Republican and I changed partly because of data and partly because of moral arguments so I don't know what that says about anybody else but take it as you will!
 
Oct 25, 2017
19,710
My post itself says that they use false information to justify their bigotry. Which is to say their bigotry is originally based on morals and then amplified to the point of being unbending by the "illegals are criminals" blowhorn of Fox news or the like.
Gonna steal this opportunity to provide a framework for what you're describing.
When someone is immune to arguments based on actual evidence and argues from a strict moral position where the evidence is constantly being made up and the arguments keep changing, it's a problem.
 
Oct 27, 2017
872
I'd sooner ask you to show me a single case of bigots being convinced by purely moral arguments. Bigots don't just snap and change their mind, their mindset is entrenched.

Let me put it this way for both of you: If Fox News disappeared and stopped blaring racist "empirical"* evidence 24/7, would there be less bigots?
maybe i don't think bigots can be changed through argument at all?
 
Oct 26, 2017
3,745
I was a Republican
You have failed the purity test. Turn in your M-L badge at the door.
When someone is immune to arguments based on actual evidence and argues from a strict moral position where the evidence is constantly being made up and the arguments keep changing, it's a problem.
We actually derived two different conclusions from this. For you it was "moral arguments are pointless because they're so arbitrary". For me it's "arguments based in evidence are pointless because people will feel what they will feel, I must change the conditions under which they acquire knowledge, or failing that remove them by force".
 
Last edited:

Slayven

You probably post about me on another board.
Moderator
Oct 25, 2017
27,111
I'm no fan of Booker but his actual statement is a reasonable one.
"I've had conversations with white friends of mine this week who out had the safety to come to me and ask me, 'I don't understand this blackface thing. Can you explain it to me?' Imagine in this climate saying that publicly? If you want to have more creation and empathy, put yourself in a white person's position."
Nah, he is putting it on the opressed.
 
OP
OP
pigeon
Oct 25, 2017
3,344
you literally have this backwards, the perception of immigrants as criminals comes from a normative belief that the american nation is superior to others and that allowing non American nationals in will dilute the nation. you're not going to convince them that this isn't true with a chart showing that immigrants aren't criminals
This is exactly what I was going to say. Didn’t kirblar himself post the whole thing about fascism’s disregard for facts like a few days ago?

People don’t have factual opinions on whether people of color are human, they have moral ideas about it. The ostensible facts exist to disguise the moral idea. But attacking the facts is like charging the bullfighter’s cloak. The meat isn’t there.
 

Slayven

You probably post about me on another board.
Moderator
Oct 25, 2017
27,111
It also neglects that as a margalized person you are always aware of the position of the bigot. You can't escape it, why do we have always teach people basic humanity and empathy?
 
OP
OP
pigeon
Oct 25, 2017
3,344
Oh come on. And no I am not arguing for full objectivity/utilitarianism/etc. I'm just fundamentally uininterested in arguing morality. People are gonna believe what they're gonna believe. And it becomes a problem when those beliefs override any/all evidence to refute them.
Evidence doesn’t exist absent a moral framework by which to derive conclusions from it.
 
Oct 25, 2017
19,710
This is exactly what I was going to say. Didn’t kirblar himself post the whole thing about fascism’s disregard for facts like a few days ago?

People don’t have factual opinions on whether people of color are human, they have moral ideas about it. The ostensible facts exist to disguise the moral idea. But attacking the facts is like charging the bullfighter’s cloak. The meat isn’t there.
Yes, and the disregard for facts is inherently a problem no matter what the specific "moral argument" is.
 
Oct 26, 2017
3,745
This is a little bit of a headscratcher
I'll quote another post I made that I hope illuminates my stance:
There's bias inherent in even deciding what "facts" to research, much less publish, or published where and framed how. It's bias all the way down.

We should be demanding news that serves the common good, not "unbiased news", whatever that means. I get that a lot of people think "unbiased news" serves the common good but this is clearly not true.
Basically I think it's a chicken and egg problem because people are raised in a moral framework and that framework decides what evidence they consume, to support those morals, which informs their acquisition of evidence, etc etc. I guess even this privileges the moral framework because you inherit it from your parents/teachers before you begin to consume evidence about it but in a maturated person, evidence is scarcely separable from morals.

Which is to say you can't break through a bigot with just facts or just morals, but you need to wear down their worldview and replace it with one of your own choosing. Severe cognitive dissonance is usually one way, from my observations of ex-Republicans, people fundamentally change their beliefs.
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,843
maybe i don't think bigots can be changed through argument at all?
I like 95% agree with you. But my point is that if you don't tear off the empirical shell they've built up by having racist talking points yelled at them 24/7 you will never get anywhere. THEN you can have a moral argument. Problem is the former is next to impossible.

Gonna steal this opportunity to provide a framework for what you're describing.

When someone is immune to arguments based on actual evidence and argues from a strict moral position where the evidence is constantly being made up and the arguments keep changing, it's a problem.
Another way to put fox news is a cancer.
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
pigeon
Oct 25, 2017
3,344
I'll quote another post I made that I hope illuminates my stance:

Basically I think it's a chicken and egg problem because people are raised in a moral framework and that framework decides what evidence they consume, to support those morals, which informs their acquisition of evidence, etc etc. I guess even this privileges the moral framework because you inherit it from your parents/teachers before you begin to consume evidence about it but in a maturated person, evidence is scarcely separable from morals.

Which is to say you can't break through a bigot with just facts or just morals, but you need to wear down their worldview and replace it with one of your own choosing. Severe cognitive dissonance is usually one way, from my observations of ex-Republicans, people fundamentally change their beliefs.
Actually it was 100% a phrenology joke but clearly it was a little too much of a stretch

But I mostly agree with this above
 
Oct 26, 2017
3,745
Another way to put fox news is a cancer.
I'm going to pull a quote from that HuffPo piece a while back because I think it's relevant here.
He heard Lawrence because it fit what he saw and asked if he could call me Larry. Guys like that use your name as a weapon. “Larry, explain to me why I had to sit around here from 1 to 3 waiting on you and you show up at 3:17. Does that seem like good customer service to you, Larry? And now you’re telling 7 to 10 days? Larry, I’m getting really tired of hearing this shit.” Guys like that, it was safer to just let them think I was a man.

She said she was sorry about him. I said, “It’s fine.” I said there really wasn’t anything I could do. She blinked back the flood of tears she’d been holding since God knows when. She said, “It’s just, when he has Fox, he has Obama to hate. If he doesn’t have that ...” She kept looking over her shoulder. She was terrified of him. “I’m sorry,” she said. “I just need him to have Fox.” I got out of my van.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/cable-tech-dick-cheney-sex-dungeon_us_5c0ea571e4b06484c9fd4c21
Someone like this, they're too far gone. It's true he ended up like this because of a never ending diet of Fox News but removing the Fox News isn't going to make him a decent person. We need to capture the attention of children in their development phase, before they head down this road, if we intend to wipe out this strain of conservatism.
Actually it was 100% a phrenology joke but clearly it was a little too much of a stretch
Looks like I don't have the right skull shape for improv comedy.
 
Oct 25, 2017
19,710
This is what the internet stats people missed about Klobuchar when looking at her popularity and urging a run:


Those are stats reflective of "I'm a really good legislator", the source of her popularity was largely something completely inapplicable to both an executive position AND national campaigning.
 
Nov 25, 2017
4,889
Minnesota
Moral arguments are inherently stupid and unwinnable, so they're not worth having. Because morality is, at the end of the day, "I'm gonna do what I want to do and justify it to myself."

Ethics and data you can argue. Morals you can't. I learned that fast when it was morally wrong for me to be attracted to guys in some people's eyes.
As member of the LGBTQ+ community myself and a life-long student of philosophy, I have to say that this post is extremely misguided.

There are good ethical policies and bad ethical policies. There is no such thing as an objectively benevolent basis on which ethics can be established, and ethics are still based on doing what is good vs bad, so it's all subjective. If gay marriage is considered wrong, illegal, and unconstitutional, it is still considered ethical, even if you disagree with it.

What's important are the arguments being put forth to justify a person's beliefs or a system's guiding principles for governing societal behavior. You can make strong cases for both good morals and ethics if you put enough thought into axioms and frameworks in which they are based.
 
Oct 25, 2017
19,710
As member of the LGBTQ+ community myself and a life-long student of philosophy, I have to say that this post is extremely misguided.

There are good ethical policies and bad ethical policies. There is no such thing as an objectively benevolent basis on which ethics can be established, and ethics are still based on doing what is good vs bad, so it's all subjective. If gay marriage is considered wrong, illegal, and unconstitutional, it is still considered ethical, even if you disagree with it.

What's important are the arguments being put forth to justify a person's beliefs or a system's guiding principles for governing societal behavior. You can make strong cases for both good morals and ethics if you put enough thought into axioms and frameworks in which they are based.
There is actual reality and evidence based on that. It alone cannot form the basis for decision making, but it's an important part of that.

If your framework cannot actually adjust to that and contorts to just become a chameleon, altering your argument and manufacturing BS when reality intrudes to defend a position, you are a problem.
 
Nov 25, 2017
4,889
Minnesota
There is actual reality and evidence based on that. It alone cannot form the basis for decision making, but it's an important part of that.

If your framework cannot actually adjust to that and contorts to just become a chameleon, altering your argument and manufacturing BS when reality intrudes to defend a position, you are a problem.
What I'm saying is that your argument still applies to both morality and ethics. The main difference between the two is that the latter is an institutionalization of the former. If you find ethics useful then you must concede that morals are useful as well, since they are a fundamental basis for ethics.
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,843
I'm going to pull a quote from that HuffPo piece a while back because I think it's relevant here.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/cable-tech-dick-cheney-sex-dungeon_us_5c0ea571e4b06484c9fd4c21
Someone like this, they're too far gone. It's true he ended up like this because of a never ending diet of Fox News but removing the Fox News isn't going to make him a decent person. We need to capture the attention of children in their development phase, before they head down this road, if we intend to wipe out this strain of conservatism.
Oh, I remember reading that article. But, yeah, most bigots aren't going to be converted even without fox news but there'd be less. Not that fox news is gonna disappear. Either way, I don't really buy that conservatism is ever gonna be wiped out. Best we can hope for is for conservatism to become less awful so that when it does swing that way less damage is done.
 
Oct 27, 2017
2,495
keep dancing

A good lesson in learning to looks past clickbait headlines and listen to what someone has to say in context. He was commenting on showing empathy to those in a state of ignorance, not defending white people who think black face is ok
nah, still trash either way you spin it. At this point black people should not show any empathy for this bs, am done with it.
 
Last edited:

Slayven

You probably post about me on another board.
Moderator
Oct 25, 2017
27,111
A good lesson in learning to looks past clickbait headlines and listen to what someone has to say in context. He was commenting on showing empathy to those in a state of ignorance, not defending white people who think black face is ok
Margalized people have done nothing but show empathy, when do they get a chance to process their pain? Cause these fuckups come daily and the wrong doer is always opening discussions on how they were the one wronged and everyone needs to come together and give them a medal for being a bigot. When do LGBTQ, Black, Brown, Asian, etc get some of this infinity Empathy?

Better yet, when do trans men and women get to be ignorant on bathroom poltics?

When do black and latino get to ignorant on police brutality?

When do women get to be ignorant on reproductive rights?

When do Asians get to be ignorant on modal minority status?

We had 400 years of Quid about a little of the pro quo?
 
Nov 2, 2017
944
Outside
Klobuchar’s Prosecutor Past Could Haunt Her Presidential Bid
She touted her prosecutorial credentials when she announced her candidacy on Sunday, but how will her tough-on-crime history square with progressives?
...
But what were seen as the best practices of prosecutors in the 1990s and 2000s have not aged well. The public increasingly views them as having contributed to mass incarceration and worsened race and class disparities in the justice system. As she runs for president, Klobuchar will confront something new: criticism and anger, on a national level, over her work as a prosecutor.

Possible rivals for the Democratic nomination who also backed the tough-on-crime line have already braced for backlash from the party’s progressive base. Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA), formerly the attorney general of California, has branded herself as a reformer and recast her background as one of a “progressive prosecutor.” Joe Biden, who led the charge to pass hard-line crime laws as an influential senator, admitted in January that he “hasn’t always been right” on criminal justice.
Keith Ellison, who was then a state legislator and is now Minnesota attorney general, promoted a bill to relax the state’s strict standards for sentencing on drug offenses, arguing that prison cells should be reserved for “the truly dangerous.” Klobuchar was wary of the effort: “We must keep a focus on drug dealers,” she told the Star Tribune in 2004.

Her approach earned Klobuchar the admiration even of her political enemies: the conservative Power Line blog called her “the best Hennepin County Attorney of the past 30 years,” praising her for “vigorously [supporting] the prosecution and incarceration of the gangbangers without the slightest public display of hesitation, handwringing, or apology.”
Will Klobuchar have any appeal to Harris supporters with her history as a strong leader?