Support NeoGAF

[jtb]

Fair enough. GOP politicians that support race and gender rights, then.

Hate to break it to you...

Spoiler

GOP politicians that support race and gender rights don't exist.

 

[shawnbuddy]

I don't think it's that complicated! I find it immensely tedious to read a thread about a topic I think is potentially interesting that then gets derailed into a conversation about the goals or internal thought processes of individual posters in the thread.

For one thing, it is literally impossible to prove, for obvious reasons, so the entire conversation will circle without end and hinge on individual perceptions, which themselves are tainted by tribal perspectives. It's like Rashomon for yelling at people on the internet.

For another, it's actually irrelevant! If introducing this bill is good or bad, it is good or bad regardless of the motives of the poster talking about them. "I don't trust the person making this argument" is, at best, circumstantial evidence against an argument. But it's not evidence at all against the conclusion of the argument. So if people think the bill is good, or bad, or necessarily, or poorly-written, or whatever, then they should just make that argument directly.

So I wish people would just stop doing that. And yes, I mean it on my side as well as on "their side". If you think the OP's post is actually itself derailing or destroying the thread, that's one thing, but it looks more like just not wanting the thread to exist because you disagree with the perspective of the poster.

As I understand it, way back in the day, PoliGAF OT was created specifically because political discussions in OT would constantly proliferate and degenerate into personalities exactly like this.

I know you're not defending me and I wouldn't want you to, but I appreciate your perspective on this. This is a really well-put post.

 

[Muppet of a Man]

How do people here call themselves democrats and then don't back symbolic efforts like this? The Republicans did symbolic efforts like this all the time, and it helped communicate their shitty position and rile enough support to ultimately get them elected, putting us in the unfortunate position we're in today.

If we communicate actual good ideas, we will easily rile up a lot of support in the midterms. The last election proved that you can't just run on not being the crazy, incompetent guy. You have to actively lead and propose better alternatives.

People want this. They may not like certain language because they've been habituated like Pavlov's dogs to be triggered by it by decades of right-wing propaganda. But putting single payer / universal healthcare in different, more familiar terms like "Medicare for all" turns the tables in the discussion.

 

[Lord Fagan]

Force a conversation?

We've debated healthcare legislation in the US for the better part of a decade, it's just not a conversation that conforms totally to his vision.

Single-payer is a worthy goal, but It's hard not to see this endeavor as him grandstanding with doomed bills the same way he's conducted his entire career. I'm unconvinced he's a special, one-of-a-kind leader and our only hope the way he and his supporters seem to like framing both him and his ideas.

 

[El_Tiguere]

Force a conversation?

We've debated healthcare legislation in the US for the better part of a decade, it's just not a conversation that conforms totally to his vision.

Single-payer is a worthy goal, but It's hard not to see this endeavor as him grandstanding with doomed bills the same way he's conducted his entire career. I'm unconvinced he's a special, one-of-a-kind leader and our only hope the way he and his supporters seem to like framing both him and his ideas.

What other leader do you have advocating for anything substantive on the Democrat side? fix Obamacare? what the fuck does that even mean? how will that lower costs of health care against rapacious corporations who are providing us with mediocre healthcare outcomes compared to the rest of the world, for double the price?

What other vision do you propose? does your vision include me paying grotesque amounts for health care so that CEOs and shareholders can sleep happy at night?

How do people here call themselves democrats and then don't back symbolic efforts like this? The Republicans did symbolic efforts like this all the time, and it helped communicate their shitty position and rile enough support to ultimately get them elected, putting us in the unfortunate position we're in today.

If we communicate actual good ideas, we will easily rile up a lot of support in the midterms. The last election proved that you can't just run on not being the crazy, incompetent guy. You have to actively lead and propose better alternatives.

People want this. They may not like certain language because they've been habituated like Pavlov's dogs to be triggered by it by decades of right-wing propaganda. But putting single payer / universal healthcare in different, more familiar terms like "Medicare for all" turns the tables in the discussion.

Corporate cheerleaders (especially the media) have a visceral reaction to anything Bernie. Neogaf is sadly no different. Can you imagine if the media spent an eight of the propaganda time and talking points they spew for things like wars... if only they spent the same effort talking about how single payer works in every other modern country? we would be in a different nation by now.

 

[Cocaloch]

I don't think it's that complicated!

It's not complicated in that I can't see what you're getting at. It's that I don't see why you're doing it.

I find it immensely tedious to read a thread about a topic I think is potentially interesting that then gets derailed into a conversation about the goals or internal thought processes of individual posters in the thread.

I guess I can kind of understand this, but honestly it makes more sense to dislike the content of what someone is saying the the fact they are saying anything at all. It's the same reason I don't understand why people make such a big deal out of drive by port begging posts.

At the end of the day this is a public forum and discussion will go along the lines it will go along. It's totally part of your prerogative to dislike the direction its moving in and point that out, but I think it's a bit disingenous to do that on any level besides the specific content. Which is to say I think it's a bit off to claim that we're somehow wrong for not having the discussion you want us to have, rather than just wanting us to have that conversation.

For one thing, it is literally impossible to prove, for obvious reasons, so the entire conversation will circle without end and hinge on individual perceptions, which themselves are tainted by tribal perspectives. It's like Rashomon for yelling at people on the internet.

I actually disagree on a number of points here. Statements relating to other people will generally be impossible to "prove", and that's an incredibly awkward word, what you can do it make arguments that are more or less convincing. We can never get inside someone's head. We can however make very strong and convincing arguments about what people were thinking and why people were thinking it. This is a pretty major part of my profession.

In totally anecdotal evidence, I've had more posters send me messages saying that these sorts of arguments, ones about interpretation and discourse, have actually changed their view of something, than discussions about concrete policy, with which, as far as I can tell, I have never reached anyone on this site. This means, again maybe just in my experience, that this is actually a more useful way to spend my time if I want to effect the kind of change I want to see in the world.

For another, it's actually irrelevant!

See above, but I'll also add the a communication can not be irrelevant to itself. Saying something is itself an action.

If introducing this bill is good or bad, it is good or bad regardless of the motives of the poster talking about them. "I don't trust the person making this argument" is, at best, circumstantial evidence against an argument. But it's not evidence at all against the conclusion of the argument. So if people think the bill is good, or bad, or necessarily, or poorly-written, or whatever, then they should just make that argument directly.

That's a thing people can do, and you can prefer that if you wish. What I'm saying is that it's not any more correct, though you could argue that it's more useful.

So I wish people would just stop doing that. And yes, I mean it on my side as well as on "their side". If you think the OP's post is actually itself derailing or destroying the thread, that's one thing

I probably wouldn't have called out the OP. But I did call out the fact that the poster who did was being unfairly minimized. That's a very different thing. I'm interested in defending a space of interpretation. If you disagree please tell me where it looked like I was saying otherwise.

but it looks more like just not wanting the thread to exist because you disagree with the perspective of the poster.

Does it really look like that's what I was doing in this thread?

I know you're not defending me and I wouldn't want you to, but I appreciate your perspective on this. This is a really well-put post.

I'd also invite you to point out where I did something transgressive.

 

[Hitlersaurus Christ]

Force a conversation?

We've debated healthcare legislation in the US for the better part of a decade, it's just not a conversation that conforms totally to his vision.

Single-payer is a worthy goal, but It's hard not to see this endeavor as him grandstanding with doomed bills the same way he's conducted his entire career. I'm unconvinced he's a special, one-of-a-kind leader and our only hope the way he and his supporters seem to like framing both him and his ideas.

I don't think the majority of people backing him believe he's some kind of special leader. His supporters would support anyone else who makes an effort to publicly stand for those ideas. It's a lot less of a cult of personality than rallying behind the one person who is loudly advocating for particular issues.

 

[shawnbuddy]

What other leader do you have advocating for anything substantive on the Democrat side? fix Obamacare? what the fuck does that even mean? how will that lower costs of health care against rapacious corporations who are providing us with mediocre healthcare outcomes compared to the rest of the world, for double the price?

What other vision do you propose? does your vision include me paying grotesque amounts for health care so that CEOs and shareholders can sleep happy at night?

Elizabeth Warren!

http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/elizabeth-warren-the-next-step-is-single-payer-health-care/

“President Obama tried to move us forward with health-care coverage by using a conservative model that came from one of the conservative think tanks that had been advanced by a Republican governor in Massachusetts,” she told The Wall Street Journal. ”Now it’s time for the next step. And the next step is single payer.”

 

[pigeon]

At the end of the day this is a public forum and discussion will go along the lines it will go along. It's totally part of your prerogative to dislike the direction its moving in and point that out, but I think it's a bit disingenous to do that on any level besides the specific content. Which is to say I think it's a bit off to claim that we're somehow wrong for not having the discussion you want us to have rather than just wanting us to have that conversation.

It's a public forum. Claiming that your behavior is disagreeable and attempting to establish a norm is literally my only tool for changing discourse! Nor do I think it's "off" when it's a perfectly normal social interaction that people engage in all the time.

In totally anecdotal evidence, I've had more posters send me messages saying that theses sorts of arguments, ones about interpretation and discourse, have actually changed their view of something, than discussions about concrete policy, with which, as far as I can tell, I have never reached anyone on this site. This means, again maybe just in my experience, that this is actually a more useful way to spend my time if I want to effect the kind of change I want to see in the world.

I find this nearly unbelievable but if it's true then you gotta do what you think is best, I guess.

That's a thing people can do, and you can prefer that if you wish. What I'm saying is that it's not any more correct, though you could argue that it's more useful.

Right, but I disagree. I think it is more correct, and that people should agree with me that it is more correct.

Does it really look like that's what I was doing in this thread?

So...I responded to you once, then moved on to respond to someone else. You then responded to my response to that person, and I responded to that.

Not everything in that response was about your post! That should be clear from the fact that I was originally responding to someone else!

 

[El_Tiguere]

Elizabeth Warren!

http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/elizabeth-warren-the-next-step-is-single-payer-health-care/

Good... so now that we know Bernie is introducing the bill, and Warren supports it... I am expecting every single Democrat in here to fall in line with the party and be vocal about their support for single payer. Now is not the time to be grandstanding or trying to foster division in the party.

 

[shawnbuddy]

Good... so now that we know Bernie is introducing the bill, and Warren supports it... I am expecting every single Democrat in here to fall in line with the party and be vocal about their support for single payer. Now is not the time to be grandstanding or trying to foster division in the party.

Just as a point of order, she supports single payer, not necessarily Bernie's bill. Which hasn't been introduced yet.

I'm all for single payer. I've been in line for a while.

 

[Cocaloch]

It's a public forum. Claiming that your behavior is disagreeable and attempting to establish a norm is literally my only tool for changing discourse!

Right, and I'm okay with that.

I'm, saying there's a difference between saying I don't think you should be talking about that, instead you should be talking about this, and saying you are supposed to be talking about this.

Nor do I think it's "off" when it's a perfectly normal social interaction that people engage in all the time.

By saying off I was trying to avoid being too direct. What I meant was I thought it was hypocritical to tell me that I was wrong to talk about the value of a certain conversation, as opposed to talking about the content of that conversation. Because it seems to me the first statement is analogous to, you shouldn't talk about the value of specific conversations themselves as opposed to their content, which would be a value judgement about specific conversations as opposed to their content.

I find this nearly unbelievable but if it's true then you gotta do what you think is best, I guess.

I have never had someone imply that I changed their mind about policy. I have had people directly message me that what I was saying in regards to discourse, especially in regards to the discourse around positivism, changed how they thought about the conversation, even if it didn't immediately change what their stance was. I'm not sure why that's unbelievable. Honestly that makes a lot of sense to me, because people on the whole are less emotionally tied to their reasoning than their thesis.

Right, but I disagree. I think it is more correct, and that people should agree with me that it is more correct.

Yeah, and I think that's fine.

So...I responded to you once, then moved on to respond to someone else. You then responded to my response to that person, and I responded to that.

Not everything in that response was about your post! That should be clear from the fact that I was originally responding to someone else!

Fair enough, but it wasn't clear to me which bits were directed at me.

 

[Your Entertainer]

Force a conversation?

We've debated healthcare legislation in the US for the better part of a decade, it's just not a conversation that conforms totally to his vision.

Single-payer is a worthy goal, but It's hard not to see this endeavor as him grandstanding with doomed bills the same way he's conducted his entire career. I'm unconvinced he's a special, one-of-a-kind leader and our only hope the way he and his supporters seem to like framing both him and his ideas.

This really is just a bad post. You dislike Bernie - we get it. Are you done attacking this straw man of his supporters?

 

[Kthulhu]

I hope it does start a conversation. I know that the DNC has wanted single payer healthcare for awhile, the GOP used to too until they went insane.

 

[Strike]

It's a nice gesture, but nothing's going to happen. Not with a Republican controlled congress. The sooner enough people realize that, the better.

 

[Knuckle Sandwich]

It would be interesting to see which Dems vote which way. Not as interesting as the shitstorm the nos will get from the internet though.

 

[El_Tiguere]

It's a nice gesture, but nothing's going to happen. Not with a Republican controlled congress. The sooner enough people realize that, the better.

The sooner people realize that gestures like this will help Democrats in 2018 (proposing popular policies that work around the world) as a contrast to Republicans, the better.

I hope all the "slow progress" /"but muh health insurer" democrats and media fall in line with the message. I'm 100% expecting the corporate media to lambast this effort for single payer (because they protect their own) even if Americans want it.

 

[Unison]

I hope it does start a conversation. I know that the DNC has wanted single payer healthcare for awhile, the GOP used to too until they went insane.

Is this true? Is single-payer part of the DNC platform?

I was under the impression that it was not.

 

[boiled goose]

If you're a white male.

Some people don't have the luxury of making healthcare their only voting issue.

Or care about the environment, etc.

The Democrats are not remotely like the gop on many issues and on all issues are at least slightly better.

See imperfect obamacare vs disastrously evil trumpcare.

That said, Democrats that don't support single payer should get voted out of office. Not by Republicans, but my more progressive Democrats that actually represent their constituents

The sooner people realize that gestures like this will help Democrats in 2018 (proposing popular policies that work around the world) as a contrast to Republicans, the better.

I hope all the "slow progress" /"but muh health insurer" democrats and media fall in line with the message. I'm 100% expecting the corporate media to lambast this effort for single payer (because they protect their own) even if Americans want it.

Yup.

Slow progress is what usually happens, but it's not what you fight for. See MLK on gradualism.

 

[Toothless]

Just call it the Donald J. Trump MAGA Excellent Healthcare Bill. He'll sign it on live TV.

Medicare Affordable for General Americans Act. It'll work perfectly!

 

[Ziltoidia 9]

Oh look, someone on the left really proposing something.

 

[Fenderputty]

One of the problems w/ endless symbolic non-starter bills (especially in Healthcare) is that when you actually get the votes, often times the work hasn't been done to actually make an alternative work.

We've seen this year both on the right w/ "Repeal and Replace" and on the left w/ California's doomed single-payer proposal, which died because they had the votes to pass one, but not an actual workable plan to do it. (It may also not actually be feasible there due to CA's stupid propositions handcuffing them w/ raising enough tax revenue, but we'd know that if they actually worked up a real bill rather than one meant just to signal a position.)

I would hope they plan to have something on the backburner if they are going to go this route, I agree. We're seeing the effects of not having a plan when it came time.

 

[KingV]

I don't think the majority of people backing him believe he's some kind of special leader. His supporters would support anyone else who makes an effort to publicly stand for those ideas. It's a lot less of a cult of personality than rallying behind the one person who is loudly advocating for particular issues.

This is definitely true. Bernie might not even be all that great of a leader in a lot of ways. Much of what he does is self defeating, IMO. But it's basically him and Elizabeth Warren that even bother to talk about anything designed to help the middle class as a group.

There's a lot of Democrats who say "just fix Obamacare" but I haven't seen anything substantive on what the fixes would theoretically be.

If they include a public option, then I would support them too.

 

[Valhelm]

Thanks, Bernie. This should have come much sooner.

 

[Steel]

Oh look, someone on the left really proposing something.

This isn't the first healthcare bill proposed by a dem in the last 6 months. There's been public option bills and ACA fix bills that have died in committee. Just like this bill will.

 

[zelas]

What the fuck are you talking about?

I read this 5 times over and I'm still lost.

Perfect example of why this is why Its a waste of fucking time. People who don't follow politics aren't paying attention to your failed attempts. Do something productive if you want to have an effect on people's lives.

New headline: "Neogaf poster to make snarky remark on Sanders in a Sanders thread"

Are you really complaining that I'm expressing opinions about Sanders in a thread about Sanders?

This is definitely true. Bernie might not even be all that great of a leader in a lot of ways. Much of what he does is self defeating, IMO. But it's basically him and Elizabeth Warren that even bother to talk about anything designed to help the middle class as a group.

There's a lot of Democrats who say "just fix Obamacare" but I haven't seen anything substantive on what the fixes would theoretically be.

If they include a public option, then I would support them too.

Do you mean that you're aware of?

My Senator (Chris Van Hollen) just held a public forum where the ACA was discussed with Maryland legislators and representatives in the healthcare industry. Democrats, including Warren, just a couple of weeks ago put out their Better Deal agenda that incorporates some of the populist messages Bernie and Warren have been selling. Do you think they just cherry picked populist policies that don't help the middle class?

It's flat out false to say its just Warren and Sanders that talk about helping the middle class or that other democrats aren't offering solutions for Obamacare. And you really shouldn't have made that claim while agreeing there isn't much of cult of personality element with Bernie's supporters.

Oh look, someone on the left really proposing something.

Once again, waste of everyone's time. Bernie already has an audience so captive that he's got them ignoring everything else done by Democrats throughout the year.

 

[Hoho for breakfast]

Bernies the man. He's doing what he can do. And guess what Gaf? Here we are having a conversation about it, just like he wants.

I dont ask myself what Jesus would do anymore, first I look to Bernie Sanders.

"WWBD"?, I often wonder. I bet he would call people out for running rigged Facebook contests. He'd have none of it.

 

[pigeon]

Oh look, someone on the left really proposing something.

Once again, John Conyers introduced a Medicare for All bill in January. He introduces one every Congress for years now.

Posts like these demonstrate yet again that the reason many people think Bernie is the only progressive politician is that they don't know anything about any of the stuff any other politicians actually do.

 

[kitsunelaine]

Where are all the "You lost, shut up and go away" posts like there were with hillary when she comes in the news, no matter what news it is?

Is that a double standard I smell?