-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2016 |OT7| Notorious R.B.G. Plans NZ Tour
- Thread starter Retromelon
- Start date
- Status
You've shifted the goalposts.Of course aggregating opinions is easy, that's why we can do opinion polling. That doesn't tell us anything about what we should do/what the purpose of democracy is.
Democracy has no inherent purpose or moral authority. The moral authority of democracy derives from the fact that it is better as a system for ensuring the best situation for everyone than any other system that has been used (obviously it is not perfect at this). If there was a system which was better for everyone than democracy, then regardless of the nature of that system, it would be better.
shinra-bansho
Member
You're essentially projecting your priorities as the right ones that should supplant any that others hold higher.
You're making everyone buy the Wii U because you think it has the best games. Even if they hate Mario.
You're making everyone buy the Wii U because you think it has the best games. Even if they hate Mario.
Shooting came from Islamist extremist. Expect many "I told you so's" from Trump and his camp in the coming days.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
No. Again, I'm not imposing this. I'm attempting to persuade them that they might actually be wrong about hating Mario and actually they'll find that Mario Kart 8 is surprisingly fun and they'd be happier having tried it then had they not.
Like I said before, it's a difference of ideology and identity. Obviously you have a different view of yourself as some warrior for REAL democracy as opposed to me. I'm not so foolishly arrogant to consider myself so highly.
Your emphasis on the presidential campaign aspect in your response indicated a focus on the power of the presidential campaign alone. So I was hardly being reductive; I merely replied to what was presented.
You notably also skipped the section that indicated how the populace was trending towards more progressive policies and ideas before the primaries really kicked off. It is the work of years and millions to change the hearts of people. We're not disagreeing here. But in your previous post, the silly fixation on the importance of changing the electorate through a campaign is silly. Presidents are not remembered for how they changed the country through their presidential campaigns. They are remembered for the actions they take in office.
Clinging onto the belief that campaigns that are forgotten within a year changed anything is only an attempt to paint presidential campaigns as vitally important events. Who remembers the campaigns of 2000? 1996? 1992? 1988? We remember the election of 2008 for its historic nature, but when Obama's campaign is mentioned, it is for the marvel at how its messaging, marketing, and organization was amazing.
shinra-bansho
Member
I already like Mario. But I'm not buying a Wii U. I only need one console.
This is skin-crawly, dude.
Not that I've heard of
I was positing that a more efficient system that produced outcomes at least as fair as those democracy does would be morally better.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I think the feeling is at least mutual at this point.
I think the way you see the purpose of politics is pretty disturbing.Ignatz Mouse
Banned
Is this confirmed? I heard "domestic terrorism" but nothing about the ideology behind it yet.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Not that I've heard of
I was positing that a more efficient system that produced outcomes at least as fair as those democracy does would be morally better.
Efficiency of what, though?
Arrow's Impossibility Theorem states that there is no way of aggregating a given set of preference vectors that is complete, transitive, independent of irrelevant alternatives and a non-dictatorship (no uniquely decisive individual); see: http://www.math.cornell.edu/twiki/pub/SMI/SocialChoice/JohnGArrow.pdf. Given exactly the same sets of preferences, the method you use to aggregate them will return a different outcome. If the sole point of democracy is to aggregate preferences, then you're stuck because aggregation of preferences is ultimately dependent on which aggregation mechanism you use and you have no way of determining which one that would be. As an example, given the exact same set of preferences, AV and FPTP return different selections. Which one do we choose and why? What principles do we use to determine what our democracy looks like?
Not to mention you're already talking in philosophical outcomes when you're talking about outcomes that are "at least as fair", whatever that means; and you're already talking in philosophical terms when you're saying "morally better" - is fairness necessarily morally better? Might there not be a situation which is less fair but more legitimate? How do we compare the two? The philosophy precedes the maths.
I will read that, I would love to continue this conversation but I'm going down the pub to watch football
shinra-bansho
Member
I think the feeling is at least mutual at this point.
I think you are responding to the wrong person.
I prefer to save my moral indignation for Sanders supporters!
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
In fairness I'm quite hungover right now over my viva and trying to get you and shinra the right way round is annoyingly taxing.
shinra-bansho
Member
I really don't know what you find so disturbing about these big, expensive travelling roadshows, basically being marketing campaigns.
Rebel Leader
THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
Well, if you say so.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
From my Facebook a week was probably the right choice as a cool down period
But not his campaign? California is going to flip any day now. He's gained 0.09% in the last two days!
Officerrob
Banned
Chuck Todd asked Bernie if he's still an active Presidential candidate, and Bernie said he will do whatever he needs to made sure Trump is defeated. Todd asked again, and Bernie still refused to say yes
DC is just a formality because it will be a drubbing, but it gives him time to ramp things down while still going through with having every state vote. I would still be shocked if he dropped Tuesday but end of week sure
Bend the knee to the mother of dragons.
Good. Hopefully he has something ready to pull out of his sleeve at his rally.
shinra-bansho
Member
I would have preferred the Romney boys.
I think there's something to this, but I feel like Democrats basically already do this.
Bill Clinton did this. He ran pretty heavily on the economy, had his "Sister Souljah moment", and ended up doing DADT and welfare reform.
Obama did this. 2008 was again very much about the economy and Obama drew criticism from the left for not talking very much at all about "black issues". He was opposed to gay marriage. IIRC the two issues he spent the most time talking about were health care and war, and neither were cast in minority-specific ways. Immigration was an issue that where he set himself against many white voters, but it was also (and is) fairly pressing and until shortly before the election there was a bipartisan consensus that you needed a path to legalization - his opponent had sponsored a bill to this effect. The only thing I remember him making a big deal out of on the campaign trail was fair pay for women, which probably did turn off some men but I don't know if it was bad strategy since there are lots of women voters too. I think the way that lots of people seemed to have this attitude that the country electing Obama proved that racism wasn't a problem sort of shows that he really wasn't running on doing stuff specifically to help minorities.
In the general, I expect Hillary Clinton to also talk in much broader terms about who her policies are supposed to help. But I think any shift towards making an issue of things like police violence against African-Americans is done understanding that it probably costs her. The Democrats have been doing what you're suggesting in order to be competitive for decades. Now they've got a coalition where they can actually push for a mandate to do something about immediate problems facing various groups, and so they're spending a little time doing that.
Can we agree that if a poster does a drive by post where they agree with Susan Sarandon, we don't take the bait?
At least some folks who stand on moral platitudes are in the "vote Dem in November" club. People who aren't either need time to come around, or are more concerned with their moral high horse than actual policy
I thought Kev triple posted last night, but shinra was in the middle
ZING
At least some folks who stand on moral platitudes are in the "vote Dem in November" club. People who aren't either need time to come around, or are more concerned with their moral high horse than actual policy
I thought Kev triple posted last night, but shinra was in the middle
ZING
$15/hr being pushed isn't a result of people spontaneously figuring out that it's the "moral thing to do", it's the result of a bankrolled "Fight for Fifteen" marketing and advocacy campaign. Shinra's absolutely correct on this one- politics is totally about marketing. Median voter theory is key to understanding why Obama/Clinton slowly moved further left over time- they were both playing the game to win.
Morals are bullshit. They mean whatever the person wants them to mean, it's like appealing to "What would Jesus do" or "What would MLK do".
Morals are bullshit. They mean whatever the person wants them to mean, it's like appealing to "What would Jesus do" or "What would MLK do".
RastaMentality
Banned
The Pulse Shooting is looking to be the deadliest mass shooting in American history. 50 dead. https://twitter.com/GMA/status/741999186116149249
Jesus fucking Christ, and we going to do a damn thing about it are we?
There's days I think we're absolutely nowhere and this is one.
DrForester
Kills Photobucket
Deadliest mass shooting in American History.
Quick, lets do nothing!
Quick, lets do nothing!
Officerrob
Banned
As awful as it is to say on yet another day where there is a massive loss of life, nothing will change. The right will cling to this being a terrorist act, the left will scream about this being a hate crime and the ease of which people can get a gun in this country. At the end of the day, it's just another awful event in which we as a country refuse to learn from. Sad.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
One side is right and the other puts their hobbies and imagined fear over peoples lives.
RustyNails
Member
Yea this is horrible. I dont like discussing the politics while the dead havent even been buried but cant help but be concerned about more polarization in America.
I mean... politicizing is a dirty word, but wouldn't these poor innocents want us to look at this tragic situation, and you know, fucking do something?
RastaMentality
Banned
https://twitter.com/DanPatrick/status/741963306294902785
Might've been the most poorly timed, pre-scheduled tweet this year but it's still fuck the Lt. Governor of Texas.
Vigilant Walrus
Member
It's impossible not to. They are dragging this into xenophobia immediately;
From the Good Morning America Twitter; https://twitter.com/GMA
It's incredible cruel to use tragic events for political gain
User 463088
Banned
I...I used to go to that club. A lot.
Then there never will be a time for it. Gun deaths happen everyday and mass shootings at a similar pace. I'm not saying you are doing this but people who want us to respect the dead and not bring up gun politics simply want the discussion about guns to go away.
Oh man. Can't imagine how you must be feeling right now. I'm sorry.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked