3 ms·

They really don't tend to be more civil. The only reason it may seem like that in America is that the USA has never really attempted to cut its deficit. Go loo

They really don't tend to be more civil. The only reason it may seem like that in America is that the USA has never really attempted to cut its deficit. Go look at political conversation in the UK and you'll find large numbers of left wingers / liberals foaming at the mouth about how the government trying to balance its budget is the same thing as hating people, killing them, that austerity is unthinkable evil, that any solution which isn't vast taxes on the rich is evidence of a defective moral compass, etc.

te_chris 9y ago
"Go look at political conversation in the UK and you'll find large numbers of left wingers / liberals foaming at the mouth about how the government trying to balance its budget is the same thing as hating people, killing them" I see you've listened closely to them and engaged with their arguments.
- peoplewindow 9y ago
  You don't believe me, huh. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/may/15/recessions-hurt-but-austerity-kills https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/may/15/recessions-h... "Recessions can hurt, but austerity kills" https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/20/engels-britain-murders-poor-grenfell-tower https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/20/engels... "The victims of Grenfell Tower didn’t just die. Austerity, outsourcing and deregulation killed them" https://www.theguardian.com/membership/commentisfree/2017/apr/15/knife-crime-cause-death-dare-not-speak-name-austerity-cuts-youth-funding https://www.theguardian.com/membership/commentisfree/2017/ap... "The cause of death that dare not speak its name: austerity" Politicians that aim for a balanced budget without raising taxes = murderers is an exceptionally common refrain from the extreme end of the British left. It's hard to engage with their arguments because I don't share their basic axioms, namely, that they tend to assume there are no tradeoffs in life, and in particular, they tend to assume that tax revenues can be set to more or less any level without any negative side effects. Of course, if you argued that the Guardian is no longer really representative of mainstream left-wing opinion in the UK I'd support you on that, but I pointed out the extremism of the Guardian on HN a week or so ago and got downvoted a lot ... lots of Guardian readers here I think!
  - te_chris 9y ago
    I don't get it, you don't like these articles because you find the idea that govt. negligence can actually kill people who rely on the govt. offensive?
    - peoplewindow 9y ago
      You're changing the subject. My original assertion was that there's nothing magic about taxes that makes them unusually civil, it's simply that austerity is not an issue in US politics because the government has never tried to balance its budget. I cited the UK as a counter example. You suggested I had never engaged with their arguments because I described them as based in hatred. I proved that my description of these opinions was entirely accurate. You can find endless articles like that in the left wing press, or banners at protests that say exactly the same thing. This resolved the point you raised. Whether these articles have merit or not is irrelevant to my original point.
      - te_chris 9y ago
        More like: you presented a framing of the argument against austerity as purely being about tax levels, I gently mocked this. You then cited some guardian articles and reasoned that "Politicians that aim for a balanced budget without raising taxes = murderers" was a message. I replied questioning what you thought about what I took as the main message from those arguments: that govt. negligence can occur as a result of this tax policy. And now this: "I proved that my description of these opinions was entirely accurate. You can find endless articles like that in the left wing press, or banners at protests that say exactly the same thing. This resolved the point you raised." Sure you did. You conclusively proved that the mere existence of these arguments is offensive to you because you seem to believe that a policy such as austerity (or "tax policy"), which directly cuts the benefits that portions of the population rely on to survive, apparently has no effects and is a mere mathematical debate. You also consistently proved that you see yourself as eminently rational and arrogantly above engaging with the arguments which are made against your world view. Given this, I'd say that your statement "Whether these articles have merit or not is irrelevant to my original point." is incorrect.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

te_chris 9y ago

"Go look at political conversation in the UK and you'll find large numbers of left wingers / liberals foaming at the mouth about how the government trying to balance its budget is the same thing as hating people, killing them" I see you've listened closely to them and engaged with their arguments.

peoplewindow 9y ago
You don't believe me, huh. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/may/15/recessions-hurt-but-austerity-kills https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/may/15/recessions-h... "Recessions can hurt, but austerity kills" https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/20/engels-britain-murders-poor-grenfell-tower https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/20/engels... "The victims of Grenfell Tower didn’t just die. Austerity, outsourcing and deregulation killed them" https://www.theguardian.com/membership/commentisfree/2017/apr/15/knife-crime-cause-death-dare-not-speak-name-austerity-cuts-youth-funding https://www.theguardian.com/membership/commentisfree/2017/ap... "The cause of death that dare not speak its name: austerity" Politicians that aim for a balanced budget without raising taxes = murderers is an exceptionally common refrain from the extreme end of the British left. It's hard to engage with their arguments because I don't share their basic axioms, namely, that they tend to assume there are no tradeoffs in life, and in particular, they tend to assume that tax revenues can be set to more or less any level without any negative side effects. Of course, if you argued that the Guardian is no longer really representative of mainstream left-wing opinion in the UK I'd support you on that, but I pointed out the extremism of the Guardian on HN a week or so ago and got downvoted a lot ... lots of Guardian readers here I think!
- te_chris 9y ago
  I don't get it, you don't like these articles because you find the idea that govt. negligence can actually kill people who rely on the govt. offensive?
  - peoplewindow 9y ago
    You're changing the subject. My original assertion was that there's nothing magic about taxes that makes them unusually civil, it's simply that austerity is not an issue in US politics because the government has never tried to balance its budget. I cited the UK as a counter example. You suggested I had never engaged with their arguments because I described them as based in hatred. I proved that my description of these opinions was entirely accurate. You can find endless articles like that in the left wing press, or banners at protests that say exactly the same thing. This resolved the point you raised. Whether these articles have merit or not is irrelevant to my original point.
    - te_chris 9y ago
      More like: you presented a framing of the argument against austerity as purely being about tax levels, I gently mocked this. You then cited some guardian articles and reasoned that "Politicians that aim for a balanced budget without raising taxes = murderers" was a message. I replied questioning what you thought about what I took as the main message from those arguments: that govt. negligence can occur as a result of this tax policy. And now this: "I proved that my description of these opinions was entirely accurate. You can find endless articles like that in the left wing press, or banners at protests that say exactly the same thing. This resolved the point you raised." Sure you did. You conclusively proved that the mere existence of these arguments is offensive to you because you seem to believe that a policy such as austerity (or "tax policy"), which directly cuts the benefits that portions of the population rely on to survive, apparently has no effects and is a mere mathematical debate. You also consistently proved that you see yourself as eminently rational and arrogantly above engaging with the arguments which are made against your world view. Given this, I'd say that your statement "Whether these articles have merit or not is irrelevant to my original point." is incorrect.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]