6 ms·

The idea that some people support policies they openly claim to support falls pretty far short of a conspiracy theory.

by chc 8y ago

philwelch 8y ago
The idea is more like, "conservatives intentionally restrict regulation of businesses, deliberately shifting the burden onto the judicial system, which they also starve of resources, such that the only manageable solution is to allow mandatory arbitration". The assertion is basically that all of these consequences were not only intended, but planned. Most of the contacts, licenses, agreements, terms and conditions, etc. that entail mandatory arbitration exist in the first place as a response to well-intended laws, regulations and judicial precedents that come from pro-consumer or pro-employee motivations. If you're an ideologically consistent conservative, you probably want to just get rid of those laws and regulations, at which point you wouldn't need a mandatory arbitration clause or, indeed, the entire remainder of the massive legal document. I don't know any conservatives who say, "yes, in order to use consumer software, you should have to agree to a ten-page document that says you shouldn't use it to run a nuclear reactor, but only if we put a clause in there about mandatory arbitration!" I think the conservatives would rather not have the red tape in the first place.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  I find it very telling when someone refers to "pro employee/pro consumer rules" as "red tape".
  - philwelch 8y ago
    Ah, you're trying to "gotcha!" me. Just being able to understand and explain a viewpoint doesn't entail agreeing with it. Unlike seemingly everyone else in this conversation, I don't feel qualified to have an informed opinion on this. Of course, if you keep tut-tutting about it being "very telling" when someone is capable of explaining opposing viewpoints, then you save yourself the trouble of ever having to engage with those viewpoints and your bubble is intact. Congratulations on that. I commend you on your emotional and intellectual maturity. God, HN has gone to shit.
    - s73v3r_ 8y ago
      Absolutely nowhere in your post did you mention once that you were merely trying to "explain" a viewpoint, and not that it was your viewpoint in the discussion. And I'm sure you've demonstrated considerable emotional maturity disparaging consumer and employee rights, while complaining about comments on the internet.
      - philwelch 8y ago
        My viewpoint in the discussion is that mandatory arbitration is an attempt to work around an expensive and overtaxed court system. Conservatives would probably prefer that companies have fewer legal liabilities in the first place, and liberals would probably prefer that most of the burden of protecting consumers and employees be handled by more explicit and comprehensive regulations up front so that people didn’t have to resort to litigation. Since we live in a democracy, we ended up with a compromise that leaves everyone unhappy. Since it’s obvious why liberals are unhappy, the only piece I needed to add was an explanation of why conservatives are unhappy with this compromise. I shouldn’t have to restate the entire context of a threaded conversation every single time I respond to it, but apparently I do or otherwise people are going to think I’m some type of conservative and insult me over it. I’m not a conservative, but I also don’t think insulting people over political disagreements is acceptable in the first place.

The idea that some people support policies they openly claim to support falls pretty far short of a conspiracy theory.

by chc 8y ago

The idea that some people support policies they openly claim to support falls pretty far short of a conspiracy theory.

The idea is more like, "conservatives intentionally restrict regulation of businesses, deliberately shifting the burden onto the judicial system, which they also starve of resources, such that the only manageable solution is to allow mandatory arbitration". The assertion is basically that all of these consequences were not only intended, but planned. Most of the contacts, licenses, agreements, terms and conditions, etc. that entail mandatory arbitration exist in the first place as a response to well-intended laws, regulations and judicial precedents that come from pro-consumer or pro-employee motivations. If you're an ideologically consistent conservative, you probably want to just get rid of those laws and regulations, at which point you wouldn't need a mandatory arbitration clause or, indeed, the entire remainder of the massive legal document. I don't know any conservatives who say, "yes, in order to use consumer software, you should have to agree to a ten-page document that says you shouldn't use it to run a nuclear reactor, but only if we put a clause in there about mandatory arbitration!" I think the conservatives would rather not have the red tape in the first place.

s73v3r_ 8y ago
I find it very telling when someone refers to "pro employee/pro consumer rules" as "red tape".
- philwelch 8y ago
  Ah, you're trying to "gotcha!" me. Just being able to understand and explain a viewpoint doesn't entail agreeing with it. Unlike seemingly everyone else in this conversation, I don't feel qualified to have an informed opinion on this. Of course, if you keep tut-tutting about it being "very telling" when someone is capable of explaining opposing viewpoints, then you save yourself the trouble of ever having to engage with those viewpoints and your bubble is intact. Congratulations on that. I commend you on your emotional and intellectual maturity. God, HN has gone to shit.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    Absolutely nowhere in your post did you mention once that you were merely trying to "explain" a viewpoint, and not that it was your viewpoint in the discussion. And I'm sure you've demonstrated considerable emotional maturity disparaging consumer and employee rights, while complaining about comments on the internet.
    - philwelch 8y ago
      My viewpoint in the discussion is that mandatory arbitration is an attempt to work around an expensive and overtaxed court system. Conservatives would probably prefer that companies have fewer legal liabilities in the first place, and liberals would probably prefer that most of the burden of protecting consumers and employees be handled by more explicit and comprehensive regulations up front so that people didn’t have to resort to litigation. Since we live in a democracy, we ended up with a compromise that leaves everyone unhappy. Since it’s obvious why liberals are unhappy, the only piece I needed to add was an explanation of why conservatives are unhappy with this compromise. I shouldn’t have to restate the entire context of a threaded conversation every single time I respond to it, but apparently I do or otherwise people are going to think I’m some type of conservative and insult me over it. I’m not a conservative, but I also don’t think insulting people over political disagreements is acceptable in the first place.