4 ms·

> It seems to me that when we allow ourselves to be distracted by the category conflicts, we are distracted from the fight between those trying to maximize our

by cure 6y ago

> It seems to me that when we allow ourselves to be distracted by the category conflicts, we are distracted from the fight between those trying to maximize our well-being and those happy to throw us all under the bus to optimize for their individual circumstance. That's a reasonable point I agree with. But you're just practicing bothsideism here. It is quite obvious that the ones throwing everyone under the bus to optimize for their individual circumstance are the Republicans. Pretty much every Republican policy is a form of "screw the poor, screw the planet, it's all fine as long as I become richer". Sometimes it's a bit disguised but it's often quite blatant. For example, all the gutting of regulations at the EPA so that the coal industry can keep polluting to their hearts content.

RhysU 6y ago
It's quite clearly not limited to one party. Taking coal as an example.. Pro-climate folks would throw the livelihood of coal mining families under the bus, too, to achieve climate policies that pro-climate folks believe will help them long-term.
- cure 6y ago
  > Taking coal as an example.. Pro-climate folks would throw the livelihood of coal mining families under the bus, too, to achieve climate policies that pro-climate folks believe will help them long-term. Let me fix that for you: ... that pro-climate folks believe will help EVERYONE short to medium-term. As in, stopping the burning of coal will slow the rate of climate change, which will keep our planet more habitable. For example, avoid having the bulk of Florida underwater in a few decades. Avoid ever more powerful storms, forest fires, droughts, floods. Calling this 'throwing the livelihood of coal mining families under the bus to help themselves' is disingenuous. Again, this is just bothsideism. Because those pro-climate people also tend to be Democrats, who are the ones who actually care about providing enough unemployment assistance to allow people to live while they are looking for work. Who fund programs that allow people to learn new skills so they can start new careers. Republicans are the ones cutting benefits, from SCHIP to regular unemployment benefits, and are going out of their way to make getting benefits as incompatible as possible with the daily life of someone struggling to get by. Have you looked at the hoops that some of the red states make the poor and unemployed jump through? And finally, Democrats want to provide high quality, affordable health care for everyone, not just those people rich enough to afford it, which is the Republican platform. Coal mining is an unhealthy job. Are the coal companies going to pay for all the health care retired miners need?
  - RhysU 6y ago
    That pro-climate folks think it'll help everyone else too is irrelevant to the example. Certainly, climate policy aims for outcomes they want for themselves. The example assumes nothing about the outcome of any such policy other than it surely makes it harder for a coal miner to put food on the table in the near term. That is, pro-climate folks seek outcomes that are at least short-term detrimental to others. This is a direct contradiction to the earlier claim that one party in the US has a monopoly on such behavior. > Calling this 'throwing the livelihood of coal mining families under the bus to help themselves' is disingenuous. Uhh, no. Source: Extended family that was well-paid within the mining industry until regulatory changes during the prior presidential administration caused a sharp contraction in that industry.
burfog 6y ago
What you call "screw the poor" can be seen as a way to prevent moral hazard. By that I mean the term as used by the insurance industry, not something religious. Simply put, every economic system finds a way to force people to do miserable work. Passive systems (roughly "free market") use the natural consequences of poverty. Active systems end up with brutal prison camps, because normal people just won't volunteer to do miserable jobs for the common good.
erikerikson 6y ago
> just practicing bothsideism here. I disagree. I was noting a more complex reality where scientists who agree with climate science might also choose to identify as Republican given the totality of the platform. In fact, I have known some. To rephrase my earlier statement: There exists at least one proper (accepted by the scientific community as opposed to self proclaimed) scientist who identifies as Republican. I said that in counter to a universal statement. The reason is that the existence of one counter example leads to a contradiction with the generalization. As such the universal is false. It doesn't declare a statement on the relative frequency of scientists in either party. I choose to stay out of that conversation because I find people struggle to be rational in these discussions about politics.

by cure 6y ago

RhysU 6y ago

It's quite clearly not limited to one party. Taking coal as an example.. Pro-climate folks would throw the livelihood of coal mining families under the bus, too, to achieve climate policies that pro-climate folks believe will help them long-term.

cure 6y ago
> Taking coal as an example.. Pro-climate folks would throw the livelihood of coal mining families under the bus, too, to achieve climate policies that pro-climate folks believe will help them long-term. Let me fix that for you: ... that pro-climate folks believe will help EVERYONE short to medium-term. As in, stopping the burning of coal will slow the rate of climate change, which will keep our planet more habitable. For example, avoid having the bulk of Florida underwater in a few decades. Avoid ever more powerful storms, forest fires, droughts, floods. Calling this 'throwing the livelihood of coal mining families under the bus to help themselves' is disingenuous. Again, this is just bothsideism. Because those pro-climate people also tend to be Democrats, who are the ones who actually care about providing enough unemployment assistance to allow people to live while they are looking for work. Who fund programs that allow people to learn new skills so they can start new careers. Republicans are the ones cutting benefits, from SCHIP to regular unemployment benefits, and are going out of their way to make getting benefits as incompatible as possible with the daily life of someone struggling to get by. Have you looked at the hoops that some of the red states make the poor and unemployed jump through? And finally, Democrats want to provide high quality, affordable health care for everyone, not just those people rich enough to afford it, which is the Republican platform. Coal mining is an unhealthy job. Are the coal companies going to pay for all the health care retired miners need?
- RhysU 6y ago
  That pro-climate folks think it'll help everyone else too is irrelevant to the example. Certainly, climate policy aims for outcomes they want for themselves. The example assumes nothing about the outcome of any such policy other than it surely makes it harder for a coal miner to put food on the table in the near term. That is, pro-climate folks seek outcomes that are at least short-term detrimental to others. This is a direct contradiction to the earlier claim that one party in the US has a monopoly on such behavior. > Calling this 'throwing the livelihood of coal mining families under the bus to help themselves' is disingenuous. Uhh, no. Source: Extended family that was well-paid within the mining industry until regulatory changes during the prior presidential administration caused a sharp contraction in that industry.

burfog 6y ago

What you call "screw the poor" can be seen as a way to prevent moral hazard. By that I mean the term as used by the insurance industry, not something religious. Simply put, every economic system finds a way to force people to do miserable work. Passive systems (roughly "free market") use the natural consequences of poverty. Active systems end up with brutal prison camps, because normal people just won't volunteer to do miserable jobs for the common good.

erikerikson 6y ago

> just practicing bothsideism here. I disagree. I was noting a more complex reality where scientists who agree with climate science might also choose to identify as Republican given the totality of the platform. In fact, I have known some. To rephrase my earlier statement: There exists at least one proper (accepted by the scientific community as opposed to self proclaimed) scientist who identifies as Republican. I said that in counter to a universal statement. The reason is that the existence of one counter example leads to a contradiction with the generalization. As such the universal is false. It doesn't declare a statement on the relative frequency of scientists in either party. I choose to stay out of that conversation because I find people struggle to be rational in these discussions about politics.