4 ms·

There are a lot of negative things that one can imply about America, so I'm surprised that you reached for 'boring'. I don't even know what source to cite, but

• harry8 5y ago
  >Americans are spending progressively less time in shopping malls[1] and the military[2]. [1] Are Amazon, ebay et al shopping malls? Given healthcare and college tuition being paid by the state I think you might see [2] drop very, very fast and far. I've heard the argument made that this was why the establishment corrupt of Washington united so cohesively against Bernie.
  • JackFr 5y ago
    > I've heard the argument made Weasel words from which my immediate instinct is to recoil. Do you believe the argument? Then simply make the argument. Are you skeptical of it? Then do not repeat it. If indeed you heard someone special make the argument, tell us who. But saying “I’ve heard the argument made” typically means it’s your opinion and your trying to lend the argument more weight than it has.
    • harry8 5y ago
      Now don't smear, it's against house rules around here and @dang will get very cross. I've heard the argument, I repeat it because I take it seriously and it seems plausible to me. I am not sufficiently expert to know with /certainty/ so I don't claim certainty because that would be silly. Moreover when you point out an argument that appears to have some merit but you have not yet made up your mind about, someone here frequently responds with a well-reasoned perspective that is different and based on evidence. Such things make conversation here worthwhile like this particular one basically isn't. Best.
      • Dylan16807 5y ago
        > Now don't smear What part of that comment are you calling a smear?
        • harry8 5y ago
          "Weasel words from which my immediate instinct is to recoil." Obviously is not engaging with an argument, idea or evidence and isn't much more than abuse. Also completely wrong in every way as I politely outlined.
          • Dylan16807 5y ago
            "Weasel words" is a term and it's correctly used here. I don't understand how you think it's "completely wrong"; it's not. It's also not abuse at all to object like that. And engaging with an argument requires understanding it, and their post is a pretty good way to get an understanding of your actual argument. Unless you mean they needed to engage with your quote independently of what your argument is, which I would disagree with.
            • harry8 5y ago
              weasel words noun words or statements that are intentionally ambiguous or misleading. There is no engagement with the idea expressed at all. There is a statement that you must agree totally, disagree totally or shut up about an idea otherwise it's "weasel words" which is clearly and obviously to me utter nonsense. As I said. That kind of nonsense not encouraged around here because what happens next is flame-war, is my understanding. Is it also yours? Much the same as if were to say, (which I am emphatically not) that you are just "piling-in" and are trying to distract from a point about possible contributors to Washington corruption and ensuring that anyone who even suggests such a thing about corruption is worth considering and exploring should be condemned as being weasel-like. If I said that, which again I am not, that would be personal, not helpful, not engaging with an argument. So I am not saying that. I am now saying explicitly I have zero reason to believe that. I am giving you the benefit of of the belief that the argument is in good faith and engaging with it accordingly rather than casting aspersions about you. We really do need to be able to discuss possibilities before having full, firm and unshakable views as to their unambiguous and evergreen truth. You're allowed to consider a plausible argument before having been awarded your PhD in it. What do you think? Is it plausible that the corrupt in Washington united so cohesively against Bernie because with health care and tuition covered the numbers volunteering for the armed services would plummet? Do you think there was a different reason and that isn't significant? Or do you think the corrupt in Washington were not against Bernie? Or do you think there isn't meaningful influence of the corrupt in Washington? Or something else? Or do you not have the right to express any ideas about any of it because there must always be something you can't know about it. If you had thoughts and an argument from /evidence/ about it I'd likely update my views at least somewhat. Would I dismiss this idea? Would it become more plausible? The argument, that I heard expressed, and lack information to fault (acknowledging that such information may exist), is interesting to me and possibly others. Refraining from stating it as an incontrovertible fact is not at all weasel-like and doesn't seem to me that calling it so is likely to lead to productive discussions between people who are capable of updating their opinions on a topic.
• linksnapzz 5y ago
  I didn't mean to imply boring; don't know how you got that. It's more of a metaphor.