5 ms·

Inequality is not at record levels, it's decreased since around 2016 in the US and it has substantially decreased globally (see recent work by Milanovic). Isra

by dash2 3y ago

Inequality is not at record levels, it's decreased since around 2016 in the US and it has substantially decreased globally (see recent work by Milanovic). Israel is not "openly genocidal". I disagree that it is genocidal at all; certainly not openly. Arguments that Israel's policy is genocidal do not tend to survive acquaintance with a serious international lawyer. Human rights violations, maybe. It is simply false that 92% of people have no effect on policy. (They elect presidents.) Maybe you think that 92% of people's preferences don't affect policy. That's almost certainly also false - use common sense - and based on correlational polisci work, in a setting where correlations are not very persuasive (I am thinking of Gilens and Page) and where the very idea of preferences is pretty suspect. Nobody in this thread has complained about the existence of political work. They've complained about politics making the art worse. I'd say there are many cases of art which has been made worse by the clumsy addition of politics, or of bad art being praised because it had the right politics. Have you never seen that? I think your opinions are much stronger and more certain than your knowledge base warrants.

tptacek 3y ago
That last line: not great.
- throwitaway1123 3y ago
  Is it just me or are these sorts of statements becoming more common? Another commenter on this post told someone he was lacking reading comprehension skills in an argument about the political implications of the children's novel Harry Potter: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38904272 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38904272
  - tptacek 3y ago
    They're common enough to be explicitly proscribed by the guidelines.
- dash2 3y ago
  I thought it was reasonable, and my post gives the evidence to back it up.
  - tptacek 3y ago
    Maybe in some other forum, but on this one, it contravenes the guidelines, and probably cost your comment some support.
mandmandam 3y ago
> Israel is not "openly genocidal". Yes, it is [0]. > Arguments that Israel's policy is genocidal do not tend to survive acquaintance with a serious international lawyer. False [1]. > It is simply false that 92% of people have no effect on policy Oh yeah [2]? Also, the majority of the US supports free healthcare, a ceasefire in Palestine, free college, clean water, modern drug policy, fair housing, and higher taxes on the rich. It's pretty obvious that the people are not being represented. > Nobody in this thread has complained about the existence of political work. You're changing the argument. > I think your opinions are much stronger and more certain than your knowledge base warrants. You might be right. Doesn't mean I'm wrong, and your arguments that I am are pretty flimsy for a self-proclaimed scientist. 0 - https://law4palestine.org/law-for-palestine-releases-database-with-500-instances-of-israeli-incitement-to-genocide-continuously-updated/ https://law4palestine.org/law-for-palestine-releases-databas... 1 - https://www.un.org/unispal/document/icj-southafrica-israel-genocide-29dec2023/ https://www.un.org/unispal/document/icj-southafrica-israel-g... 2 - https://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/princeton-scholar-demise-of-democracy-america-tpm-interview https://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/princeton-scholar-demise-of...
- dash2 3y ago
  I'm glad you accept my point about inequality. For Gilens and Page, don't waste time reading TPM. Just read the original article. Notice that they correlate expressed preferences with policy, find it higher for rich people, and draw their conclusion. An alternative explanation, backed up by 50 years of public opinion research, is that most people don't have carefully thought out opinions on public policy. They have non-attitudes which will change whenever they are asked or depending whose asking. Not surprisingly, randomness doesn't correlate with anything. Rich people are often more interested in politics - you are likely an example. As for Palestine, you're citing an advocacy organization, and the UN, of which the less said the better. To quote Ben Kiernan, "Israel's retaliatory bombing of Gaza, however indiscriminate, and its current ground attacks, despite the numerous civilian casualties they are causing among Gaza's Palestinian population, do not meet the very high threshold that is required to meet the legal definition of genocide." Here's another reasonable take: https://archive.is/O8HpJ https://archive.is/O8HpJ

by dash2 3y ago

tptacek 3y ago

That last line: not great.

throwitaway1123 3y ago
Is it just me or are these sorts of statements becoming more common? Another commenter on this post told someone he was lacking reading comprehension skills in an argument about the political implications of the children's novel Harry Potter: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38904272 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38904272
- tptacek 3y ago
  They're common enough to be explicitly proscribed by the guidelines.
dash2 3y ago
I thought it was reasonable, and my post gives the evidence to back it up.
- tptacek 3y ago
  Maybe in some other forum, but on this one, it contravenes the guidelines, and probably cost your comment some support.

mandmandam 3y ago

> Israel is not "openly genocidal". Yes, it is [0]. > Arguments that Israel's policy is genocidal do not tend to survive acquaintance with a serious international lawyer. False [1]. > It is simply false that 92% of people have no effect on policy Oh yeah [2]? Also, the majority of the US supports free healthcare, a ceasefire in Palestine, free college, clean water, modern drug policy, fair housing, and higher taxes on the rich. It's pretty obvious that the people are not being represented. > Nobody in this thread has complained about the existence of political work. You're changing the argument. > I think your opinions are much stronger and more certain than your knowledge base warrants. You might be right. Doesn't mean I'm wrong, and your arguments that I am are pretty flimsy for a self-proclaimed scientist. 0 - https://law4palestine.org/law-for-palestine-releases-database-with-500-instances-of-israeli-incitement-to-genocide-continuously-updated/ https://law4palestine.org/law-for-palestine-releases-databas... 1 - https://www.un.org/unispal/document/icj-southafrica-israel-genocide-29dec2023/ https://www.un.org/unispal/document/icj-southafrica-israel-g... 2 - https://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/princeton-scholar-demise-of-democracy-america-tpm-interview https://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/princeton-scholar-demise-of...

dash2 3y ago
I'm glad you accept my point about inequality. For Gilens and Page, don't waste time reading TPM. Just read the original article. Notice that they correlate expressed preferences with policy, find it higher for rich people, and draw their conclusion. An alternative explanation, backed up by 50 years of public opinion research, is that most people don't have carefully thought out opinions on public policy. They have non-attitudes which will change whenever they are asked or depending whose asking. Not surprisingly, randomness doesn't correlate with anything. Rich people are often more interested in politics - you are likely an example. As for Palestine, you're citing an advocacy organization, and the UN, of which the less said the better. To quote Ben Kiernan, "Israel's retaliatory bombing of Gaza, however indiscriminate, and its current ground attacks, despite the numerous civilian casualties they are causing among Gaza's Palestinian population, do not meet the very high threshold that is required to meet the legal definition of genocide." Here's another reasonable take: https://archive.is/O8HpJ https://archive.is/O8HpJ