3 ms·

I don't think either ones are necessarily full of shit honestly. If the problem to be addressed is income inequality, or wealth distribution, or whichever part

by bmelton 13y ago

I don't think either ones are necessarily full of shit honestly. If the problem to be addressed is income inequality, or wealth distribution, or whichever particular categorization of the problem of "poor people are poor" you want to optimize for, they're both decent solutions in theory. If you'd like to know my personal preference, I'd be happy to discuss that offline, but spoiler alert, it isn't either of the solutions I presented. As far as the generalizations, if I miscategorized anyone's beliefs, then I'm sorry. None of what I presented was meant as a critique... really. But progressive taxation seems to be the prevailing theory coming out of the progressive camp, and tax abolitionism seems to be the prevailing theory coming out of the libertarian camp. As for the stereotype though, I will say that I relied upon the reader to reject the assertion that "all" of any demographic wants a particular thing, because I agree that is an impossibly broad assertion. Again though, if I gave cause for offense, I apologize.

judk 13y ago
Sees it just works better if you say what you mean and leave off the useless labels that only serve to inflame readers one way or the other.
- bmelton 13y ago
  I disagree. In the five years I've been posting here, what I've found is that anybody that wanted to get offended would be offended whether I referred to the parties by name or as abstract schools of thought. If I hadn't put the party affiliations, and had gotten something wrong, I'm not naive enough to think that anybody would have been fooled by that. Had anybody felt that I misrepresented either party, I'd have been corrected, labels or not, only instead of being able to respond directly, I'd have hard to parse through layers of obscurity to figure out which metric was even the topic of discussion. People are going to be pissed if they feel that their positions are slighted; I just figure the better tactic is to avoid insulting the position vs. obscuring which position I insult. And, as I stated, each of the positions I referenced is, to my knowledge, equally as likely of standing a chance at solving the matter at hand as the other.

by bmelton 13y ago

judk 13y ago

Sees it just works better if you say what you mean and leave off the useless labels that only serve to inflame readers one way or the other.

bmelton 13y ago
I disagree. In the five years I've been posting here, what I've found is that anybody that wanted to get offended would be offended whether I referred to the parties by name or as abstract schools of thought. If I hadn't put the party affiliations, and had gotten something wrong, I'm not naive enough to think that anybody would have been fooled by that. Had anybody felt that I misrepresented either party, I'd have been corrected, labels or not, only instead of being able to respond directly, I'd have hard to parse through layers of obscurity to figure out which metric was even the topic of discussion. People are going to be pissed if they feel that their positions are slighted; I just figure the better tactic is to avoid insulting the position vs. obscuring which position I insult. And, as I stated, each of the positions I referenced is, to my knowledge, equally as likely of standing a chance at solving the matter at hand as the other.