Total posts: 502
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
America is much more religious than most of Europe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
All of that is interesting and makes sense.
To be honest I'm glad to not be an atheist any more because (in the US especially) atheism has developed into this weird cottage industry of smug intellectual kitsch.
I agree with this.
I usually just identify as “non-religious,” for the same reason.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MagicAintReal
That's untrue -- most insects (including fruit flies and honeybees) have nociception. The question is whether nociception without emotional experience can cause pain.They don't have nociception-response-causing neurons, so probably not at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
Just a curious, unrelated question.
What convinced you to become Catholic? Specifically, why did you stop being atheist and why was Catholicism the specific path you took in terms of religious belief?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MagicAintReal
To what extent do you think insects suffer?
Do you think earthworms increase or decrease the amount of carbon dioxide trapped in soil? Why/why not?
Thoughts on the RNA world hypothesis?
More of a question related to philosophy of physics -- and not really related to biology -- but do you think a B-theory of time is incompatible with the existence of an intelligent cause of the universe? Can you explain why you think that, if yes?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
Wasn't this written by the Unabomber?The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. They have greatly increased the life-expectancy of those of us who live in 'advanced' countries, but they have destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected human beings to indignities, have led to widespread psychological suffering (in the Third World to physical suffering as well) and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world. The continued development of technology will worsen the situation. It will certainly subject human beings to greater indignities and inflict greater damage on the natural world, it will probably lead to greater social disruption and psychological suffering, and it may lead to increased physical suffering even in 'advanced' countries.
Created:
Posted in:
I would like to offer apologies for all the unmoderated reported votes on debates whose voting period has expired. I believe we can no longer act on them from here, and most of it is my mistake. I’ve been swamped with exams and work IRL and have barely been online. I promise I’ll get to all pending reported votes that can be acted on this week.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
As per the CoC, if a side forfeits all rounds but actually makes a case in the first round, that's still a full forfeit.Can I ask why you disagree with the CoC's definition of an FF? You've got me curious.
That was taken from DDO rules, because on DDO, the “first round” rarely has any content, it’s just for acceptance. However, I think it’s possible—at least in theory—for a debater to win a debate even if they forfeit all rounds but the first. For example, in a two-round debate, forfeiting one round, by this definition, would be a full forfeit. That seems unreasonable to me.
Note: This has no bearing on how I carry out vote moderation. This is my personal opinion, not the opinion of moderation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
Why did you not want to join DART originally?
Why did you end up joining DART?
Would it be possible for you to respond to this thread? https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/887
What are your thoughts on Ocasio-Cortez?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
I strongly disagree with judged-debates not affecting rating.
I also disagree with this -- even if you appoint judges you trust, you're just making a probabilistic assessment and they could still give a bad vote.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
Recommendation: Allow users to report votes, and moderators to remove votes, on "judicial decision" debates. I don't think it seems to be currently allowed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@spacetime
@bsh1
@whiteflame
Would be interested in hearing your answers, in particular.
Created:
Posted in:
Describe your general ideology when it comes to foreign policy; particularly looking for answers from the perspective of the United States.
In specific, I'm looking for issues related to defense, military intervention, and how aggressive US foreign policy should be. In other words, outline your ideology on these issues.
On an even more specific level, I have a couple of questions: (1) What should US foreign policy toward Israel be? What is your general opinion of the Israel-Palestine conflict? (2) What should US foreign policy toward Saudi Arabia be? Specifically, should it continue military cooperation/arms sales with Saudi Arabia? Should it support the ongoing intervention in Yemen? (3) What should US foreign policy toward Myanmar be? (4) Should the US engage in drone strikes? Do you agree with the status quo in terms of drone strikes and with Obama's policies in that regard? (5) What is your opinion of Noam Chomsky's foreign policy positions? (6) What is your opinion of the foreign policy positions of Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, and Bernie Sanders? (7) What is your opinion of the foreign policy positions of Robert Gates?
Created:
Posted in:
One thing I forgot to mention is foreign policy. I value foreign policy a lot—perhaps even more than domestic policy. I’m torn on Saudi Arabia, I think it is very complicated and I don’t know if the US should lose Saudi Arabia as an ally, though I do think it should stop funding military intervention in Yemen. On the Israel-Palestine conflict, I favor a two-state solution and I fully support the right of return of Palestinian individuals to Israel. I do not think Israel is a fundamental ally to the United States. I strongly support the Paris Agreement and the Iran deal. I’m generally wary of direct military intervention; with the War on Terror, I support funding local tribes and ethnic groups who have an incentive to fight terror (e.g., I would have funded and armed the Kurds against ISIL). I think the person closest to my foreign policy views is former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. In terms of Indian foreign policy, I would accept Rohingya refugees from Myanmar and condemn human rights atrocities there, put a systematic stop to human rights atrocities in Kashmir and potentially withdraw troops from Kashmir entirely, and cut military expenditure.
The thing is, even though I think foreign policy is incredibly important, I don’t know enough about it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@spacetime
On the Fed independence issue, I’m actually really worried that appointments of key positions in the FOMC (e.g., Fed Chair) are becoming increasingly partisan—consider, for instance, Trump refusing to reappoint Yellen because she’s a Democrat. I’d be really pissed if the Democratic nominee is elected POTUS in 2020 and refuse to reappoint Powell in 2022, I think he’s doing a decent job and I don’t think any other Fed chair (unless they appoint someone who advocates radical changes in the Fed’s strategy, such as Scott Sumner) would perform particularly differently.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@spacetime
This is an interesting idea, which would mitigate a lot of the harm. But not all of the harm. And I also don't think it's politically realistic to believe that American politicians would choose to sacrifice a major source of tax revenue like that.
(1) I mean, it’s politically unrealistic to believe that American politicians would institute a carbon tax at all. Gas tax holidays are very popular. The question is whether it should be done.
(2) I think the remaining harm would be outweighed by the mitigation effects on climate change. Moreover, subsidies on clean energy would offset even more of the harm. On your “theoretical models” point, (a) theoretical models are often pretty good at predicting what happens in the real world and (b) empirical research from Australia, if I recall correctly, also confirms this.
Social cohesion is an absolute necessity for the long-term sustainability of democratic governance (and autocratic governance too, for that matter). I don't see how it's worth sacrificing social cohesion for a decrease in consumer prices.
I don’t buy that the effects of immigration on social cohesion are so destructive that they significantly damage the long-term sustainability of democratic governance. I definitely think the effect immigration has on creating jobs and thus alleviating poverty outweigh the smaller impacts of immigrants on social cohesion, particularly given that groups of immigrants are highly likely to form and live within their own communities. Even if they don’t, there’s also some academic literature suggesting that diversity brings with it its own share of social and economic benefits (consider contact hypothesis and research about the economic effects of diversity).
I don't think countries have any obligations to noncitizens, other than to treat them with basic human decency (i.e. don't inflict gratuitous suffering upon them). Development aid is only good insofar as it advances our national security interests.
I don’t necessarily share that view. I guess we have competing value systems here.
Because it has no basis in reality. I see no evidence for the notion that racism, sexism, or other forms of oppression are widespread within American society. It's all just empty victimhood mongering. All it does is breed a delusional sense of resentment among women and racial minorities. It's a massive disservice to them and to society as a whole.
Okay. I’m not nearly as knowledgeable about the US, in particular, as you are, but I’ve seen compelling evidence to the contrary (i.e., evidence that suggests that racism, sexism, and other forms of oppression, such as prejudice against LGBTQ+ people, are quite prevalent even in developed countries). However, I really don’t think it’s deniable that sexism, racism, and similar forms of oppression (e.g., caste-ism in India) are prevalent in the majority of countries in the world (i.e., developing countries).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
Debate rounds can have dreadfully long walls of text that can be very tedious to read. Do any experienced members have any tips or advice on how to make it easier to get through them?
To some people, this might seem even more tedious, but I tend to flow (i.e., take notes) of the debates and look at my notes. That'll both ensure I read it and make the debate seem briefer on my notes.
In a full forfeit debate, is your style to award all points to the non-forfeiter, or to award the conduct point to the non-forfeiter but tie everything else? Why?
Doesn't really matter, it's the same effect. I tend to award arguments and conduct. However, I will note that the current DART CoC has a definition of full forfeit debates that I privately disagree with, though I will enforce it unless any changes are made.
I really think the issue is meaningless.I've been doing the latter, but I'm debating it. The argument for the former is presumably that if a person forfeits they should get no points, not even tie points. And the argument for the latter is presumably that if no one made any arguments or posted any sources, no points should be given in favor of either side.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
In which forum -- Law, Society, or Politics -- would discussions about Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation hearings or a prominent Supreme Court case take place?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Also, just on a personal note, I'm not really "far-left." I used to be far-left about a year ago. I'm center-left – in fact, by European standards, I'd be a centrist. For example, I would vote for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama over Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. I also am somewhat economically conservative on some issues, e.g., free trade and economic globalization (I'm strongly in favor of both).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
The issue isn't about whether law should be determined by what society feels. The issue is that law, politics, religion, entertainment, and, in fact, most of the forum subjects, are technically subsets of society. However, obviously, it doesn't make sense to have a single forum for "society" to cover all of those. However, in subjects that link with each other very frequently -- much more frequently than, say, entertainment or religion would link to social issues -- it makes sense to keep forums merged. Politics causes laws to exist, so those two are very similar, just as an example.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
Aside from just elections, I also like 538's coverage of the World Chess Championship, lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Why is law not society? I think it's useful to keep forums related to each other in the same forum, so that more people respond to the OPs. For example, if a person visits the Society or Politics forum frequently but doesn't bother clicking on other forums, they're not going to answer a legal question in the Law forum, but they would in the Society or Politics forum. To get posts about related issues traction, I think it's a good idea to not keep dividing forums into multiple subcomponents. Law is close enough to Society to go there. If needed, rename it the "Society and Law" forum. Or push law into politics and rename that forum the "Politics and Law" forum. I think the Education forum could also be merged into one of these.
Similarly, I think the Art, TV, Movies, and Music forums should be merged into an "Art and Entertainment" forum, and the Nature and Science forums should be merged into a "Science and Nature" forum.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@spacetime
Your proposed taxes are terrible ideas. I agree that we ultimately need clean energy prices to be lower than fossil fuel prices, but I don't see how that leads you to believe that we should be artificially inflating fossil fuel prices. It's not economically sustainable. Instead, invest in clean energy (through subsidization and further research) to bring its prices down below fossil fuel levels. We should also look more seriously into technologies that can directly scrub greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere.
I agree about researching climate engineering, though I'm skeptical about whether it's effective. I also agree with investing in clean energy. However, there's good evidence to suggest that a higher gas tax and carbon taxation (e.g., the $40/ton of CO2 emissions proposal) would be effective in reducing CO2 emissions. I don't see why these wouldn't be "economically sustainable." In fact, as far as I know, the majority of economists think gas tax holidays are bad policy and carbon taxes are good (https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/the-tax-favored-by-most-economists/). In fact, the $40/ton proposal was created by conservative economists, who suggested that the tax be made roughly revenue-neutral by returning the proceeds "to the American people on an equal basis via quarterly dividend checks. With a carbon tax of $40 per ton, a family of four would receive about $2,000 in the first year. As the tax rate rose over time to further reduce emissions, so would the dividend payments." (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/08/opinion/a-conservative-case-for-climate-action.html) Artificially inflating fuel prices seems fine to me.
Immigration may be be economically beneficial overall, but I'm an immigration restrictionist purely for sociological reasons. Immigration is clearly damaging to social cohesion, regardless of whether it's "skilled" or "unskilled." For that reason alone, it needs to be kept to a bare minimum.
I think immigration is probably damaging to social cohesion. I think the economic benefits of skilled immigration, nonetheless, outweigh those harms. I'm less sure about unskilled immigrants. I also think there are some evidence that racial diversity also has sociological benefits (e.g., contact hypothesis), but I haven't read the research on that idea and don't know enough, so I'll default to agreeing with you on "social cohesion." Another thing, though, is I'm also unsure, on a moral level, about what level of obligations countries have to noncitizens. People generally agree that development aid is a good thing. Should that principle extend to creating policies for the main reason that they would benefit the immigrants themselves? I agree that countries have a greater obligation to their citizens -- the question, though, is the extent of obligation they have to immigrants and weighing the benefits to immigrants against the possibility of harms to the nations themselves.
Eww. Identity politics is poison. I will never vote for any politician who buys into it.
Why?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@spacetime
I also agree with you on the importance of preserving the Federal Reserve's independence, but I don't think it's seriously threatened at the moment.
I agree, but my points were mostly country-neutral, and the independence of India's central bank is totally being threatened right now, it's a huge problem.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
Just thought it would be useful for me to do that. I think it's very healthy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
Love SlateStarCodex <3SlateStarCodex (Good introduction: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
"Blogs" and "online newspaper columns" are none of those.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
The one on gun control gave me a lot of interesting reading, for sure.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Whiteflame might be left-wing (slightly left-of-center, to be more precise), but I've seen no evidence of his bias.Whiteflame is left-wing and severely biased, he is only good at voting due to detail not removing bias.
Created:
Posted in:
What are some blogs or online newspaper columns that you like and frequently read?
My personal favorites:
Greg Mankiw's blog
Julia Galef's blog
Marginal Revolution
Obsession with Regression
Conscience of a Liberal
Paul Krugman's NYT column
SlateStarCodex
TheMoneyIllusion
Thing of Things
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
No, Gandhi was assassinated by a far-right extremist. The polar opposite of Antifa.Ghandi was assinated by someone just like him. An Indian equivalent of antifa.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It's debatable whether the nationalist aspect of the independence movement was essential to getting independence.I suppose some Indians would prefer remaining a British colony than to admit Nationalism was a good thing.
However, even if it was, nationalism then was a strategic calculation to unify people. In modern day, it's used to divide people and causes oppression on ethnic/religious lines.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@David
Do you live in Israel right now? (From your DART profile.)
Thoughts on Netanyahu? (I don't imagine they're positive, but specifics.)
Thoughts on Chomsky's position on the Israel-Palestine conflict?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
You're replying to Plisken, not me.Yes, really. I prefer challenges.
I love how you're too scared to debate me.
Are you Hindu or Muslim?
I'm an atheist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Yes.Did you think Gandhi was wrong for being a nationalist?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
Do you think gun rights deter violent crime? If not, why not? If yes, why do you think that is outweighed by gun-related deaths?I'd be down for just banning private ownership of guns, period (though I would allow state-owned gun clubs to lease guns for short durations and only for certain purposes). But, if that weren't an option, it would be easier to tell you what I would permit: owning a rifle or shot gun capable of firing no more than 6 shots before needing to be reloaded. The firearms would have to be stored separately from the ammunition, and both the ammunition and the firearms would need to be stored in locked compartments. Gunowners would need to submit to three random inspections a year to verify that they are storing the firearms correctly. Gunowners would need to pass, once every five years, a gun safety and use assessment. Every gunowner would need to pass a background check and a mental health check administered by a panel of psychiatrists. Every ten years the background check and mental health check would need to be repeated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
(1) Why do you think rivers and forests have personhood?I am starting to come around to the notion that eating meat is probably immoral, but that doesn't mean I plan to stop (tu quoque, I guess). I am even starting to embrace positions like personhood for rivers and forests. Dairy and eggs are separate issues--I don't think that milk and egg consumption (much like the use of wool in coats or eating honey) is immoral to the extent that their harvesting does not harm the animals involved and to the extent that the eggs are sterile or non-viable.
(2) I mean -- you'd be really hard-pressed to find dairy or eggs that didn't involve significant amounts of abuse. Their harvesting almost certainly harms the animals. Male chicks are routinely killed in egg farms; hens are locked up in cages, have their sensitive beaks chopped off, etc. Similar levels of abuse in the dairy industry.
I would probably prioritize the economy and social justice. While I believe the argument from marginal cases is viable, I don't think it definitively establishes that the interests of humans possessing meaningful agency do not outweigh the interests of animals. So, I would prioritize those humans' welfare, but I would still factor animal rights issues into my vote.
I agree that the argument from marginal cases would still agree that human interests outweigh animal interests. However, if infants or severely mentally enfeebled people -- who the argument for marginal cases specifically argues have moral interests that are equivalent to animals -- were killed and eaten, I'd imagine most people would make it their #1 priority political issue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
I’m going through a “phase” of becoming more and more undecided about a lot of political issues. Given that, I’m going to ask you some questions about your positions on some political issues, how you came to them, and how you deal with some arguments that people of the opposite views make.
(1) Why do you prefer a negative income tax to a guaranteed minimum income with work requirements, an unconditional minimum income that is means-tested, a universal basic income, and a safety net comprised of giving people access to specific services/vouchers for those services (e.g., free healthcare, free education, food stamps)?
(2) Why do you prefer single-payer healthcare to Hillary Clinton’s plans to expand Obamacare or a means-tested healthcare program, or even an entirely cash-based system of health services with subsidies? How do you deal with the argument that the costs of single-payer healthcare would be better spent on welfare reform and that limited political capital for Democrats means they should prioritize spending that money on welfare?
(3) I’ve seen you argue before for animal rights using the “argument from marginal cases.” Do you think eating meat, dairy, or eggs is morally justified? Would you vote for a candidate who is fantastic on animal welfare but terrible on the economy and social justice? “No” to the first question and “yes” to the second (given the extent of abuse animals face) seem like the logical extension of the “argument from marginal cases,” given that I imagine that’s what most people would do if severely mentally enfeebled individuals or infants were treated in similar ways.
(4) What gun control laws do you support? Do you believe that gun rights deter crime? If no, why not? If yes, why do you still support significant gun control measures?
(5) By a “living wage,” I assume you mean a federally-mandated minimum wage of $15/hour. If yes, how do you deal with the argument that a federally-mandated minimum wage would cause significant unemployment, especially since the US doesn’t have experience with minimum wages going that high? Even pro-minimum wage economists such as Alan Krueger, per my knowledge, wouldn’t go as far as $15/hour.
(6) How would you respond to the argument that legalized prostitution would lead to increased human trafficking because (a) it would increase demand and (b) it would make it harder for law enforcement officials to catch human traffickers due to the difficulty in distinguishing between sex workers who consented to be sex workers and sex workers who are victims of trafficking?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
*Globalism, and anything which globalism protectionism
Indeed. Hardly a far-left position, given that, in the rest of the world, protectionism and anti-globalism is a left-wing position. Indeed, most support for free trade in 2012 and earlier in the US was from Republicans. Also, nothing to do with "political correctness," which is defined as "the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against."
Irrationally wants open borders, and anything short of open borders is xenophobia
(1) Can you point out where I said I wanted "open borders"? The answer: nowhere. I oppose open borders. Specifically, I said I want more skilled immigration and I said I leaned toward being in favor of unskilled immigration as well, though I wasn't sure. None of that would mean open borders. So this is a straight up lie.
(2) I didn't use the word "xenophobia" in a single place. Maybe have evidence the next time you claim another person has a certain political opinion.
Irrationally wants country flooded with the worst immigrants, any opposition is islamophobia
I have no clue what you mean by "the worst immigrants" or where you got that from or where I used the word "Islamophobia."
Nationalism is good except in the case of Americans
I'm Indian and I think nationalism is generally bad, in the US and in India. However, I didn't say that either, so not sure where you're getting that from.
Wants bigger and bigger government.
In the specific aspects of climate change regulation and prisons, yes. But you haven't given any evidence for this generalization apart from that.
Distaste for capitalism when it comes to government
Where did I say I have a "distaste" for capitalism? What do you think capitalism means?
Being really -- disproportionately, and idiotically, -- weak on crime.
When I find the time in December, I'm happy to debate you on drug liberalization or for-profit prisons. You can defend my position being "disproportionate" and "idiotic" then.
Created:
-->
@Outplayz
Quite clearly, bsh1 seems to be talking about "targeting" a user with harassment.If a user frequents threads i am in, and i disagree with them... i will target said user.
(Note: This post is made with a few disclaimers: (a) I have no knowledge of what happened or who this user is outside of bsh1's post above. (b) This post is a personal opinion that has nothing to do with my moderation capacities, given that I serve as vote moderator and not any position that would give me authority/information about matters such as bans.)
Created:
Posted in:
Lots of cultural, religious, and linguistic diversity, but with generally shared values of some level of liberalism (I use "liberalism" not in the sense of "political liberalism" but in a similar context as one would use "liberal" in the phrase "Western liberal democracy," e.g., opposition to racism, sexism, and similar forms of prejudice, sufficient political and cultural representation of social minorities), even if those values contradict those of the specific cultures that exist (e.g., with moderate Christians and Muslims rather than orthodox Christians and Muslims). Very little social and economic inequality, with a decent quality of life for everyone, and access to universal free healthcare, education, good-quality infrastructure, and full employment with high minimum wages.
Governed by a liberal democratic government, perhaps in a Westminster-style parliamentary structure of governance and instant-runoff voting, with high levels of trust in the government, very high voter turnout (perhaps 100%), and high amounts of other forms of political engagement such as freedom of information requests, direct representative-to-citizen interaction, and political activism. I would like some amount of significant influence within administrative processes given to people in a meritocratic manner, e.g., involvement of respected economists in economic policy, international relations theorists, political scientists, and experienced diplomats in foreign policy, military generals, former special force operatives, political scientists, historians of war, and military strategists in national security policy, and so on. Highly globalized, socially, culturally, and economically. Little to no barriers to free trade, immigration, and emigration. A few key areas of comparative advantage that are exploited well, as far as industries go. Relatively low taxes for the middle-class and low-income individuals, without taxes on investment and savings. Lastly, a relatively free market in non-key areas such as health, education, and infrastructure -- free both from too much government intervention and from monopolies, oligopolies, and other harmful market forces.
I'd also like a strong culture of respect for academia and the sciences. Significant government investment in scientific and economic research. Lots of respect for accumulation of knowledge and research culture, including constantly improving the quality of education, encouraging people to become academics, increasing pay for government academics, etc. Adaptation to technology. The one bit of technology I'm very worried about is automation, especially if this society needs to maintain full employment -- I guess either figure something out or substitute with an unconditional basic income to assure a decent standard of living.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
It's a branch of right-wing politics characterized by a few important features: (1) Protectionism and opposition to social and economic globalization. (2) Significant opposition to immigration. (3) Active, specific criticism of Muslim people who immigrate to developed countries and significant anti-Muslim rhetoric. (4) Nationalism. (5) Identification of the current economic situation as constantly worsening, irrespective of whether it actually is. (6) Distaste for democracy and democratic institutions when it comes to leadership. (7) Being really -- disproportionately -- tough on crime.What is "right wing populism"? If I had to guess according to American dogma it would mean "belief in ordinary people that want to work"
This comes in many extremes. Trump is relatively moderate compared to right-wing populists such as Jair Bolsonaro and Rodrigo Duterte.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Not sure what anything I said has to do with "political correctness."Strait down the line politically correct progressive liberal position.
Insofar as "progressive" describes people like Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, or Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez -- the more left-wing end of Democrats -- I'd say I'm quite significantly further to the right.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
Very nice. If you don't mind, do you live in India right now?
Yes.
Created:
Posted in:
(Continued from previous post.)
(6) There are very real threats to democratic structures facing countries like the United States, including voter photo ID laws, limiting the number of voting days, attempting to make voting as hard as possible for low-income and minority individuals, gerrymandering, and so on. Those are virtually authoritarian threats that need to be countered. Moreover, right-wing populism spreads rhetoric of hatred against minorities and actively blames them for unrelated societal problems and undermines critical democratic institutions such as the judiciary and the press. All of these threats to democracy and democratic values need to be fought in some manner (we could start by electing right-wing populists such as Bolsonaro, Duterte, and Trump out of office; creating independent commissions that control redistricting for elections; etc.).
(7) Criminal justice reform. I would significantly liberalize drug policy and the way the criminal justice system treats nonviolent drug offenders; I would attempt to end the "prison industrial complex" and the association of criminal justice with the for-profit prison industry; I would abolish all judge elections and make judges independent officials appointed by executive elected officials. There's lots of other things I would do to reduce mass incarceration and ensure that particular races/ethnicities are not targeted when it comes to incarceration, as well as the quality of life of people in prison, mandatory minimums, how much the justice system focuses on rehabilitation, etc.
(8) This, I'm a little less clear on probabilistically, but in the developed world, I would streamline the welfare system to be more about giving people cash than any other services. This could look like a guaranteed minimum income, a Workfare program of minimum income with work requirements, a negative income tax, an unconditional basic income, or even a basic jobs guarantee (though I think I'd oppose the latter in favor of one of the earlier ones). I prefer welfare through direct money being given to people as opposed to vouchers for specific services.
On a personal level, though not by the same magnitude on a utilitarian level, I care about social justice issues (e.g., sexual harassment and the #MeToo movement, racist police brutality, racial and gender inequalities in general, affirmative action). However, these don't quite make the cut in terms of sheer importance.
Created: