The Republican platform (put aside whether they actually pursue it) is low regulation, low taxes, low transfer payments.
If you believe that system in the medium to long term creates economic growth AND that the vast majority benefit from growth (either on the job side or the consumer side), then you’ll support the Republican platform.
If you believe that government hand outs ossify the economy and create a culture that rewards sloth, then you’ll be against the Democrats’ platform even if it benefits you in the short run.
That is, you are almost certainly correct the Democrats bread and circuses platform is better for the white working class in the short run. But it is a question whether it is better in the long run, and many voters care about the long run.
There is a pathological need for some people to find “nuance” or “both sides” any dispute.
As explained above, the attempt to “both sides” the situation suggests some degree of “in the same ballpark” of wrongness.
If you believe one person was 1%-5% wrong and the other person was 95%-99% wrong there is little reason to try to adjudicate wrong reds between the parties because it is so lopsided as to be functionally equivalent to the latter party being in the wrong.
Arguing “both sides” and then saying “but the first party was only slightly wrong” comes across as patently dishonest because that isn’t how people operate. Nor should it be how people operate. It creates more heat than light.
So a person who understands how these concepts are used in practice would assume that someone who argues “both sides” are wrong assumes there is at least material even if not equivalent wrongess on both sides. Therefore of course people who don’t see the woman as doing anything materially wrong are going to react negatively to the argument. And then their interlocutor can say “what you mean she couldn’t have done a little better; I just said both parties were wrong and if she was just the tiniest bit wrong I was right.” That is either dishonest or a misunderstanding of humans morally reason heuristically
I think your book example falls short.
First, the bike was means of transportation for a woman who has been pregnant for 6 months old to get home. She wasn’t just trying to catch up on the latest book of the week. I’ve seen my wife being six month’s pregnant numerous times. It isn’t easy. Getting this bike probably made her physical journey home a lot easier.
So your theory of the case is that good manners requires a pregnant women to physically inconvenience herself to accommodate misbehaving teens gaming the system who of course were able to walk to another bike station with ease?
No good manners would dictate the teens surrender — if they had lawfully had it — the right to the pregnant woman. It is even more a massive violation to try to prevent the pregnant woman from taking the bike that is legally hers.
I just cannot imagine the situation where the woman was the ill mannered one in the context of her being sups preg.
Except when the wrong is the size of the wrong Anti_dan posits it is so de minimis as to be ignored. Trying to say “both sides are wrong” is necessarily conveying a sense that both sides are roughly equal. But if you think the one side is less than 1% wrong taking a “both sides” approach is conveying an incorrect message even if you think it is technically correct.
Someone both has no legal claim and no moral claim to X. Someone else has the legal and moral claim to X. Saying they are both wrong seems like a really hard claim. What did the person with a legal and moral claim to the bike do wrong here?
She was allegedly “rude” to people who were scamming Citi Bikes. It’s only rude once you accept the anti-social activity by the teens was appropriate.
So what do you think the prior should be? To me, I think you need extraordinary evidence to at this point accept the black teens’ claims.
No you aren’t. People have already pointed out the holes. You’ve largely dismissed without much thought.
People have pointed out that our priors should already disbelieve the claims of the people you are supporting. Those priors are based both demographically (black male group of teens v pregnant early middle aged medical professional) and on the specific known actions of these actors (the youths were already gaming the system in an anti social way; they attempted to harm the woman despite the fact she was in the right). You have ignored this (while for some reason patting yourself on the back).
Third, your biggest argument to believe them is they aren’t contradicted. This assumes the other side heard this allegation and that the other side benefits from trying to contradict it. I’ve already given reasons to reject this claim.
In short, this isn’t clear thinking. We’ve all been there where we say something but don’t want to backdown.
The fact that your priors are to treat each side as equally likely to be true demonstrates your priors are terrible.
One side are youths, already proven in the wrong (even in your story) acting in an anti-social way. To make matters worse, they belong to a group that acts anti socially more than other groups. This group also released a video intending to (and did) cause significant harm to the other side
On the other side, you have a pro social women who is pregnant and has already proven to be more truthful.
I think the toddler running towards the street example is categorically different to donating to African kids. The first example is understood to be one-off. It isn’t happening even monthly and if it is then there will be discussions with the parents and probably the authorities.
The African kid happens every minute.
The first requires you to sacrifice very little to save a life. The second requires you to sacrifice most of your life.
First, you call them facts. They are claims.
Second, why would you expect dispute over a factual point where no evidence exists? The white woman was already shown to be much less powerful. It was only because she had hard evidence that she could overcome. There is no hard evidence. What value does she have of disputing without evidence the claims made of her socially more powerful opponent?
Yes. I cant think of a single sympathetic black victim in the last decade where conservatives attacked the victim. Complaints generally were about “this isn’t representative or there is no evidence racism caused this.”
Suggesting with zero recent precedent (to my knowledge) that the right would react to support the gang of white youths seems questionable at best.
You made the claim that one party’s evidence free account after the fact with holes in the story “basically checks out.”
I don’t think you are thinking clearly on this issue and should just take the L.
There is no evidence here. Yet you conclude the story “basically checks out” which is the opposite of waiting for evidence; it is seeking a particular outcome despite the story still not really making much sense and requiring some inferences that seem likely.
And the story isn’t exculpatory so seems entirely pointless to commit to a story that is at best irrelevant.
Yeah because in the year 2023 a he said she said involving a black man and a white woman will surely favor the white woman… She has already been dragged at severe cost to herself. She needs to stick to what she can prove; not call the blacks liars.
I think the interlocutor is disingenuous but extending charity one explanation could be that the interlocutor has the progressive belief that being anti-X means you hate X.
So for example Mormons teach a lot of things that are wrong. In that way, I’m anti-Mormon because I don’t think it is true. But that doesn’t mean I hate Mormons; it just means I think they are wrong.
But how I go about being anti-Mormon could suggest hatred. If I made a public display of mocking their sacred symbols with an intent to distress them then it is reasonable for me to be described as hateful towards them.
This group is clearly hateful toward Catholics.
It is one of the many small differences between Protestants and Catholics. Raised Protestant, I was told those evil Catholics were wrong to have a crucifix (instead of just a cross) because Jesus was no longer on the cross.
Why would you expect WFH creates a demand increase everywhere? Seems to me that if you need not commute, you will get some x% if the population moving to generic cheap jurisdiction which may decrease the demand in very expensive neighborhoods.
Isn’t it a bad investment in Japan because declining north rates mean there is less demand?
Of course, no one is consistent and chooses optimal policies. I agree trade liberalization makes sense. But one can also say low tax low regulation but trade barriers is superior to high tax high regulation with trade barriers.
Also, it’s interesting that the white working class seems to support policies they think will preserve jobs; not necessarily wealth transfers. They may be against the sloth mindset that wealth transfers creates. Of course, I think trade restrictions creates some degree of entitlement itself but it is a secondary effect.
Context Copy link