Posts made by Ganymede

@mietze

I can't tell if you're being dry or sarcastic or not.

But, not drily or sarcastically, I never said anything about being sweet and honeyed. I said "advocating and acting within the confines of what was socially-acceptable at the time". Back then, activism involved defiance of the law; however, "defiance of the law" is neither sweet nor honeyed.

Loving v. Virginia? Decided in the confines of the U.S. Supreme Court.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act? Approved in the confines of Congress.

You need not laugh or cry, but you can choose to. I cannot; I am lawyerbot.

@tragedyjones said in Bump In The Night: A Chronicles of Darkness MUX:

Now now, many people can be lame.

Like FDR.

@Coin said in RL Anger:

Let's not pretend these two things are so distinct and separate, when in truth they're steps that build upon each other.

If you want to consider them the same, that's fine; I see them as separate and distinct, and I'm not alone. Ultimately, what I'm attempting to point out is that if you separate the concepts, you may come to a different, and arguably better, appreciation of the difference between temporary and lasting change.

As interesting and long as this argument could be, however, it ultimately detracts from what we largely agree on, which is that it is not unreasonable for the oppressed to communicate in violent ways, and that a visceral, savage reaction ought not be unexpected or a sign that a person doesn't take the matter seriously or isn't educated on the topic.

It should be said, I'm not precisely against social change, but social progress is preferable.

@Arkandel said in Universal Basic Income:

2. Positions requiring specific legal certifications; civil engineers or lawyers come to mind, you can't just grab a guy from overseas to do it.

Not necessarily true, actually. So long as a design is approved by a civil engineer or a pleading by a lawyer, it's good. You could feasibly farm out the preparation and development of such, to be later reviewed and approved of by someone with the proper certification. And this is happening right now, and is an issue in the legal community.

That said, and back to the topic, a BIG or raise in minimum wage may actually help certain service industries. Where people have more money, they will demand better services, and the trend right now is "personalized consumption." Hence, the rise in fast casual; the rise in customized products sold on the internet; etc.

@Coin said in RL Anger:

Actually, historically, socialc hange comes from the oppressed being angry enough to act beyond the constraints and acceptance of the oppressors.

It depends on whether you are willing to accept social change for what it is, or whether you want lasting social progress, which is entirely different. For example, the French Revolution brought social change, but Robespierre and friends ensured that there would be no social progress. The same can be said about the October Revolution.

Foucault states what I believe to be the phenomenon succinctly: if you do not transgress within the confines of machine, you will remain marginalized and forever under the whims of the oppressor. MLK, Jr. is an exemplar: by advocating and acting within the confines of what was socially-acceptable at the time, he shed light upon inequality in a manner that inspired the existing, oppressive machine to change. Malcolm X, by contrast, advocated a more violent, more unacceptable path to change, and was relatively marginalized by the mainstream, even if his message and teachings were embraced by the oppressed minority.

Regardless, I sit on my point. I don't expect anyone on the side of the oppressed to be as civil or genial as I can be at times. What I can point out is that I tend to understand folks better where they communicate in a more civil or genial manner, but I think this is a truism that neither needs to be explained nor used as a crutch or shield against attempting to understand.

So, opinion: social upheaval and change is substantially different than social progress; and the latter occurs where the oppressed become part of the majority, and re-define the construct of power and meaning.

@Arkandel said in Universal Basic Income:

http://www.businessinsider.com/carls-jr-wants-open-automated-location-2016-3

Investing in automation is substantially different than successfully implementing it. And, whereas you could do this with fast-food, fast-food is not the only branch of the service industry.

Here's a link to industry trends, but I can't speak as to its accuracy or reliability: https://www.franchisehelp.com/industry-reports/fast-food-industry-report/

Traditional fast food is getting wrecked by fast casual. Fast casual does not rely on automation, but upon customer input, and allowing the customer to visually see the construction of their meal. Those restaurants are seeing substantially more growth.

So, no, I disagree completely with the conclusion that waiters, cooks, and janitors are vulnerable -- or more vulnerable than manufacturing, technology-based, or pharmaceutical production jobs.

@Arkandel said in Universal Basic Income:

However these days even mainstay unskilled worker positions - waiters, cooks, janitors, etc - are progressively turned redundant by technology so what will all those people do when McDonalds starts hiring only a fraction of the people it used to?

Actually, waiters, cooks, and janitors are employees that are one of the least likely to be off-shored or made redundant by technology.

@Groth said in Universal Basic Income:

It would also be in addition to SS, not instead of SS, it also tends to assume that rent and healthcare is covered separately.

The models I've looked at eliminate SS and other paid-to-consumer welfare systems in favor of a Basic Income Guarantee ("BIG").

My understanding is that it is intended to be supplemental, such that folks who are making some income will receive less than those who are making none. It is also my understanding that the BIG models do not factor in dependents, or that, if it does, it does not guarantee their income in full. Further, the BIG has to be implemented along with a public, single-payer healthcare system that covers catastrophic loss, similar to what Medicare/Medicaid does.

Many opponents to a BIG, like a raise in the minimum wage, do not consider the increase in aggregate demand that would be created as a result. This would encourage domestic suppliers to increase production, and while many things can be outsourced, some cannot, such as financial, legal, and food services.

Consider what federal subsidies could be cut in response: SNAP (food stamps), agricultural subsidies, Section 8, etc. Consider the reduction in federal risk programs: Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, etc. Consider alternative funding sources: a federal sales tax; a federal luxury tax; a federal tax on financial-market trades; a federal tax on land-transfers; etc. You could also consider removing federal tax credit programs.

The biggest problem will be selling the entire program to the electorate, who are already worked so hard that they cannot do basic economic research.

@Three-Eyed-Crow said in Universal Basic Income:

In practice I'd like to see how it works long-term on a large scale before getting too excited about it, but it's one of those economic ideas I'm surprised there isn't more chatter about.

There's no chatter about it because it is inimical to the American attitude of bootstrap-pulling.

The economic models look good. Getting it paid for is a different issue entirely. I would be concerned about whether this will cause other, unintended problems, like rising prices and a lower standard of living for the middle class.

In a game where a single player can turn the tide, it's really stupid to trash-talk one of the best, physical, complete players in the game.

Trash Curry, and he'll shoot in your face. Trash LeBron, and he's going to run over you.

@Arkandel said in The basketball thread:

More ammunit information is necessary here.

I'm from Toronto. I was at the inaugural game.

I remember Mighty Mouse. I remember Vinsanity. I remember when Bosh was supposed to bring us to the promised land.

Torontonians have a proud, past legacy in sports. We are starved for prominence. We can forgive the Leafs; we always do. We can forgive the Jays; they are getting better. And we love the Bills, regardless of how inept their management is.

But basketball? We have been promised much, and seen little. We have Canada's last basketball team in a city that is filled to the gills with basketball fans from all ethnicities.

One playoff series victory would be nice. Really.

@Kanye-Qwest said in RL Anger:

Here's the thing: when you join a discussion about an issue that affects people who are not you, and you start policing tone instead of addressing the actual points people make * * * it makes it look like you are just here to get a consensus that YOU personally are ok, and not at fault, so that you can go back to not thinking about the plight of others.

This is what it looks like to you, and perhaps others; however, I would not fault someone for not wanting to engage with people that will so readily jump to conclusions, no matter how understandable their reaction might be.

If there is to be meaningful communication -- that is, if meaningful communication is desired -- then there has to be an effort to make sure the other side understands the message conveyed. This isn't to say that one must communicate with everyone upon inquiry, or that not communicating is unreasonable due to the sensitive nature of the subject matter.

What I'm seeing: two camps of intelligent, insightful, and highly-communicative people trying to get from one another something which neither want to give at this time. Perhaps it would be best to cool everything out in the public forums for a few weeks.

I fully realize the irony of my statements.

@Thenomain said in RL Anger:

Request: Someone to PM me a translation of what @Ninjakitten said. I no longer know who it is people think I am, nor what I'm allowed to ask without being offensive, what is okay to disagree with without being attacked. I'm serious. Thanks.

I'll attempt a public translation.

If you're one of the marginalized, it's okay to be tired and frustrated at being asked to explain your motivations and beliefs for the umpteenth time. There are people who genuinely want to help, who, by way of privilege, known or unknown, may not entirely understand or connect with what you're saying. Being frustrated with meeting an otherwise-intelligent person with this ignorance is reasonable.

If you're one of the ones that want to help, see the above. Understand that you're asking someone who has suffered for what may be decades to explain what they have already explained to family, friends, police officers, professors, etc. countless times. Don't badger; don't deflect; and please don't expect to be treated with the utmost patience. Just realize that you're entering into TOUCHY SUBJECT land, and go in, if you want to, with that the attendant knowledge and expectations.

@Arkandel said in The basketball thread:

My coworkers practically live in Jurassic Park. But the issue with the Raps is... they are soft. I'd like to see them at least get to the Conference Finals (although it'd mean losing a bet and buying lunch) but they have a sad history of crumbling in the playoffs.

SHUT YOUR JEW MOUTH, KYLE.

(Yes, I'm salty about this.)

@Arkandel said in The basketball thread:

Maybe I'm projecting but aside from the Spurs (Leonard/DMC+Pop will keep them going for a while) and of course the Warriors (... what the hell) I'd like to see a league led by completely new contenders.

Then cheer for Toronto. Because, what the fuck, when did they become perennial contenders?

@Arkandel said in The basketball thread:

I have very high hopes for this squad because of him. Also don't forget their most likely high draft pick this year, which can round up the squad considerably.

Maybe. The Bulls under Thibodeau did not draft particularly well, save for Jimmy Butler. You can point out that he wasn't directly responsible for those choices, but I'm pretty sure every head coach has some input as to who a team should pick. Even if Thibodeau didn't have that input, that just means he has not past experience when it comes to drafting.

Again: color me skeptical. And I'm not talking out of hurt because of what's happening with the Blue Jackets of the NHL.

@Arkandel said in RL Anger:

In the context of conversation it doesn't matter to me who I'm talking to; it's irrelevant if I like you or you like me, what your race or political affiliations are, if we have a past or not... I strive to be civil not for your sake or for my own but because that's the only way I know to be respectful to the act of exchanging ideas and viewpoints itself. I'd like to think that expecting the same courtesy isn't done out of spite or entitlement but perhaps I am wrong.

You're not wrong for wanting civility, but I think you ought to expect that these sorts of topics will involve entering into a dialogue with people that have been systematically and violently suppressed. As such, if there is a genuine desire to help, then one must absorb the occasional unleashing of negative emotion.

@Arkandel said in The basketball thread:

If they stay healthy they will be contenders for sure.

When 16 teams make the big dance, there are a lot of contenders.

You talk of depth. What's the depth on the Wolves? Guards look fine with Wiggins potentially moving to SG, and having Rubio, LaVine, and Muhammed. Forward depth looks awful. If Wiggins or Towns goes down, this team ain't going anywhere.

And I'm not sold on Rubio, or his style of play. His PPG and other relevant shooting stats are lower than Jeremy Lin, who plays fewer minutes per game to boot. I don't see any evidence that he can effectively guard faster or larger guards, which means that Westbrook, et al., are going to walk all over him.

So, sure, they'll be a decent team. Probably a consistent 6-8 seed for 3 to 4 years. But I see no reason to believe they can, or will, unseat a dynasty team like the Spurs.

@Arkandel said in The basketball thread:

This team, based on a 21-year old Wiggins and 20-year old KAT is going to be scary as hell in 2-3 seasons. They even get a pretty good chance at a nice draft pick this year, although it doesn't seem to be a very deep pool to begin with.

Color me skeptical on this one. OKC demonstrates that having two young, dominant players does not get you to the promised land, and Thibodeau's success in Chicago was likely due to having a team of players with talent at Wiggins' and Towns' level.

Not that I'd ever dis my homeboy Wiggins, mind, but the Wolves didn't do a whole lot with Marbury and Garnett.

@Kanye-Qwest said in RL Anger:

A of all, there is no bringing the men complaining in this thread around. There were pages of attempts, and I have been watching this breakdown in fascination. It's like sociology bingo.

Unsurprisingly, there has been staggeringly little change in the status quo since 1995.