Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[Winstonm]

Seems as though a Russian hacker has admitted guilt in the DNC hack.

[barmar]

You do understand the rank hypocrisy of claiming that trolling is acceptable because of "free speech", but name calling and personal attacks are not because you find this type of speech annoying?

The distinction I'm trying to draw is between arguing about the issues and attacking the posters. Moderation is a necessary (IMHO) limit of free speech to try to maintain civility.

[barmar]

1. Laws can be modified and the social contract can change with the times.

Indeed -- before Roe v. Wade the law and "prevailing social contract" about abortion was exactly the opposite (although conservatives are still trying to rein this in). More recently, the past generation or so has seen attitudes towards LGBT rights change, including the SCOTUS decision on same-sex marriage a couple of years ago. And we're in the midst of a trend to relax laws regarding marijuana.

 

Nothing is set in stone.

[barmar]

Would you apply the same reasoning to Germany in the 1930's where the prevailing social contract included the Holocaust? After all, Hitler was freely elected and the populace, in general, did not object. They were "damn well" expected to live by its laws, ridiculous claims of moral rights aside.

The logic only really works if you're talking about a generally free society. If you're trapped in an oppressive society that doesn't even afford you the right to leave, it's harder to justify adherence to the social contract. They've got a monopoly on your obedience.

 

But there are necessary limits to personal freedom. When you're dealing with societies as large and interconnected and inter-dependent as we now have, pure libertarianism is as unrealistic as pure communism.

[cherdano]

The distinction I'm trying to draw is between arguing about the issues and attacking the posters. Moderation is a necessary (IMHO) limit of free speech to try to maintain civility.

"Trolling" is not "arguing about the issues".

In fact, trolls are exactly trying to exploit moderators who only care about the tone ("civility") but ignore the content.

[Elianna]

And herein lies our irreconcilable differences. ... I am a libertarian. ...

 

I don't understand how a libertarian believes that everyone has the right to bodily control (including spreading that to their money - I guess money is part of your body?) but that right does not apply to women controlling who gets to use their body in order to live. For example, if I needed a kidney, and Anabell was the only one in the world who had a viable kidney, and without it I would die, I still don't have the right to her kidney. At least, I would think that libertarians would think that.

 

Do you actually have a stand on abortion? In response to Adam, you said that "libertarians are divided". I would think that as a libertarian, it wouldn't matter what other libertarians think, that you would want to think logically and come to your own conclusions. I really have no clue why I'm even asking you about your views, but I am.

[barmar]

"Trolling" is not "arguing about the issues".

In fact, trolls are exactly trying to exploit moderators who only care about the tone ("civility") but ignore the content.

The content of the troll's posts seem to be statements about the issues. They might be totally baseless, but they're still on-topic. Yes, they hijack the discussion if people feel the need to refute their crazy claims.

 

But insulting someone personally cannot in any way be interpreted as being about the issues.

[barmar]

Do you actually have a stand on abortion? In response to Adam, you said that "libertarians are divided". I would think that as a libertarian, it wouldn't matter what other libertarians think, that you would want to think logically and come to your own conclusions. I really have no clue why I'm even asking you about your views, but I am.

The problem libertarians likely have with abortion is that it may present an unsolvable conflict. The basic principle of libertarianism is that you have a right to do anything so long as it doesn't harm another person. But if you consider the fetus to be a person, the mother's right to abortion interfere's with the fetus's right to live.

 

I'm not sure that libertarianism implies any particular stance on whether a fetus is a person, that ends up being a personal, moral decision, perhaps influenced by one's religious upbringing.

[barmar]

Today's SMBC has a good response to the "Make America Great Again" philosophy.

 

https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/the-old-days

[hrothgar]

But insulting someone personally cannot in any way be interpreted as being about the issues.

 

Bullshit...

 

It has become fashionable to decry "ad hominem" attacks, but for better or worse its vitally important to understand the source of information and whether or not they are credible.

 

Think about the political sphere: Would you place the same degree of trust in a video that is made by the Veritas Project as you would one producer by the NPR Newshour?

 

Or alternatively, there's education were we label people as A students and F students. The A students go on to top schools and get to become Doctors and the like.

The F students pretty much don't.

 

Or, if you prefer, there's the whole field of machine learning that pretty much ALL based on trusting those parts of the algorithm that have good predictive value and down ranking those that don't.

 

Personal insults are nothing more than another form of labeling.

 

If I say that so-and-so is an idiot and a worthless, its nothing more than convenient short hand.

 

I am placing my reputation on the line and saying "You know, if you really want, you can invest all sorts of time and effort going through the history of this forum and inspecting so-and-so's posting history. Or you can save yourself some time and effort and trust me".

 

If I do a good job labelling, things will work out fine for me.

If I do a bad job, people will start pointing this out and questioning my judgement.

(FWIW, I think that I have a pretty good track record here)

 

And, FWIW, if moderators like you actually did your damn jobs and nipped the problems in the bud I suspect that forums would be in much better shape.

[Winstonm]

The problem libertarians likely have with abortion is that it may present an unsolvable conflict. The basic principle of libertarianism is that you have a right to do anything so long as it doesn't harm another person. But if you consider the fetus to be a person, the mother's right to abortion interfere's with the fetus's right to live.

 

I'm not sure that libertarianism implies any particular stance on whether a fetus is a person, that ends up being a personal, moral decision, perhaps influenced by one's religious upbringing.

 

The irony about the rugged individualist libertarian is that he is part of the libertarian tribe. B-)

[ldrews]

The logic only really works if you're talking about a generally free society. If you're trapped in an oppressive society that doesn't even afford you the right to leave, it's harder to justify adherence to the social contract. They've got a monopoly on your obedience.

 

But there are necessary limits to personal freedom. When you're dealing with societies as large and interconnected and inter-dependent as we now have, pure libertarianism is as unrealistic as pure communism.

 

I agree, there are necessary limits to personal freedom if we are to live peacefully together in communities. The issue is in the definition of necessary.

[ldrews]

The irony about the rugged individualist libertarian is that he is part of the libertarian tribe. B-)

 

Libertarians are not necessarily "rugged individualists". I think you are confusing Ayn Randism with libertarianism.

[ldrews]

Bullshit...

 

It has become fashionable to decry "ad hominem" attacks, but for better or worse its vitally important to understand the source of information and whether or not they are credible.

 

Think about the political sphere: Would you place the same degree of trust in a video that is made by the Veritas Project as you would one producer by the NPR Newshour?

 

Or alternatively, there's education were we label people as A students and F students. The A students go on to top schools and get to become Doctors and the like.

The F students pretty much don't.

 

Or, if you prefer, there's the whole field of machine learning that pretty much ALL based on trusting those parts of the algorithm that have good predictive value and down ranking those that don't.

 

Personal insults are nothing more than another form of labeling.

 

If I say that so-and-so is an idiot and a worthless, its nothing more than convenient short hand.

 

I am placing my reputation on the line and saying "You know, if you really want, you can invest all sorts of time and effort going through the history of this forum and inspecting so-and-so's posting history. Or you can save yourself some time and effort and trust me".

 

If I do a good job labelling, things will work out fine for me.

If I do a bad job, people will start pointing this out and questioning my judgement.

(FWIW, I think that I have a pretty good track record here)

 

And, FWIW, if moderators like you actually did your damn jobs and nipped the problems in the bud I suspect that forums would be in much better shape.

 

And here is an example of one point of view, a bias that Winstonm wishes were imposed on all. "Those damn natives are getting uppity! Sheriff, take care of them!"

[hrothgar]

And here is an example of one point of view, a bias that Winstonm wishes were imposed on all. "Those damn natives are getting uppity! Sheriff, take care of them!"

 

And once again, Drews demonstrates that he is too stupid to participate in the conversation...

 

All of the examples that I described were based on applying labels to individuals based on their own behaviors.

Drews responds by pretending that I am applying this standard to a broad undifferentiated group.

 

And he wonders why I consider him stupid enough that he deserves to be mocked, ridiculed, and marginalized...

[ldrews]

I don't understand how a libertarian believes that everyone has the right to bodily control (including spreading that to their money - I guess money is part of your body?) but that right does not apply to women controlling who gets to use their body in order to live. For example, if I needed a kidney, and Anabell was the only one in the world who had a viable kidney, and without it I would die, I still don't have the right to her kidney. At least, I would think that libertarians would think that.

 

Do you actually have a stand on abortion? In response to Adam, you said that "libertarians are divided". I would think that as a libertarian, it wouldn't matter what other libertarians think, that you would want to think logically and come to your own conclusions. I really have no clue why I'm even asking you about your views, but I am.

 

I don't have a "stand" on abortion, i.e. I don't have a lot of emotion tied up in the issue. I do think that pro-choice follows from the basic principles of libertarianism, so I support that position. And as a libertarian who prefers to live in society, I do pay attention to others' views. I don't necessarily agree with those views but I certainly acknowledge that the other person has those views. And I often try to understand how and why the other person holds those views.

 

The issue of pro-choice vs anti-choice does confuse me. The same people who protest against pro-choice are the same people who seem to passively accept the US bombing the hell out of the Middle East and killing thousands of civilians. Or the execution of a criminal. So it can't be about the sanctity of life. So what is it?

[ldrews]

And once again, Drews demonstrates that he is too stupid to participate in the conversation...

 

All of the examples that I described were based on applying labels to individuals based on their own behaviors.

Drews responds by pretending that I am applying this standard to a broad undifferentiated group.

 

And he wonders why I consider him stupid enough that he deserves to be mocked, ridiculed, and marginalized...

 

I do not wonder at all. I understand that your psyche cannot tolerate someone who does not agree with you or perform according to your rules. So in defense you mock and ridicule. Completely understandable.

[cherdano]

The content of the troll's posts seem to be statements about the issues. They might be totally baseless, but they're still on-topic. Yes, they hijack the discussion if people feel the need to refute their crazy claims.

 

But insulting someone personally cannot in any way be interpreted as being about the issues.

They only "seem to be about the issues" in the eyes of moderators who don't read the posts. ("Read" as in "digesting the content", not "checking for the presence of personal insults".) They don't seem to be about the issues in the eyes of anyone else participating in the discussion.

 

And I agree with hrothgar that ad hominem attacks can be appropriate. If someone consistently makes racist posts, then at some point it does help the discussion to label them "racist". Do you disagree?

[Winstonm]

A classic case of the failure of the free market is the current crisis of pan-resistant pathogens. If there actually were karma, libertarian free marketers would get to experience this personally.

 

Big Pharma has basically given up on antibiotics. It’s not that the risks are too high, it is that the rewards are too low

 

Pathogens are evolving at rates faster than humans can study them and create drugs for them—so scientists have had to form a triage list. In the latest issue of The Lancet Infectious Diseases, researchers working with the World Health Organization report they’ve created a priority list of antibiotic-resistant bacteria that need to be studied urgently in order to create drugs to fight them.

 

The free market approach has resulted in a modern medical system that is as prepared as the Dark Ages barbers were to fight resistant pathogens.

 

And that is why I call free marketers juvenile - their beliefs rely on a self-centered, fanciful world that does not exist.

[ldrews]

A classic case of the failure of the free market is the current crisis of pan-resistant pathogens. If there actually were karma, libertarian free marketers would get to experience this personally.

 

 

 

 

 

The free market approach has resulted in a modern medical system that is as prepared as the Dark Ages barbers were to fight resistant pathogens.

 

And that is why I call free marketers juvenile - their beliefs rely on a self-centered, fanciful world that does not exist.

 

It is interesting that you call one of the most heavily regulated markets in the world a "free market". The reason the pharmaceutical companies gave for abandoning antibiotics is because they are not profitable. One of the primary reasons they are not profitable is the cumbersome, highly regulated processes that must be used to develop and test the antibiotics.

 

What is your alternative solution?

[PassedOut]

It is interesting that you call one of the most heavily regulated markets in the world a "free market". The reason the pharmaceutical companies gave for abandoning antibiotics is because they are not profitable. One of the primary reasons they are not profitable is the cumbersome, highly regulated processes that must be used to develop and test the antibiotics.

 

What is your alternative solution?

When you write "alternative solution," am I correctly reading that your "solution" is deregulation?

[rmnka447]

The irony about the rugged individualist libertarian is that he is part of the libertarian tribe. B-)

Winnie, you like to decry "tribalism" in everybody else, but do you realize how much you engage in progressive tribalism yourself?

 

Like the recent comment --

 

Pot

Kettle

 

:-)

[ldrews]

When you write "alternative solution," am I correctly reading that your "solution" is deregulation?

 

I have no prepackaged alternative solution. I would point out that one cannot have regulation, rapid response, and profitability all at the same time. At least I wouldn't know how to achieve that. Do you?

 

In computer software development, in which I do have some experience, we had the maxim: Budget, Schedule, Quality: you get to choose two of them".

[rmnka447]

Bullshit...

 

It has become fashionable to decry "ad hominem" attacks, but for better or worse its vitally important to understand the source of information and whether or not they are credible.

 

Think about the political sphere: Would you place the same degree of trust in a video that is made by the Veritas Project as you would one producer by the NPR Newshour?

 

Or alternatively, there's education were we label people as A students and F students. The A students go on to top schools and get to become Doctors and the like.

The F students pretty much don't.

 

Or, if you prefer, there's the whole field of machine learning that pretty much ALL based on trusting those parts of the algorithm that have good predictive value and down ranking those that don't.

 

Personal insults are nothing more than another form of labeling.

 

If I say that so-and-so is an idiot and a worthless, its nothing more than convenient short hand.

 

I am placing my reputation on the line and saying "You know, if you really want, you can invest all sorts of time and effort going through the history of this forum and inspecting so-and-so's posting history. Or you can save yourself some time and effort and trust me".

 

If I do a good job labelling, things will work out fine for me.

If I do a bad job, people will start pointing this out and questioning my judgement.

(FWIW, I think that I have a pretty good track record here)

 

And, FWIW, if moderators like you actually did your damn jobs and nipped the problems in the bud I suspect that forums would be in much better shape.

 

Veritas Project Vs. NPR Newshour - Both are biased toward a particular viewpoint. I do often listen to the local NPR station while driving and find that there is virtually only one viewpoint expressed in all their programming and that is a liberal/progressive one. So I wonder how can National Public Radio be truly national or public when it ignores the viewpoint of a sizable part of the national population? A better label would be National Progressive Radio, then it would be at least an honest label.

 

As for your "labeling", you call it labelling and I call it negative stereotyping. If you want to characterize anyone who disagrees with you in primordial terms, that's your right. Don't be surprised or angry when someone calls you on it.

[PassedOut]

I have no prepackaged alternative solution. I would point out that one cannot have regulation, rapid response, and profitability all at the same time. At least I wouldn't know how to achieve that. Do you?

 

In computer software development, in which I do have some experience, we had the maxim: Budget, Schedule, Quality: you get to choose two of them".

So this is a situation that the market does not handle, thus libertarians have no solution to offer. Sounds like a backhanded endorsement of the government taking action: prioritizing and funding the needed research. Is that right?