Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 11-04-2019, 05:05 PM
QuickSilver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
Let's don't miss the forest for the trees. This isn't really about what is or isn't too cushy.

What it is about is that what the term liberal elite refers to is those set(s) of people who think to tell others what to think and how to better themselves, simply because they think they know better.

What we've seen in this thread (a shit ton of it) is that yes we know better so listen to us, believe us.

We have a whole lot of talking down to the poor unwashed masses instead of an educating that could possibly go on. You guys take this criticism and start behaving like children wanting to lay blame elsewhere, ANYWHERE else. The GOP this, Republicans that.

If I have said one thing it's that for the most part what the Democrats want comes from a good place in their hearts. You guys want change, you guys want to help.

Your single biggest problem is that it is too fractured, everyone wants to help everyone and everything. It costs too much and when the rubber hits the road you have no real way of paying for all the help that you wish to give.

The liberal elites don't give 2 shits about hurting others to help those that they deem to need the help.

Make no mistake, anytime you take from Peter to pay Paul, Peter gets hurt in some form or fashion but you guys make distinctions on WHO is going to get hurt all the time.

Hint: It's always those other guys (not the liberal elite themselves)


For all of these, is my main focus of needing bipartisan support for ANYTHING that greatly affects our UNION. With no one willing to work together, we will just stay fractured and keep trying to blame and/or hurt the OTHER SIDE.
You have a specific liberal elite policy in mind that is particularly oppressive of the republican poor unwashed masses?
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.

Last edited by QuickSilver; 11-04-2019 at 05:05 PM.
  #152  
Old 11-05-2019, 08:46 AM
Kearsen1 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 370
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Borgia View Post
Their target audience is conservative SDMB posters? That's a pretty niche audience.
I believe their audience to be those conservatives that have gone hard right, and/or are also willing to swallow just about anything they are told without much thought to ensuring it's truth.

Regardless, it's this same "ohh shiny" disregard of anyone else's ideas that do contribute to the fracturing of the nation. Czarcasm, be proud! Pronounce proudly that you know better, know your enemy and then watch yourself (or side) fall.

I say again, THIS attitude is exactly why we got Trump as president.
  #153  
Old 11-05-2019, 08:48 AM
Kearsen1 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 370
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
You have a specific liberal elite policy in mind that is particularly oppressive of the republican poor unwashed masses?
Oppressed poor? I don't think liberal policies oppress the poor per say, I think that some of the policies that they want to do good, just keep the poor in place, keep them reliant on the government for their well being. Suppress might be a better word
  #154  
Old 11-05-2019, 08:56 AM
Ulfreida is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: pangolandia
Posts: 3,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
Oppressed poor? I don't think liberal policies oppress the poor per say, I think that some of the policies that they want to do good, just keep the poor in place, keep them reliant on the government for their well being. Suppress might be a better word
Waiting for an actual policy ... with actual data demonstrating the above point.

Last edited by Ulfreida; 11-05-2019 at 08:56 AM.
  #155  
Old 11-05-2019, 09:12 AM
Kearsen1 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 370
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulfreida View Post
Waiting for an actual policy ... with actual data demonstrating the above point.
You might be waiting awhile. I am not here to educate you on failed policies, merely to point out that it has happened, could happen, people perceive it as true so you may need to do something about it.

But again, this is a thread about liberal elites.
All of you guys defending the term, terminology or it being a term at all, are ignoring the fact that other people believe it to be true.

The disregard is pretty damn close to why the term exists at all.
  #156  
Old 11-05-2019, 09:16 AM
ASL v2.0's Avatar
ASL v2.0 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Various
Posts: 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
You might be waiting awhile. I am not here to educate you on failed policies, merely to point out that it has happened, could happen, people perceive it as true so you may need to do something about it.
That’s... an interesting stance to take. You’re going to insist that X is true, but insist to provide an example of X when challenged?
  #157  
Old 11-05-2019, 10:27 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,962
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
You might be waiting awhile. I am not here to educate you on failed policies, merely to point out that it has happened, could happen, people perceive it as true so you may need to do something about it.

But again, this is a thread about liberal elites.
All of you guys defending the term, terminology or it being a term at all, are ignoring the fact that other people believe it to be true.

The disregard is pretty damn close to why the term exists at all.
If we agree with you it is evidence in your favor, and if we disagree with you it is evidence in your favor. I suppose that if someone were to mention that they owned a raven you would crow that that it was evidence in your favor.
  #158  
Old 11-05-2019, 11:44 AM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
You might be waiting awhile. I am not here to educate you on failed policies, merely to point out that it has happened, could happen, people perceive it as true so you may need to do something about it.
This is a perfect demonstration of why "liberal elite" is a conservative debate tactic, not a real thing. You can't even bring one example of what you're declaring to be true, and anyone you calls your bluff is an elitist.
  #159  
Old 11-05-2019, 11:50 AM
msmith537 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 27,708
I think I can shed some light on the subject.

According to Conservatives, the "Liberal Elite" consists of over-educated ivory tower intellectuals, politicians, pundits, activists and other leaders and the people who support them. They mostly work in fields such as media, law, politics, the arts, tech, rabble rousing and "other". They eschew fields such as law enforcement, the military, first respondering, working with their hands or profitable business. They support policies that are pro-environment, pro-equal rights, pro-wealth redistribution. They are often portrayed as "reverse racists", favoring policies that actively harm whites (particularly straight, white, financially successful men). They are also portrayed as corrupt hypocrites, hiding behind a veneer of altruism and social consciousness while funneling off money and favors for their own personal benefit.

My wife's family watches a lot of Fox News.
  #160  
Old 11-05-2019, 11:50 AM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,995
Restricting soda size is elitism, though I'm not sure if it's liberal or just moronic.

Most sin taxes are elitism.

Helmet laws are elitism.

Restrictions on marijuana are elitist. Most controlled substance laws are elitist.

Blue laws are elitist.

There's lots, though of course it's not restricted to liberals.
  #161  
Old 11-05-2019, 12:23 PM
QuickSilver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
Oppressed poor? I don't think liberal policies oppress the poor per say, I think that some of the policies that they want to do good, just keep the poor in place, keep them reliant on the government for their well being. Suppress might be a better word
I see words. But strung together in that order, I just can't make any sense out of them.

Why would liberal elites want to keep poor people dependent on government for their well being? Are you under the impression that liberals enjoy paying high taxes and wish to continue paying more of them? Do you honestly believe that I want to pay for some red-neck racist hooked on illegal opioids to get treatment because he has access to a UHC system supported by my taxes? I really don't. But I can't in good conscience deny him a standard of quality of life that every person in society should have at a minimum. Because he probably has dependents. And I want those dependents to have a better chance at life than maybe he had. And if everyone in the society that I live is living a better quality of life, then it is better for society as a whole and thus better for me. So yeah, it is in my interest to pay higher taxes so that those who need assistance can benefit as well, and hopefully help themselves and others in turn.

How do you see society working if we just let the poor unwashed masses fend for themselves without a social safety net? Do you really believe that the thing that stands between capitalists/corporations/businesses from helping those in need is the rate of tax they pay? If we could just get taxes to zero, we'd all be fucking saved! It's okay to admit if you believe in that lie. It's so often repeated by republicans that I don't blame some people for being worn down by it.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #162  
Old 11-05-2019, 02:00 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 46,681
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
Oppressed poor? I don't think liberal policies oppress the poor per say, I think that some of the policies that they want to do good, just keep the poor in place, keep them reliant on the government for their well being. Suppress might be a better word
So in Dickensian London the poor, unoppressed by government programs, had it good?
  #163  
Old 11-05-2019, 02:18 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,988
Quote:
Originally Posted by msmith537 View Post
I think I can shed some light on the subject.

According to Conservatives, the "Liberal Elite" consists of over-educated ivory tower intellectuals, politicians, pundits, activists and other leaders and the people who support them. They mostly work in fields such as media, law, politics, the arts, tech, rabble rousing and "other". They eschew fields such as law enforcement, the military, first respondering, working with their hands or profitable business. They support policies that are pro-environment, pro-equal rights, pro-wealth redistribution. They are often portrayed as "reverse racists", favoring policies that actively harm whites (particularly straight, white, financially successful men). They are also portrayed as corrupt hypocrites, hiding behind a veneer of altruism and social consciousness while funneling off money and favors for their own personal benefit.

My wife's family watches a lot of Fox News.
This is a reasonably good answer to the OP's question. You could have called out Hollywood more specifically, but I give it a 7/10 still.
  #164  
Old 11-05-2019, 03:20 PM
Kearsen1 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 370
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASL v2.0 View Post
That’s... an interesting stance to take. You’re going to insist that X is true, but insist to provide an example of X when challenged?
It isn't necessarily that it would be hard, but why get bogged down with specifics when we can't even agree that it is even a term with a meaning. A meaning, mind you, that some here say it isn't even a thing.

So are we in agreement that it is a thing and the term means what I've clarified to mean?

If so, we can certainly move into specifics.
  #165  
Old 11-05-2019, 03:37 PM
QuickSilver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,391
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
This is a reasonably good answer to the OP's question. You could have called out Hollywood more specifically, but I give it a 7/10 still.
The irony is that you don't appear to have recognized the irony.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #166  
Old 11-05-2019, 03:51 PM
Airbeck is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,996
Irony must be an elite thing
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #167  
Old 11-05-2019, 03:52 PM
JRDelirious is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Displaced
Posts: 16,017
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Restricting soda size is elitism, though I'm not sure if it's liberal or just moronic.

Most sin taxes are elitism.

Helmet laws are elitism.

Restrictions on marijuana are elitist. Most controlled substance laws are elitist.

Blue laws are elitist.

There's lots, though of course it's not restricted to liberals.
Well to begin with Blue Laws and laws against cannabis are hardly liberal platforms these days, you are right about that.

But not wanting someone’s head cracked open on the pavement is “elitism”? How?
  #168  
Old 11-05-2019, 03:55 PM
Kearsen1 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 370
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
I see words. But strung together in that order, I just can't make any sense out of them.

Why would liberal elites want to keep poor people dependent on government for their well being? Are you under the impression that liberals enjoy paying high taxes and wish to continue paying more of them? Do you honestly believe that I want to pay for some red-neck racist hooked on illegal opioids to get treatment because he has access to a UHC system supported by my taxes? I really don't. But I can't in good conscience deny him a standard of quality of life that every person in society should have at a minimum. Because he probably has dependents. And I want those dependents to have a better chance at life than maybe he had. And if everyone in the society that I live is living a better quality of life, then it is better for society as a whole and thus better for me. So yeah, it is in my interest to pay higher taxes so that those who need assistance can benefit as well, and hopefully help themselves and others in turn.

How do you see society working if we just let the poor unwashed masses fend for themselves without a social safety net? Do you really believe that the thing that stands between capitalists/corporations/businesses from helping those in need is the rate of tax they pay? If we could just get taxes to zero, we'd all be fucking saved! It's okay to admit if you believe in that lie. It's so often repeated by republicans that I don't blame some people for being worn down by it.
I believe in a safety net. Many times have I posited that the safety net would be much better served on a sliding scale instead of some bright red line that denies partial benefits. Minimum wage as well, if you are going to have one, have it slide with inflation.
But this conversation is STILL going afoul of what the OP was about.
What is a liberal elite? Are you guys agreeing that it is a thing and now we are talking policies?
  #169  
Old 11-05-2019, 03:57 PM
Kearsen1 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 370
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRDelirious View Post
Well to begin with Blue Laws and laws against cannabis are hardly liberal platforms these days, you are right about that.

But not wanting someone’s head cracked open on the pavement is “elitism”? How?
Because it affects no one else but the person whose head is cracked open?
  #170  
Old 11-05-2019, 04:00 PM
Airbeck is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,996
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
Because it affects no one else but the person whose head is cracked open?
And their children, spouse, other family and friends, and their coworkers, and the other people who may be involved in what is now a fatal accident, and society if they don't have health insurance etc...
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes

Last edited by Airbeck; 11-05-2019 at 04:01 PM.
  #171  
Old 11-05-2019, 04:08 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
And their children, spouse, other family and friends, and their coworkers, and the other people who may be involved in what is now a fatal accident, and society if they don't have health insurance etc...
Certainly wearing a helmet seems prudent to me, but I'm not willing to say I know better than the rider themself. Do you think you know better for the rider than they do for themself? Do you think that's a choice they should not be able to make?
  #172  
Old 11-05-2019, 04:09 PM
Airbeck is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,996
And if they survive we all have to possibly pay for disability to support them. No person is an island unto themselves.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #173  
Old 11-05-2019, 04:11 PM
Airbeck is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,996
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Certainly wearing a helmet seems prudent to me, but I'm not willing to say I know better than the rider themself. Do you think you know better for the rider than they do for themself? Do you think that's a choice they should not be able to make?
I'm not a staunch advocate for helmet laws, but I think there are other considerations needed aside from personal preference of the rider that often get forgotten about or handwaved away. Like potentially disability that we'll all be paying for if they don't just die in the accident. Or to support the surviving family with welfare etc. We are all part of society. Pretending we aren't can just put the costs of our bad decisions on everyone else.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes

Last edited by Airbeck; 11-05-2019 at 04:12 PM.
  #174  
Old 11-05-2019, 04:11 PM
QuickSilver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
What is a liberal elite? Are you guys agreeing that it is a thing and now we are talking policies?
I think it cannot be denied that the label exists. We can all agree on that. I think.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #175  
Old 11-05-2019, 04:13 PM
QuickSilver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Certainly wearing a helmet seems prudent to me, but I'm not willing to say I know better than the rider themself. Do you think you know better for the rider than they do for themself? Do you think that's a choice they should not be able to make?
The Dutch, who know a thing or two about bicycles as a mode of transportation, and who are notoriously liberal by American standard, would agree with you. So you're in good company.

ETA: about being able to ride sans lid, I mean.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.

Last edited by QuickSilver; 11-05-2019 at 04:15 PM.
  #176  
Old 11-05-2019, 04:40 PM
JRDelirious is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Displaced
Posts: 16,017
Right. Most of Bone’s examples don’t seem to be either particularly “liberal” or “elitist”, they just seem to be non-Libertarian.
  #177  
Old 11-05-2019, 04:56 PM
ASL v2.0's Avatar
ASL v2.0 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Various
Posts: 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by msmith537 View Post
I think I can shed some light on the subject.

According to Conservatives, the "Liberal Elite" consists of over-educated ivory tower intellectuals, politicians, pundits, activists and other leaders and the people who support them. They mostly work in fields such as media, law, politics, the arts, tech, rabble rousing and "other". They eschew fields such as law enforcement, the military, first respondering, working with their hands or profitable business. They support policies that are pro-environment, pro-equal rights, pro-wealth redistribution. They are often portrayed as "reverse racists", favoring policies that actively harm whites (particularly straight, white, financially successful men). They are also portrayed as corrupt hypocrites, hiding behind a veneer of altruism and social consciousness while funneling off money and favors for their own personal benefit.

My wife's family watches a lot of Fox News.
I think this is actually a pretty succinct, but comprehensive description of the term, while still capturing the nuance IMHO.

Of note, and using your post only as a jumping off point, to the extent that the unabashedly hypocritical aspects of certain "liberal elite" conduct may be descriptive of actual behaviors done by actual people in certain cases, I don’t think anyone argues those are positives. That a group advocating for proposition A is also guilty of misconduct B, does not mean that all advocates of A are guilty of or would endorse such misconduct, or that proposition A is necessarily bad.

"Hypocritical elitists" would perhaps be a less politically loaded way to describe what is supposed to be bad about "liberal elites," but then conservative elites might truly risk being accused of the same as they push for their own questionable policies which they themselves would be insulated from.
  #178  
Old 11-05-2019, 05:37 PM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Certainly wearing a helmet seems prudent to me, but I'm not willing to say I know better than the rider themself. Do you think you know better for the rider than they do for themself? Do you think that's a choice they should not be able to make?
Riders know full well that some surprise event could result in them getting thrown off, getting a skull fracture, racking up medical bills they can't pay, with they and/or their families becoming a public charge. They know exactly what they're doing, and they do it anyway because they want to be tough and they don't care how it affects others.

This isn't about anybody "knowing better". It's about me not wanting to my tax dollars to go toward behaviors that are likely to cost others without benefiting others at all, especially when it's an easily avoidable problem.
  #179  
Old 11-05-2019, 05:44 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 46,681
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Certainly wearing a helmet seems prudent to me, but I'm not willing to say I know better than the rider themself. Do you think you know better for the rider than they do for themself? Do you think that's a choice they should not be able to make?
I'm being scientifically elitist about this, but do you really think that these people have an accurate sense of the accident rate? Especially the ones who think they're immortal.
When seat belts became standard, there were lots of people who resisted wearing them because they were afraid they couldn't get out of the car. They didn't comprehend that they were more likely to be ejected than trapped.

If everyone had an accurate sense of the risks, then we could have a good discussion about whether helmets should be mandatory. But we're far from that.
  #180  
Old 11-05-2019, 05:50 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
I'm being scientifically elitist about this, but do you really think that these people have an accurate sense of the accident rate? Especially the ones who think they're immortal.
When seat belts became standard, there were lots of people who resisted wearing them because they were afraid they couldn't get out of the car. They didn't comprehend that they were more likely to be ejected than trapped.

If everyone had an accurate sense of the risks, then we could have a good discussion about whether helmets should be mandatory. But we're far from that.
No. I do think some people will have an accurate understanding of risk and accident rate, and others won't. Some people will misjudge the risk and get injured or killed. Some will accurately judge it and still get injured or killed. So be it. It's their life, they can screw it up if they want to.

Same question to you - do you think people should be able to make this choice?
  #181  
Old 11-05-2019, 06:06 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,518
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
What is a liberal elite? Are you guys agreeing that it is a thing and now we are talking policies?
I agree that it's a word used as a slur which more often refers to an amorphous concept than it does actual real people.

Because seriously, it sees as often as not to refer to a cabal. "Liberal elites" aren't just a category of people, they're a group that works together with one mind to implement plans intended to do harm to good hard working conservatives.
  #182  
Old 11-05-2019, 06:12 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,518
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
No. I do think some people will have an accurate understanding of risk and accident rate, and others won't. Some people will misjudge the risk and get injured or killed. Some will accurately judge it and still get injured or killed. So be it. It's their life, they can screw it up if they want to.

Same question to you - do you think people should be able to make this choice?
The problem with this view of reality is that once you've smeared your head across the pavement, other people have to clean up the mess. They have to scrape you off and hose the pavement down, and see if they can find somebody to claim the ziplock. And that's if they're lucky - what if you're still alive and stuff? We're going to have to drag you off somewhere and patch you up - on the public dime, as often as not. Sigh. And in the meantime, with you lying there bleeding? Disrupting traffic with your broken body like that, cluttering up the landscape, ruining the view? How rude. Some people these days.

People think that committing suicide is a way to spare other people trouble. They're not the ones that have to clean the carpets.
  #183  
Old 11-05-2019, 06:22 PM
Yllaria is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Stockton
Posts: 10,928
Is there enough consensus to decide:

How many liberal elitists does it take to change a light bulb?

There's an older one about WASPs for which the answer is two - one to mix the martinis and one to call the electrician. But I don't associate "liberal elitists" with martinis, particularly.
  #184  
Old 11-06-2019, 12:01 AM
ASL v2.0's Avatar
ASL v2.0 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Various
Posts: 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yllaria View Post
Is there enough consensus to decide:

How many liberal elitists does it take to change a light bulb?

There's an older one about WASPs for which the answer is two - one to mix the martinis and one to call the electrician. But I don't associate "liberal elitists" with martinis, particularly.
Plus, a "liberal elite" TM would never deign to speak with an electrician or other blue-collared worker personally. They’d have one of their 22-year old recent Yale graduate personal assistants do it.
  #185  
Old 11-06-2019, 08:47 AM
Kearsen1 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 370
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
The problem with this view of reality is that once you've smeared your head across the pavement, other people have to clean up the mess. They have to scrape you off and hose the pavement down, and see if they can find somebody to claim the ziplock. And that's if they're lucky - what if you're still alive and stuff? We're going to have to drag you off somewhere and patch you up - on the public dime, as often as not. Sigh. And in the meantime, with you lying there bleeding? Disrupting traffic with your broken body like that, cluttering up the landscape, ruining the view? How rude. Some people these days.

People think that committing suicide is a way to spare other people trouble. They're not the ones that have to clean the carpets.
All of these are true, with any dangerous activity.
Are we going to ban pointy knives? How about driving after dark? Scuba Diving? Wearing a seatbelt (for yourself)
Shooting guns at a range.
Swimming pools?

I mean at some point, just because something is dangerous doesn't mean that people shouldn't get to choose for themselves the level of risk they are willing to accept to do said thing. Shit, just about everything that we do in life comes with some sort of inherent risk.

But you know better than the individual if they should have that risk in order to choose to do whatever activity?
  #186  
Old 11-06-2019, 09:49 AM
Airbeck is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,996
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
All of these are true, with any dangerous activity.
Are we going to ban pointy knives? How about driving after dark? Scuba Diving? Wearing a seatbelt (for yourself)
Shooting guns at a range.
Swimming pools?

I mean at some point, just because something is dangerous doesn't mean that people shouldn't get to choose for themselves the level of risk they are willing to accept to do said thing. Shit, just about everything that we do in life comes with some sort of inherent risk.

But you know better than the individual if they should have that risk in order to choose to do whatever activity?
Do you think all public safety laws, traffic laws, seatbelt laws, drinking and driving laws, gun safety laws etc. should be repealed because people should get to choose for themselves what risks they want to take? Where does your logic end?
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #187  
Old 11-06-2019, 09:51 AM
Jim Peebles is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 458
That's an easy one:
liberal elite = deep state + highly paid media folks
  #188  
Old 11-06-2019, 10:22 AM
QuickSilver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,391
Welp, Biden has settled the debate for us by calling out Warren's platform:

Quote:
“It’s representative of an elitism that working and middle class people do not share,” Biden wrote. “‘We know best; you know nothing’. ‘If you were only as smart as I am you would agree with me.’”
Thanks for that, Joe. I fucking hope you lose the nomination to Warren, Sanders and Buttigieg.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #189  
Old 11-06-2019, 12:59 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 46,681
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
No. I do think some people will have an accurate understanding of risk and accident rate, and others won't. Some people will misjudge the risk and get injured or killed. Some will accurately judge it and still get injured or killed. So be it. It's their life, they can screw it up if they want to.

Same question to you - do you think people should be able to make this choice?
Do you think that those who don't have a sense of the statistics can make an informed choice? I don't know what percentage of people know the numbers in this case, but from others I do know I doubt it is very high. These kind of crashes are not covered in the media, so due to the principle of availability I suspect people underestimate the risks. That's why most people think the murder rate is higher than the suicide rate and many people think flying is more dangerous than driving.

For informed choice, I'm of two minds. On one hand I'm against having my insurance rates go up to pay off some clown who could have survived a crash if he was wearing a helmet. On the other, we always need more organ donors.
  #190  
Old 11-06-2019, 01:02 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,622
To paraphrase, the first rule about Liberal Elite(tm) is you don't talk about Liberal Elite(arr). The second rule about Liberal Elite(tm) is you deny there is any such thing as a Liberal Elite.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #191  
Old 11-06-2019, 01:05 PM
Kearsen1 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 370
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
Do you think all public safety laws, traffic laws, seatbelt laws, drinking and driving laws, gun safety laws etc. should be repealed because people should get to choose for themselves what risks they want to take? Where does your logic end?
I don't recall saying anything about all of the above laws. But for sure the ones that affect no one but the person.
  #192  
Old 11-06-2019, 01:08 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 46,681
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
All of these are true, with any dangerous activity.
We're not talking about banning riding bikes (of any variety) just of requiring a low impact way of making the rider safer.
Quote:
Are we going to ban pointy knives? How about driving after dark?
Driving after dark would be more fun if I didn't put my headlights on. That okay with you?
Quote:
Scuba Diving?
Are you against requiring training?

Quote:
Wearing a seatbelt (for yourself)
Want to give up insurance coverage if you aren't wearing a seatbelt? However, a seatbelt allows you to keep control of your car in certain situations. I spun out on ice once, and I was able to get back into control without hitting anything thanks to me being strapped into the seat. So even if you are alone wearing a seatbelt protect others.
Quote:
Shooting guns at a range.
The one's I've been at have safety rules. Are you against that?

Quote:
Swimming pools?
Are you against requiring fences so little kids don't fall in and drown?
  #193  
Old 11-06-2019, 01:13 PM
Kearsen1 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 370
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
We're not talking about banning riding bikes (of any variety) just of requiring a low impact way of making the rider safer.

Driving after dark would be more fun if I didn't put my headlights on. That okay with you?

Are you against requiring training?


Want to give up insurance coverage if you aren't wearing a seatbelt? However, a seatbelt allows you to keep control of your car in certain situations. I spun out on ice once, and I was able to get back into control without hitting anything thanks to me being strapped into the seat. So even if you are alone wearing a seatbelt protect others.

The one's I've been at have safety rules. Are you against that?


Are you against requiring fences so little kids don't fall in and drown?


Yes, NANNY

Last edited by Bone; 11-06-2019 at 03:29 PM. Reason: Edited quote back to original - do not change text in quote box
  #194  
Old 11-06-2019, 01:21 PM
QuickSilver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,391
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
To paraphrase, the first rule about Liberal Elite(tm) is you don't talk about Liberal Elite(arr). The second rule about Liberal Elite(tm) is you deny there is any such thing as a Liberal Elite.
Who blabbed?
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #195  
Old 11-06-2019, 01:25 PM
Airbeck is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,996
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
I don't recall saying anything about all of the above laws. But for sure the ones that affect no one but the person.
Someone smearing their head across the highway affects more than just that person. I already spelled this out. Please read the thread or this conversation is pointless.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #196  
Old 11-06-2019, 01:34 PM
Kearsen1 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 370
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
Someone smearing their head across the highway affects more than just that person. I already spelled this out. Please read the thread or this conversation is pointless.
Yes, and I disregarded most, if not all, of those other 'reasons' you listed for making a nanny law about helmets. For the simple reason of that could be said about ANY dangerous activity.

How many people died from motorcycle crashes prior to the law? How many since?
How many of them are prevented due to helmets?


I am all for helmets, I used to race motorcross. But it should be the individual's decision.

YOU do not know better than the individual what amount of risk they are willing to take.
  #197  
Old 11-06-2019, 01:48 PM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
How many people died from motorcycle crashes prior to the law? How many since?
How many of them are prevented due to helmets?
At the risk of being elitist, there are a number of useful cites that abundantly answer the question you're raising. here is a rich trove of statistics. One interesting one:
Quote:
There were 10 times as many unhelmeted motorcyclist fatalities in states without universal helmet laws (1,777 unhelmeted fatalities) as in states with universal helmet laws (170 unhelmeted fatalities) in 2017.
Does knowing how to use Google make me an elitist? That's a pretty low bar.
  #198  
Old 11-06-2019, 01:50 PM
Airbeck is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,996
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
Yes, and I disregarded most, if not all, of those other 'reasons' you listed for making a nanny law about helmets. For the simple reason of that could be said about ANY dangerous activity.

How many people died from motorcycle crashes prior to the law? How many since?
How many of them are prevented due to helmets?


I am all for helmets, I used to race motorcross. But it should be the individual's decision.

YOU do not know better than the individual what amount of risk they are willing to take.
I already said I'm not a staunch proponent of helmet laws. Would you be willing to sign a waiver that neither you nor your surviving family will be eligible for any state aid for medical care or welfare in the event that you die as a result of an accident without a helmet? Why should society subsidize your bad choice then?
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #199  
Old 11-06-2019, 01:54 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,962
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
YOU do not know better than the individual what amount of risk they are willing to take.
But someone who has studied that matter will probably know better what the actual risk is in the first place.

"“Everybody has opinions: I have them, you have them. And we are all told from the moment we open our eyes, that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. Well, that’s horsepuckey, of course. We are not entitled to our opinions; we are entitled to our informed opinions. Without research, without background, without understanding, it’s nothing. It’s just bibble-babble. It’s like a fart in a wind tunnel, folks.” -Harlan Ellison
  #200  
Old 11-06-2019, 02:38 PM
msmith537 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 27,708
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
All of these are true, with any dangerous activity.
Are we going to ban pointy knives? How about driving after dark? Scuba Diving? Wearing a seatbelt (for yourself)
Shooting guns at a range.
Swimming pools?

I mean at some point, just because something is dangerous doesn't mean that people shouldn't get to choose for themselves the level of risk they are willing to accept to do said thing. Shit, just about everything that we do in life comes with some sort of inherent risk.

But you know better than the individual if they should have that risk in order to choose to do whatever activity?
Honestly, no offense, but what is it about conservatives that causes them to land on the "stupid" or "selfish jerk" side of every argument?

Fine. You want to argue that individuals have the right to decide what level of risk they want to accept. Well, other people don't want have to incur your risk as well. That includes first responders who must rescue you or deal with the aftermath as well as other societal costs. That's why we have licensing for driving cars or scuba diving. That's why homeowners are required to fence off their swimming pools. Presumably gun ranges are also subject to regulations so they don't pose a danger to their neighbors.



Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka
This is a reasonably good answer to the OP's question. You could have called out Hollywood more specifically, but I give it a 7/10 still.
Yes, I forgot to include Hollywood. Also forgot to specifically mention sushi and fancy coffee drinks from overpriced chain restaurants.


There's an old cartoon from The New Yorker or some similar magazine that cleverly portrays how Liberals and Conservatives view each other. It consisted of two panels:

The first panel shows a somewhat overweight stereotypical Midwestern couple laughing at a pretentious hipster couple eating sushi.

The second panel shows the same sushi eating hipster couple laughing at the Midwestern couple.

The clever part is that it's the same couples in the same scene, but in each panel the laughing couple is drawn to be more normal looking and the other couple is drawn slightly more ridiculously. Haven't been able to find it online.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:05 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017