All in all, that’s all we are.
I might highlight, by way of a clarification that I suspect you would agree with and that might get at what @QuickSilver seems to be missing, is that it is perhaps implicit that those we should live in fear of provoking, and seek to form our behavior and our society around appropriately, would be those with legitimate grievances. Which, again, gets at the fascist/anti-fascist distinction. Fascism is never legitimate. Full stop. Which is how I might justify responding differently to fear of violence from, say, a Trumpist mob, versus fear of violence from Black Lives Matter protesters. The one group (the latter) has legitimate grievances that we might be able to provide redress for without turning ourselves into a fascist state built around a cult of personality and a megalomaniac. The other… doesn’t.
Don’t make the mistake of thinking you can reason with a mob with whose ideology you ostensibly agree. Those gallows in front of the Capitol building were for Mike Pence.
Right. So the goal is to avoid causing situations in which people with legitimate grievances might feel compelled to form a mob to begin with. If more people with wealth and power would live by such a mantra, we’d have a better society.
Yes, this is absolutely true. If society does the right thing, there is negligible danger from masses of BLM supporters. But society can do the right thing and there could still be danger from MAGA masses, because so many of the MAGA masses are at least partially driven by irrational or illegitimate grievances (i.e. fear of immigrants, fear of people of color, fear of LGBTQ+ people, etc.).
You’re both making the mistake of thinking in terms of BLM and MAGA mobs. The composition and motives of the mobs that come to eat the rich are going to be dramatically different.
You’re assuming that a mob must form. We’re, like, trying to avoid that where it is possible to do so by addressing legitimate grievances. You’re question begging.
How do you plan on scaring the rich into become more magnanimous? Angry emoji tweets?
Isn’t that the entire premise of what we’ve been arguing about here… how to make the rich fear serious consequences.
Both iiandyiiii and I have been expressing our hopes, our desires. What we sure wish might happen. It’s aspirational and does not require us to have a plan.
That’s irrespective of whether or not either one of us actually has a plan, or thoughts on what a plan might look like. Point being, I think you’re shifting the goal posts now from criticizing our aspirations to criticizing our lack of a plan.
Which I guess means you now concede our aspirations are worthy?
I’ve always agreed with your aspirations. I’ve only disagreed with some of the proposed methods.
What methods do you think we’ve been proposing?
Oh now let’s not start that again!
Nick Hanauer from 7 years ago, talking to his fellow plutocrats about pitchforks coming for them. Andrew Yang, in his run for the Presidency in 2020, would sometimes say that many of his friends had bunkers. Many rich people are well aware of how things are going. Both Yang and Hanauer are political activists trying to level the playing field so the pitchforks don’t come out, one for UBI (universal basic income) and the other for $15 min wage although both said they would change positions if they thought it was politically feasible.
Did you want the 5 minute argument or the full half hour?
@QuickSilver What I have an issue with is that you’re here yelling at people for daring to vent their frustrations by mentioning they want the rich to face consequences for their actions. Their actions don’t really harm anyone.
Yet you have no problem trying to defend people who tried to argue that trans people being suicidal were a joke. They say it to a trans woman’s face, and yet you completely lack any compassion for her, and how that statement would directly harm her. Actual harm, and it gets played off as okay, because apparently other people were nice.
You care more about the rich billionaires being slighted in way that will never actually affect them than you do about the oppressed. As such, I don’t get where you get off acting like you’re the more moral person.
Sure, anyone can write at length on something. But, when they do so, you can judge more clearly the quality of their logic. The shorter your post, the more you have to gloss over things or rely on having certain assumptions in common.
My point is that I don’t understand the implicit assumption that a longer post is inherently worse. Some posts deserve a longer response. I would argue that, when someone is making as many unwarranted assumptions that @SenorBeef was and continues to make, you needed to address them all.
That said, he keeps missing the point, and so I’m done trying to get him to understand.
I’m a grown up. I’m capable of agreeing with one idea while disagreeing with another instead of disposing the entire person over a moderate difference of views. More nuanced than that, I can at once support a side or cause while also pointing out its faults and shortcomings. And I don’t feel compelled to launch into a boilerplate disclaimer about how the other side is much worse because I expect reasonable people don’t need that constant reassurance. Try it sometime.
And I’m not yelling. I don’t raise my voice. If in your head, what I’m saying sounds like “yelling”, perhaps you should reflect on why that is.
BUT, you lose a lot of people a quarter of the way into your post. That’s happened to me often on these boards. And a couple of times I clearly remember thinking “Darn, I would’ve loved to read what @BigT has to say, but I don’t have the time or the patience to read this much.”
Sure, that’s a balancing act there. But, at the same time, in trying to make a shorter post, I’ve often wound up leaving out parts that people wind up taking me to task for, or relying on a common understanding that is not present.
It’s also already often quite time consuming when replying on a complicated topic in the first place, and the desire to go back through and rewrite the post a third time to try and get it shorter is quite taxing. At some point, you have to just give up.
My solution is this: except in special cases (like when I need to “post parse” as above) I generally try to write in upside down pyramid form, so that you can get the biggest point early on. I also often sum up the general idea at the end.
Instead of a Heckler’s Veto it’s a Snowflake’s veto? Still can be abused to shut down any discussion that the snowflakes aren’t compelled to participate in.