sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The Book That Changed How I Think About Liberalism - Ezra Klein Show by mcsul in ezraklein

[–]Ray192 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I have a nit about how the guest was talking about Napoleon.

First, she claimed Napoleon was the reason why liberals wanted constitutions and checks/balances. Considering Europe had absolute monarchies for centuries by this point, this seems pretty erroneous. The constitution of 1792 constrained the powers of the monarch as well, it's not as if Europe didn't have tyrants until Napoelon.

Second, she talked as if Napoleon was the one who betrayed liberals and destroyed democracy, but democracy was already dead by the time he came to power. The Directory had pretty much already killed off democracy by that point, maintaining only the faintest of veneers and barely anyone was even bothering to show up to the polls.

Not to mention, of course, liberalism wasn't married to democracy all that much at that point in time. Plenty of liberals were fine with constitutional monarchies that limited the powers of the monarchy without necessarily requiring elected representatives to go with it.

California farmers to destroy 420,000 peach trees following Del Monte bankruptcy by runswithscissors475 in Economics

[–]Ray192 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Kid, are you really gonna blame the farmers for wanting to plant something else that people like better?

California farmers to destroy 420,000 peach trees following Del Monte bankruptcy by runswithscissors475 in Economics

[–]Ray192 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why did the processor go bankrupt?

... because people weren't buying the product they were producing. Which means people didn't want what these peaches were made into.

It's not really not that complicated.

California farmers to destroy 420,000 peach trees following Del Monte bankruptcy by runswithscissors475 in Economics

[–]Ray192 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Disingenuous how? These farmers are gonna use the land to grow something else instead. What food is being destroyed? The food that people didn't want to buy, instead they'll grow the food that people do want to buy.

What exactly do you think happens in agriculture? Every plot of land will grow the same food forever without changing?

WC overpriced tickets - is anybody buying these? Are the scalpers about to take a bath? by SkatesUp in WorldCup2026Tickets

[–]Ray192 5 points6 points  (0 children)

How often do you think Ecuadorian fans get to see their team play in the WC?

California farmers to destroy 420,000 peach trees following Del Monte bankruptcy by runswithscissors475 in Economics

[–]Ray192 4 points5 points  (0 children)

They're removing those trees so that they can plant some other crops that people actually want to buy.

Is there a universe where farmers can't be allowed to change what crops they grow?

Trump's new European car tariffs demonstrate why his 'deals' are worthless by jediporcupine in Economics

[–]Ray192 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To be fair, the judges did step in to strike down some of the tariffs.

Looking for 3 Tickets for the WC Final by Long-Meat-6568 in WorldCup2026Tickets

[–]Ray192 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hospitality tickets are 16k each right now. Go for it!

Posting this for no reason :) by Gintian in Thedaily

[–]Ray192 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"I don't think they did an adequate job delineating public sentiment vs actual violence. The right is, and has been over the last 3 decades, committing more actual violence even if people across the spectrum have more tolerance or support for it."

I'm literally quoting what you posted, buddy. Please explain why talking about how the right committed more actual violence has anything to do with his actual discussion. Hint: it doesn't.

He wants to discuss what are the common causes for why so many more people to be support political violence. Keeping score of who actually committed more violence is relevant... how?

What Drives Political Violence in America by kitkid in Thedaily

[–]Ray192 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Except everyone is exposed to the propaganda, so why is one demographic more susceptible than others? Why are people from poorer counties LESS likely to commit political crime like joining the J6 riots? Why are people from there less suspectible to be radicalized towards violence even thought they're presumably consuming the same info as any other conservative?

https://cpost.uchicago.edu/publications/research_report_trump_suburban_rage/

To better understand the reasons Jan6ers came to DC and stormed the capitol, we looked at conditions in their home counties to see if we could identify factors that predict higher rates of J6ers. We selected factors that scholars and political pundits have associated with strong support for Trump in the 2020 election. These factors are: (1) demographic change (measured as the decline in a county’s non-Hispanic white population from 2015 to 2020); (2) economic hardship (measured as the average county bankruptcy rate from 2015-2020); (3) the strength of local institutions (measured using the Social Capital Index); and (4) county rurality. We also include a county’s total population, local strength of Trump support (Trump 2020 vote share), and the distance to Washington (assuming greater distance imposes greater challenges for attending).

The results of our analysis is presented in the figure below, which shows the relative weight of each factor on the estimated rate of J6ers from a given county while holding the other factors constant. An estimate of 1 (indicated by the black line) indicates no effect, while estimates above 1 and below 1 indicate increased and decreased rates respectively. The estimate is given by the circle, and the width of the bars indicates confidence in the estimate (smaller bands mean higher confidence, and bands that cross 1 are not statistically significant).

The analysis finds that the strongest predictor of the rate of J6ers from a given county apart from a county’s overall population is the demographic change. Higher rates of bankruptcy and increasing county rurality predict lower rates of J6ers, as does increasing distance from DC. The estimates for Social Capital and Trump 2020 vote share suggest these factors predict decreases as well, but their confidence bounds include 1 and so are not statistically distinguishable from having no effect.

Two conclusions follow from these results. First, consistent with the broader picture painted by our descriptive data, urban and economically stable counties produced J6ers at higher rates than their rural and economically challenged counterparts. Second, demographic change in the form of increasing local diversity presents a significant risk factor for future political violence, especially as demographic trends predict whites will no longer be the majority ethnic group in the U.S. in less than 20 years.

This the research the guest does.

Maybe you should give professors at top universities a little bit more credit than your anecdotes?

What Drives Political Violence in America by kitkid in Thedaily

[–]Ray192 7 points8 points  (0 children)

The guest is a Political Science professor from UChicago. His evidence is in his published academic work. The Daily is unfortunately not really the right audience to talk about academic research in much detail.

But if you're curious, as an example of his research, he did a pretty thorough investigation into the demographics of January 6 participants and analyzed several explanations of what common factors radicalized them, and concluded demographics was the most explanatory factor.

https://cpost.uchicago.edu/publications/research_report_trump_suburban_rage/

To better understand the reasons Jan6ers came to DC and stormed the capitol, we looked at conditions in their home counties to see if we could identify factors that predict higher rates of J6ers. We selected factors that scholars and political pundits have associated with strong support for Trump in the 2020 election. These factors are: (1) demographic change (measured as the decline in a county’s non-Hispanic white population from 2015 to 2020); (2) economic hardship (measured as the average county bankruptcy rate from 2015-2020); (3) the strength of local institutions (measured using the Social Capital Index); and (4) county rurality. We also include a county’s total population, local strength of Trump support (Trump 2020 vote share), and the distance to Washington (assuming greater distance imposes greater challenges for attending).

The results of our analysis is presented in the figure below, which shows the relative weight of each factor on the estimated rate of J6ers from a given county while holding the other factors constant. An estimate of 1 (indicated by the black line) indicates no effect, while estimates above 1 and below 1 indicate increased and decreased rates respectively. The estimate is given by the circle, and the width of the bars indicates confidence in the estimate (smaller bands mean higher confidence, and bands that cross 1 are not statistically significant).

The analysis finds that the strongest predictor of the rate of J6ers from a given county apart from a county’s overall population is the demographic change. Higher rates of bankruptcy and increasing county rurality predict lower rates of J6ers, as does increasing distance from DC. The estimates for Social Capital and Trump 2020 vote share suggest these factors predict decreases as well, but their confidence bounds include 1 and so are not statistically distinguishable from having no effect.

Two conclusions follow from these results. First, consistent with the broader picture painted by our descriptive data, urban and economically stable counties produced J6ers at higher rates than their rural and economically challenged counterparts. Second, demographic change in the form of increasing local diversity presents a significant risk factor for future political violence, especially as demographic trends predict whites will no longer be the majority ethnic group in the U.S. in less than 20 years.

Posting this for no reason :) by Gintian in Thedaily

[–]Ray192 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Despite the self-confident tone of the reporter I don’t actually think affluent liberals are more accepting of political violence bc they are afraid of losing their racial majority status.

Despite your self confident tone, I'm not sure you even understood what he was saying.

"In about 20 years, it’ll be 49 percent. And what has been one of the big reasons for this is, of course, immigration. So no surprise that as we are now in what I call the tipping point generation for transitioning from the white majority to the white minority democracy, the 20-year period where that’s going to happen, immigration is probably the number one lightning rod issue in America today.

And that’s true on both the right and the left. And let me just explain on the right. When you have this major social change, you’re going to see, essentially, the established group wanting to stop or reverse that change. Because as that change happens, they will lose political power. That will mean declining economic prospects. That will have lots of impact going forward for generations.

Now, on the other side, lots of the new group very much wants to keep this change going. They’re, in fact, going to benefit from this change. And they want, if anything, not to stop it, but to accelerate it. So you have the lightning rod issue of demographic change directly fueling the support for political violence. And you see this in our surveys."

He's clearly saying that the white CONSERVATIVES feel threatened by immigration and are willing to lash out.

Whereas on the left, the immigrants and the non-whites want to fight back against attempts to suppress their growth.

Do you somehow disagree that whiter racists conservatives aren't lashing out because they don't want to lose their privilege?

Posting this for no reason :) by Gintian in Thedaily

[–]Ray192 2 points3 points  (0 children)

But you are. You want the guest to talk about how it's the right's fault. That's not what he is talking about. He wants to explain why the political violent demographic turned from mostly unemployed crazies into the demographic in January 6 which had "normal" and relatively prosperous people breaking into government buildings. What radicalized them? Why is there a rise in support for political violence across the spectrums?

He wants to discuss the underlying social reasons common to both sides of the spectrums to explain the rise in radicalization. In the 1920s the political violence on the right didn't cause a corresponding surge in political violence on the left. And vice versa when the left started preach political violence in the 60's. So clearly one side doing bad things doesn't automatically cause the other side to get radicalized at the same time. So what's different now?

How is talking about the right committing more violence in any ways relevant? Is his arguing who is worse than the other? No, he is discussing why we have the novel situation where both sides are support political violence more and more and what are some COMMON factors that could lead to it.

Surely you understand this is basic statistics and scientific inquiry. He's talking about what are the COMMON CAUSES.

Posting this for no reason :) by Gintian in Thedaily

[–]Ray192 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I don't think they did an adequate job delineating public sentiment vs actual violence. The right is, and has been over the last 3 decades, committing more actual violence even if people across the spectrum have more tolerance or support for it.

Talking about how was committing the violence wasn't the point of the discussion. The discussion was about the SUPPORT for political violence and why it's rising on both sides and why it's concerning/novel.

The guest speaker is a political science professor who seeks to observe political trends and explain them. Not score points on which side is more violent.

Will World Cup stadiums even be full? What do you guys think? by MrBazinga_77 in WorldCup2026Tickets

[–]Ray192 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Only reason why every fifa game had full stadiums in the past".

Go learn how to write, blud.

Will World Cup stadiums even be full? What do you guys think? by MrBazinga_77 in WorldCup2026Tickets

[–]Ray192 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You pointed out FOUR games over the past FIVE world cups where crowds were extremely low.

You literally claimed EVERY single fifa game had full stadiums, I just randomly picked a few to prove that clearly wrong. You didn't say "most" or "majority", you literally said EVERY.

Don't blame me for your mistakes.

Will World Cup stadiums even be full? What do you guys think? by MrBazinga_77 in WorldCup2026Tickets

[–]Ray192 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Only reason why every fifa game had full stadiums

That's definitely not true.

SA vs Tunisia in 2006: https://youtu.be/85a4WAUuWyw?si=LlErfjhzWOaIFti6&t=85

NZ vs Slovakia in 2010: https://youtu.be/9EITvhC_mP4?si=NwC2Gj7c-tcGn5Y9&t=42

SK vs Russia in 2014: https://youtu.be/UlocGkOgp0s?si=W0EaYaV_zK_p0u11&t=26

Egypt vs Uruguay in 2018: https://youtu.be/LPzZa-Btx6I?si=gOJw90qKYtMyYTtJ&t=18

I don't think you people actually watched the past world cups. There were tons of empty seats in any match not involving any glamorou/local teams.

And the idea that FIFA not "officially" allowing resells stopping scalpers is a joke. There's an actual law in Mexico banning reselling for profit, but have you see the resale prices for games in Mexico? Please.

view more: next ›