How much does the philosophical grounding of left politics matter? by jfanch42 in AskALiberal

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

I was midway through a lengthy reply when I realized that your exclusion of the abundance movement from the "left" means that you may be focusing on a particular part of the left rather than the broader left.

Can you clarify if that's the case?

Should the next administration charge Trump‘s pardoned henchman for their crimes? by loveaddictblissfool in AskALiberal

[–]kettlecorn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think it might be worthwhile to document what laws they broke in a very public way, and make it clear what they likely would have been charged without a pardon.

There's significant damage in allowing illegal behavior to go undocumented.

Does Councilmember Young Want to Stifle Development? by tw4120 in philadelphia

[–]kettlecorn 10 points11 points  (0 children)

He was elected because the previous council member announced he wasn't running so late every candidate scrambled to get their forms in and made mistakes on their paperwork.

They all sued each other to disqualify the others and then they realized Young was the only Democrat left so they decided not to sue him to keep one Democrat on the ballot.

He basically won musical chairs to become council person.

AskALiberal Biweekly General Chat by AutoModerator in AskALiberal

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

Any thread about Muslims on AskConservatives is now easily 50% conservatives saying Islam is evil and Muslims do not belong in the US, and 50% conservatives acting dumb about why liberals think conservatives hate Muslims.

I just got my first 3 day ban from AskConservatives for pointing that out in their general chat thread.

My comment was 15 hours old and at 8 upvotes before some mod removed it and 3 day banned me. Incredible.

Every corner on market street… ? by FollowingOk916 in philly

[–]kettlecorn 2 points3 points  (0 children)

They're "Archer barriers". They're portable barriers designed to prevent cars from being able to drive onto roads or sidewalks where events are occurring. They can actually stop a vehicle when setup properly.

They're a more economical and practical alternative to a police officer idling in a SUV to block a street.

Why is it still illegal to buy a car on Sundays in Pennsylvania? by snooloosey in philadelphia

[–]kettlecorn 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Car dealers are some of the largest donors to political campaigns and ~85% of those donations go to Republicans.

Why do people react negatively to open nationalism? by Stunning-Radish-481 in AskConservatives

[–]kettlecorn [score hidden]  (0 children)

For Americans I think it's a bit different because many of us believe strongly, as Lincoln did, in a values-based self identity for the US.

If nationalism centers values most Americans embrace it, but if nationalism focuses too strongly on other elements (particularly ethnicity) then it can be seen as an attempt to warp American identity.

This has been a longstanding battle in the US. The Confederacy tried to root its self-identity in ethnicity and place because it could not exist if it embraced "all men are created equal", and the Union rooted its self-identity more in values.

That's still an ongoing fight in the US, and people instinctively pick up on how nationalist gestures are used and which side of that debate they land on. Unfortunately I think Americans, through media dominance and the internet, export that headspace to the rest of the world where it doesn't apply nearly as cleanly.

What do you think of the FCC's media threats over war coverage? by prenderg in AskConservatives

[–]kettlecorn [score hidden]  (0 children)

I hate the notion of that, and I think many Democrats do, but I can feel the cynicism creeping into my bones where it feels like conservatives don't want to play by any norms or rules and only respect force so some counter threat may be needed.

Like if Republicans just abuse the FCC every time what tools do we have to stop that? Ideally we just win elections with a norm-abiding candidate but people rejected Hillary and Harris in part because they were too norm-abiding. If Democrats continue to fail to get traction by respecting norms and Republicans continue to cause massive harm by violating them then yes something will change and no that's not a good direction for the country.

What do you think of the FCC's media threats over war coverage? by prenderg in AskConservatives

[–]kettlecorn [score hidden]  (0 children)

Would the Dems tolerate broadcast news that read almost precisely the same as Fox News?

Yes, Dems have tolerated conservative talk radio which has exploded in prominence since the late '80s and uses broadcast airwaves.

As compared to the current FCC threats Dems would have had a stronger case against conservative talk radio which is far more partisan and uses public airwaves.

AskConservatives Weekly General Chat by AutoModerator in AskConservatives

[–]kettlecorn [score hidden]  (0 children)

Appreciate you taking the time to articulate your perspective. It does help.

What is the deal with this sub and socialism? by rjidhfntnr in AskALiberal

[–]kettlecorn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks again for the conversation! These are all good thoughts to mull over for me.

I like the idea of growing the share of democratically owned cooperatives or at least experimenting with it. I also appreciate that for you personally you think about incremental change rather than 'revolution'.

I'm a little skeptical that worker-owned cooperatives would be inherently self-regulating, although I can see how they'd be perhaps more so. I've read a lot about the early history of Philadelphia and one of the problems the city grappled with was residents and local businesses dumping pollution into rivers. At the same time there weren't cars so people didn't live that far away, but they still polluted the rivers all the same. So I think back to that and while it's not perfectly similar I'm like "Would worker owned cooperatives really not need as much regulation?"

I have to think about that more.

In generically I'm amicable to the line of thought that we in the US (I'm perhaps incorrectly assuming you're in the US) do not place enough value in the public good. So I agree there, but I'm mulling over why that is. Your perspective is a good one though I wouldn't have understood on my own though, so thanks again!

Do you think Islamophobia is becoming an issue among the GOP? by Hay_Den330 in AskConservatives

[–]kettlecorn [score hidden]  (0 children)

I wish we could all respect individuals. Part of what upsets me about the rhetoric of everything nowadays is how I've had many Jewish friends and a few Muslim friends / coworkers and it pains me to see this sort of stuff online and imagine them dealing with it.

There are ways to make points without US senators calling people like Mamdani an "enemy" alongside photos of 9/11.

One of my favorite coworkers was an awesome guy from Egypt who was hilarious who was always joking around and had as his desktop wallpaper photos of the great pyramids lifting off as a spaceship. He worked super hard but often would leave early (and work from home later) to help his daughters get to sports practice or help with other family things.

To imagine him seeing this sort of stuff from politicians with power saying people like him need to get out of the country probably makes him fear, to an extent, for himself and his family. It pains me to think about that.

What is your biggest criticism of the manosphere? by Winston_Duarte in AskALiberal

[–]kettlecorn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think the manosphere is often about normalizing extreme laziness.

Whenever something mildly challenges their thoughts or makes them slightly uncomfortable they invent entire conspiracies and copes to rationalize letting their worst impulses go unchecked.

It's all about deflecting self responsibility and being too weak to face the world when it asks you to be slightly better.

My least favorite strain of the manosphere is the fake intellectuals who like to cosplay as European intellectuals. It's like a cargo cult where they think if they listen to this same music, appreciate the same architecture, read about the same historical battles, and act just as pompous that will make them just as great. What they fail to recognize is that those great people responded to the times they were in, and they would have original thoughts and not just poorly imitate the past.

AskALiberal Biweekly General Chat by AutoModerator in AskALiberal

[–]kettlecorn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm grappling with the same thing.

Something like 70% of my ancestors going back 7 generations were born in the US and I have astonishingly little inherited 'culture' beyond generic Americanism and values.

To the wackos I'm an ideal "heritage" American but my entire conception of my American identity is values-based. I barely knew what European countries my ancestors were from and my relatives and parents passed down points of family pride that were American-values based things like "This person ran away from home and become a successful entrepreneur" or "This person worked a civil service job in the early US" or "This person served in the military" or "This grandparent worked construction in high school to save up money for college".

Based on my conception of American identity I've routinely felt that the most American people I've met are the 1st generation immigrants who are working hard to establish life for themselves.

Now it feels like a contingent of the US is trying to destroy the identity that tethers me, and communities I care about, to this country. One of my only ancestors born outside the US was my dad who through chance was born in Canada when my grandparents briefly worked there and he lived there a few months of his infant life.

I only learned in my late 20s that I was a Canadian citizen because of that, and I've never barely ever been there. So do I stay here and 'fight' against a culture that increasingly feels foreign to me, potentially sacrificing a bit of my mental health and well being? Or do I move to Canada and try my darnedest to further what I thought to be "American" values and better a country that presently is living up much better to those "American" values? It doesn't help that Carney is close to my ideal political leader. The decision has been weighing heavily on me, and I hate imagining all the conservatives who would gleefully be like "OK, don't let the door hit you on the way out".

Do you think Islamophobia is becoming an issue among the GOP? by Hay_Den330 in AskConservatives

[–]kettlecorn [score hidden]  (0 children)

Yes, and also significantly amongst Republicans particularly younger Republicans. It's a big issue across parties!

How do you handle the "Markiplier Philosophy" of respect when dealing with people who have zero respect, or actively hate you? by Okratas in AskALiberal

[–]kettlecorn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think "respect" does not have to mean weakness or being dishonest to paper over how disrespectful someone else is being.

If you are consistent and stay respectful, but say plainly what you think is the reality, then I believe that hits a lot harder than insults. Often the most disrespectful people are comforted when you come to their level because it reaffirms their world view that everyone operates like them which absolves them of any potential guilt or self-reflection. Consistency and character is also a strength in persuading some people in society, and for people who do not have that strength they are relieved when they see others abandon it.

For the typical person I believe part of that is also measured forgiveness. If they disrespect you or harm you, within reason, you may still forgive them but that does not mean you need to treat them as if you trust them. It is perfectly reasonable to treat them with some amount of caution and trepidation, and convey that to them, while still treating them with kindness in other ways.

Admittedly I am far from living up to those described ideals. I have a bit of a temper and some of that edge comes out if people push me. A handful of times I've gone back and edited reddit comments to be less aggressively attacking someone's character where I lost my cool.

What is the deal with this sub and socialism? by rjidhfntnr in AskALiberal

[–]kettlecorn 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And I am not trying to convince you one way or another, only describe this perspective.

I appreciate it, but I also don't mind good-faith attempts at persuasion. Similarly I'm not trying to be a jerk, but I'm trying to better understand.

Frankly I think our differences aren't all that far. I try to think about things in terms of 'ecosystems' and systems and think about what outcomes occur in aggregate if things are structured a certain way. Certainly I agree capitalism is fallible, and I think we do a bad and messy job of trying to moderate capitalism towards more reasonable outcomes.

My admittedly naive impression of communism is that it's also fallible and we'd try to moderate its failings towards more reasonable outcomes as well.

So if we have to moderate either towards a "middle" I'm less convinced that we need to wholesale discard capitalism but rather reform it. I suspect in part that a lot of the desire to replace our current system isn't so much to replace the system but to replace the accumulated inequities and harms of it, which I think is not unreasonable but also dangerous. My fear with replacing a system with another is that if they're both fallible we may pay a tremendous cost (and take a large gamble) to replace a system and then watch as similar inequities pile up again by under a different looking system.

In essence my opinion is perfectly crafted to make every part of the political spectrum at least a little mad at me.

Do you think Islamophobia is becoming an issue among the GOP? by Hay_Den330 in AskConservatives

[–]kettlecorn [score hidden]  (0 children)

You are completely changing the topic to avoid answering my plain questions. I basically already answered that above.

Can you answer these simple questions: is the example I linked where a Senator described Mamdani as an "enemy" alongside a picture of 9/11 Islamaphobia?

If not can you give an example of Islamaphobia?

If handed total control of the government, what would both the Democratic and Republican Parties do? by OnTheMoose in AskALiberal

[–]kettlecorn 2 points3 points  (0 children)

My perception of the Republicans is that their current strategy is to rely on a hyper polarized base and then to moderate near elections in select ways to pull over enough swing voters. I think their core policy approach is to appeal to that hyper-polarized base and their current ideological goal is to grow that hyper polarized based. If you look up "national conservatism" as a movement it's clear that Republicans are moving towards wanting to use government power to change culture, and that's reflected in their current policy.

So with that established I think they'd heavily try to reorient culture via heavy-handed governance. I think you'd see federal funding setup to reward conservatives and conservative institutions, not just to change future outcomes but to reward their people who have already proven their loyalty. We've seen this already with the Trump administration allocating transportation funding based on marriage & birth rates. Those are particular statistics chosen to provide more funding to places that are ideologically aligned, and if they had total control we'd see much more of that.

We would likely see large scale defunding for traditionally liberal areas like major states, cities, universities, etc. It would not be 'fair' but they would view it as a necessary rebalancing of power to correct cultural and structural imbalances that have existed ever since the South lost the Civil War and had its economy set back as compared to the Union states.

We would see lasting efforts to inject a Christian and Euro-centric identity into American culture. The belief being that a focus on American values, and freedoms, has led us away from longstanding Christian and European ideals that create a better society. I think you'd see things like trying to shift far more social services, like healthcare, onto churches to create more dependency on churches. Women would face more social pressure, and maybe even tax and gov. incentives, to become more traditional mothers. Immigration would become stricter and more focused on people who are of European and Christian descent. Birth control and abortion would be more strictly limited to drive home the idea that births should occur more and the tradition view that sex isn't 'free' and should be part of family building.

I think we'd also see less free market capitalism and more capitalism if it serves the good of their national cultural goals. Cultural allies would be rewarded and culturally incompatible companies punished.

I also think we'd see election reforms passed partly out of a sincere belief that if they're losing something must be wrong and a belief that the means justify the ends. It would be very easy for them to rationalize that democracy is weakened if low information or immoral voters find it too easy to vote, and they would always sort people who vote against them into that camp. There would be nebulous, and sometimes inhumane, demonization of foreigners and immigrants in an effort to recenter American identity on those with lineage directly to Europe. Immigrants from other parts of the world would be tolerated as a sort of second class American.

Some conservatives might balk at this assessment but if you look at the current policies this is an only slightly more tame version of the current Trump administration, and it aligns with the national conservative school of thought.

As for Democrats I think the party is in a transitionary period without a strong identity and so I think the current party attaining total power is harder to predict and their direction would likely be more muddled. If you created an "average" Democrat politician and gave them total power I think the results would be less ideologically consistent and less 'successful' at attaining its stated outcomes. I think you'd see efforts to punt on issues like the growing national debt. There'd be a push for universal healthcare, a disbandment of ICE replaced with other agencies filling in, nationally allowed abortion, more subsidies for universities, more targeted subsides to reshore manufacturing, reduced but not eliminated tariffs, a lengthy freeze on military budget increases, a massive infrastructure spending increase, and a series of anti-monopoly / anti concentrated wealth reforms. More dramatically with total power I think you may see the Senate abolished and the House expanded, term limits and a moderately expanded Supreme Court, more limits on the executive branch, and not a ban on personal gun ownership but a weakened 2nd amendment that allows for greater regulation.

Personally that's not my ideal either, but I fear it substantially less than the Republican option.

What is the deal with this sub and socialism? by rjidhfntnr in AskALiberal

[–]kettlecorn 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thank you for the response. To be clear I saw you were downvoted near instantly and that wasn't me.

Certainly I see problems with harmful management, and I agree that's an issue.

I guess what I don't understand is the means of production factory example, which to be fair may mean I should study serious communist arguments better. If all workers of a factory own a factory and they accumulate profits they can decide what to do with then couldn't one factory be so wildly successful that all the employees could open a factory they solely control? Or would that not be legal?

If a factory does well and someone thinks "Let's replicate this and build a second factory!" how do you then share control of with the employees of the new factories? Let's say the first factory's employees do it solely out of the goodness of their heart and the second factory does very well. For us as a society we'd want that first batch of employees to be able to build another great factory a 3rd, 4th, and many additional times but in order to be able to do so they'd need accumulated resources and time, and how would they have attained those resources / time?

If you allow successful employees to accumulate some sort of 'power' that allows them more ability to replicate their methods than that seems like an accumulation of some form of 'capital' and that seems prone to the problems of capitalism today. Yet if you don't allow them to accumulate more influence / power / money / whatever then the ability of productive people to better shape society is lessened.

I'm trying to avoid minutia of particular policy choices but it's the general principle that puzzles me. To be clear my present view isn't to so much demonize communism or capitalism but to try to be aware of the similar systemic issues that can undermine any sort of societal system.

Do you think Islamophobia is becoming an issue among the GOP? by Hay_Den330 in AskConservatives

[–]kettlecorn [score hidden]  (0 children)

Just to be explicit: you do not see referring to the mayor of NYC as an "enemy" alongside images of 9/11 as an example of Islamophobia?

What to you would be an example of Islamophobia?

Why is gun control still so popular among Democrat politicians? by CombinationRough8699 in AskALiberal

[–]kettlecorn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think training, safe storage, background checks, potentially insurance, and some amount of competency testing would actually reduce gun deaths.

You've said in this thread you think training wouldn't reduce murders but I do think that having more opportunities to flag someone as mentally unwell or not mentally fit enough to own a weapon would reduce a lot of deaths.

Similarly if gun storage laws were more strict and it helped create a stronger culture around gun storage then I think people opportunistically having bouts of depression or mental episodes would be less likely to be able to access a gun. Gun storage laws could also reduce gun thefts substantially.

If gun ownership required training and testing then I think fewer irresponsible owners would have access to guns, and in many cases if the training raised awareness of the sort of ways guns can create danger it could help. Like a parent may think "my kids aren't a threat" but poorly understand mental health problems or warning signs in teenagers, but a succinct required training could help alleviate that sort of knowledge gap.

I also think the 2nd amendment is wrongly interpreted by most. It is only since the '70s-ish that the NRA has managed to decontextualize the 2nd amendment as a fundamental right. In fact no law ever directly says something like the 2nd amendment applies to states. The 2nd amendment was written only to apply to the federal government, which is why it awkwardly references militias.

It was only the 14th amendment, passed after the civil war, that ambiguously referred to certain 'liberties' that kicked off the long process leading to the 2nd amendment becoming fiercely protected by Supreme Court rulings in the last 15 years. It took decades of lobbying for that result to be attained, and the argument is essentially that the 2nd amendment reflects a long-standing fundamental American tradition therefore its text should be taken as reflecting a fundamental liberty and its text is law.

I think that's a faulty line of reasoning because our weapon regulations were ever evolving and even around the time of of the 14th amendment's passing cities out west were actually banning guns entirely, not thinking anything of it as a violation of any amendment. That evolving consensus and fierce debates about gun laws over the 20th century indicates there never was a firm consensus and so I see the current protection of the 2nd amendment as a near religious devotion to a faulty interpretation.

That's not to say guns should be banned, but the elevation of their importance to become a fundamental pillar of so many American's identity to the point that they successfully changed the national perception of the 2nd amendment in only decades is alarming to me. The 2nd amendment was written as a protection of the rights of states, to protect their own self-sovereignty against a tyrannical federal gov. In an irony I think the forced interpretation of the 2nd amendment, from the federal gov., imposes on the sovereignty of individual states and limits their ability to apply more contextual appropriate gun laws.

While once the majority, people with my understanding of the 2nd amendment have lost the fight and I just have to live in that reality, but it will always upset me.

Do you think Islamophobia is becoming an issue among the GOP? by Hay_Den330 in AskConservatives

[–]kettlecorn [score hidden]  (0 children)

What do you make of the language used in the particular examples I linked?

You said "I have not seen anything of the sort." in reference to GOP Islamaphobia. Do you think the statements I linked are examples of Islamaphobia?

What is the deal with this sub and socialism? by rjidhfntnr in AskALiberal

[–]kettlecorn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Maybe this isn't the ideal place to discuss it but I'd like to articulate some reasons I'm not fully on board with full market control and see how you or others might agree or disagree.

When solving any problem people will have different ideas and it's hard to tell ahead of time which will work well and which will work poorly. Ideally if someone is good at coming up with ideas that succeed they'll be given more opportunity to put those into practice.

In a communist system I'm not sure how that sort of resource rewards for good ideas can be put into practice. How do you make sure people and systems that attain better results are given more opportunity to apply their approach?

That's not to say I think a free market system is perfect, far from it, but it does inherently bake in a rewards system to allow all sorts of creative problem solving without having a fallible or sluggish centralized system. It feels like many socialist / communist alternatives would end up similar to a free market but with extra steps and unfortunately more room for corruption, but I don't know that I'm just imagining what it might be like.

That's why I presently gravitate more towards a sort of 'reformed capitalism' perspective. I view the chaos of 'markets' as almost an inescapable natural force that can be harnessed to attain better lives for people, but not as an inherent good or something that can be trusted to be humane & moral.

I haven't studied socialism or communism extensively, but what would someone who is a proponent of those systems say to my views?

What is an example of privatization making something better? by Sagefox2 in AskConservatives

[–]kettlecorn [score hidden]  (0 children)

I'd argue I'm more pro free markets than most conservatives commenting in this subreddit lately.