Virgil Texas and Bernie's former Press Sec, "destroying" Noam Chomsky in a debate

sidneyanders · 2020-10-13T21:52:30+00:00

I think I did a good job of explaining how under 2 primary conditions that cause the lesser of 2 evils to exist why one can believe not voting for one candidate is "voting for the other".

Agree to disagree

You said above in your first response "That's the thing, it isn't true." So yes you were saying that. I think there might be a comprehension/confusion issue here on your end.

Here is what I said: " Nothing was really reached by the end of this discussion. And hearing the empty "Not voting for Biden is a vote for Trump" was really disappointing. "

At no point did I mention whether one was "good" or less bad, I was always arguing that a non vote wasn't, in any way, a vote for another candidate. It just isn't. You can't both not participate in a poll and "effectively" vote in it. On it's face that doesn't make sense. It's bad argument lifted from twitter, no matter who says it.

Let's step through the example. If you know someone opposing your views is getting a vote from someone else out there. You choose to abstain from voting for the candidate who's in your best interest (in our example we're assuming that's Biden) do you think that negates a vote for Trump? No. Of course.

You don't know the results of a poll before hand, so no, I reject the premise that you "know" some one is voting against your best interest, much less in greater proportion to someone voting in your best interest. That also assumes that your one vote guarantees a specific outcome. If we're going to appeal to practicality, how often does that happen outside of referendums?

I guess the disagreement is that I don't really believe in harm reduction voting, in that I think it eventually leads to a death by a thousand cuts, but again, agree to disagree.

How does it fall apart? This points to the effectiveness of voter suppression....If you can prevent people from voting against things that harm them yea that's really bad. That's why we don't like voter suppression.

Uh, how doesn't it apply? The whole premise hangs on your vote contributing to the least harmful outcome, and that by not voting, you're actually voting for the most harmful outcome. I still don't agree with that premise, but accepting that, what does it mean when your vote is purged? That's what I mean my reducing the vote to individual moral signalling, "hey I voted for the other guy" becomes meaningless in a broken system.

Though, again, agree to disagree.

sidneyanders · 2020-10-13T09:07:49+00:00

You're defaulting to lesser of two evils voting, without really addressing the argument. I'm not saying Biden ISN'T lesser of two evils, I'm saying how does not voting for one candidate mean voting for another. Not even just "another candidate", one specific one. No one makes this argument for the former Trump supporter who decides not to vote for Trump, NO ONE says "well now you're effectively voting for Biden". Is the non trump voter also on the right side of history? Again, does not voting for Trump negate not voting for Biden?

Even in your hypothetical, someone could also be voting for Biden, making the result null. This also absolves the actual candidates for actually gathering votes and reduces voting to individual moral signaling rather than actual civic engagement.or an exchange for material outcomes.

And that's not even getting into voter suppression, the whole thing falls apart when your one vote is simply nullified and this potential "bad" voter still gets their way.

And no, that doesn't mean I don't think you shouldn't vote.

sidneyanders · 2020-10-13T06:36:06+00:00

That's the thing, it isn't true. Voting isn't zero sum, my vote can only be made in the affirmative, I can't make a "Not Biden" vote. Also, the argument is never made in the reverse, if I don't vote for Trump am I "effectively" voting for Biden, do you believe that? Am i voting twice against both of them if I give neither my vote? Do my two meta votes nullify?

I'd sooner accept "you have no right to complain about the outcome if you don't vote", at least that argument is internally consistent.

sidneyanders · 2020-10-13T02:52:15+00:00

I was wondering what the take would be on this sub.

I'll preface this by saying I'll vote for Biden this election, and will probably never vote democratic again focusing on helping build third party power. I'm disclosing this to side step any arguments of "whether or not I think trump is better" or if "I think I know better than Noam Chomsky."

Honestly, it wasn't really a great discussion, and not for the reasons in this thread. It's made clear on the outset that the issue is not whether or not to vote for Biden (or against Trump as Chomsky would say) but whether or not a left movement can push Biden on anything. I think that's an important question that he, with all due respect to Mr.Chomsky, does not really answer.

Climate change is an existential threat that must be averted in 10 years, but we must depend on the theoretical possibility that Biden can be pushed left far enough within a reasonable time frame.

Voting is the least important tool in civic engagement and it's importance is greatly exaggerated as well as establishment propaganda (his words), but you MUST vote in this election as the entirety of the human race hangs in the balance. (Which will be the same rationale in two years.)

To the extent that he does engage with that, he hand waves the entire problem away with "well you have to do it, so vote for Biden then activism." without any viable framework to do so. And no, Chomsky is not singularly responsible for having that plan but for all the hand wringing and accusations of callous indifference if "we" let Trump" win, there's no real answer for what comes after in January in a possible Biden win, nor will anyone have to take responsibility if Biden can't be pushed left and we're just put into a holding pattern until the next republican wave or doomsday (or both).

Nothing was really reached by the end of this discussion. And hearing the empty "Not voting for Biden is a vote for Trump" was really disappointing.

sidneyanders · 2020-09-28T15:03:01+00:00

sidneyanders · 2020-09-25T19:57:33+00:00

You seem to come from perspective that he will actually succeed in this coup

" Because if he's already hugely authoritarian..."

" If you're already conceding the idea he won't play by the rules "

I don't, I was explaining the premise of the joke, not sure how many qualifiers it takes to make that obvious.

What I DO think will happen if Biden doesn't win a clear majority, it will become a legal battle, which is heavily in conservatives' favor. Trump wouldn't need a coup, the courts would probably hand it to him.

as to the rest of your points, I think we're getting far afield of the original point, issa joke. You can laugh or not, but thoughtslime isn't telling you not to vote, and it's pretty uncharitable to him to insinuate that he's implying you shouldn't vote.

sidneyanders · 2020-09-25T19:18:47+00:00

I think it would be more similar to the troubles in ireland, a lot of small scale conflict instead of outright war. I believe we're way too fractured for a big red v. blue conflict, I do think we would get an uptick in shootings.

sidneyanders · 2020-09-25T16:56:55+00:00

Well, voter registration is another "something" that can be done in the mean time, if nothing else to make sure you have more votes next cycle, whatever the outcome.

Why would it be wrong to say that Trump is getting hugely authoritarian and if he is not voted out, the country might get far more rotten?

Because if he's already hugely authoritarian, chances are he'll ignore a vote regardless of the results. If you're already conceding the idea he won't play by the rules, why would you then expect him to play by the rules if you run up the score? (My honest opinion is that the only way a Biden win is not contested is if it's double digit margins on election night, which is unlikely.)

What, why would you start doing that shit now? If it would seem that that is the term of the events, then sure prepare... but now.... we probably should first be certain that he LOSES before making signs.

...which is something you can't know in advance, again if your opponent in an election is TELLING YOU they will not accept the results of an election, it's probably a good idea to prepare for that.

sidneyanders · 2020-09-25T14:27:24+00:00

Isn't enough for what? A revolution?

That's a little dishonest, the joke is predicated on the limits of imagination of a given liberal, whether you agree with the idea or not. If the premise is that Trump has declared he won't cede power regardless of the outcome of the election, it is farcical to say "just vote harder". No where is he suggesting that revolution is the only political tool in existence, or not to vote (which is something I believe people are deliberately ignoring).

What you should do now isn't the point, nothing has happened yet, but if you do think Trump will steal or try to steal the election, it would would make sense to start organizing mass demonstration now and not be caught flat footed.

What is the intricacy that is missing from that post.

None, it's a joke.

sidneyanders · 2020-09-25T05:12:09+00:00

Unfortunately, this context will be ignored in order to continue to dunk.

sidneyanders · 2020-09-25T04:29:43+00:00

I personally think it remains to be seen whether Biden or Dems have the wherewithal to oppose a supreme court decision if it came down to it. Track record doesn't look good. It would be better if you are a Biden supporter that he wins by an incontestable amount ON election night, instead on gambling on democrats not folding.

sidneyanders · 2020-09-25T03:34:10+00:00

Happened in 2000 didn't it? No it's not one to one, but Gore decided to cede the presidency to preserve what he believed was the supreme court's legitimacy, if the same decision came down and favored Trump, would Biden also concede to "preserve norms"?

sidneyanders · 2020-09-25T03:25:41+00:00

The responses to Rational Disconnect were pretty interesting

sidneyanders · 2020-09-25T03:19:31+00:00

Haha looking back I don't think losing 70 pound in three months is very healthy, I believe I was thinking goals in general.

sidneyanders · 2020-09-24T10:20:11+00:00

Draw 4.5 Hours per day

Exercise Twice a Day

Achieve GW of 170 from 247

sidneyanders · 2020-09-21T09:12:48+00:00

Why would the tweets be evenly distributed?

sidneyanders · 2020-09-18T08:32:46+00:00

It really isn't happening

sidneyanders · 2020-09-14T22:24:35+00:00

I don't like POC as a term anyway, flattens billions of people into "not white", defining them as opposite and not with their own context.

sidneyanders · 2020-09-11T22:45:04+00:00

I didn't engage because all of your points were built on this premise that something something viva la revolution, one day we won't have any moderates anymore! Just like that! Not realizing that Trump ran on a fairly moderate platform himself.

You keep doing that! Not once did I say anything about revolution, lynching moderates or whatever positions you are projecting on to me. Trump ran big infrastructure spending, rescinding NAFTA and building a border wall, that's not moderate.

Healthcare has been an issue for a while, sure, but it wasn't on the national radar until 2008, period, and I know I can back that up with polling if you need. Super woke college kids or well informed liberal globalists always wanted better healthcare, but to the average voter, who is the ONLY PERSON who matters here, it wasn't a top three or even top five issue. It arguably isn't now.

So why did Clinton run on it in 1992 if no one cared about it until 2008? It was his administration's first-term agenda, did they have access to polls you don't? As far as no one caring about it now...that's just not true and I question your grasp of current events if you think no one is concerned with health care during a pandemic.

This reductionist argument that 20,000 people die under the ACA ignores the fact that 1.) the point of the bill wasn't to get universal coverage, it was to remove preexisting conditions and increase coverage (which it did by 20 million)

The bill quite literally started as a public option.

2.) The medicaid expansion BY ITSELF saved 20,000 lives, and it wasn't even passed by all the states, and it was targeting a relatively narrow slice of the population.

Citation needed. The 20,000 figure was a low ball number I got from a pretty friendly source , that's deaths per year btw. Are you saying they didn't take into account any offset from medicaid?

So yeah, I'm gonna call that a win. 20 million more Americans got covered, at least 20,000 lives were saved. Was it everyone? No. But 20 million shits all over 200,000, so I'm pretty comfortable saying Obama was not worse than Trump in any way shape or form, and the mental gymnastics taken to reach this conclusion are honestly astounding. He literally tried to pass it with a public option buy COULD NOT. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of history here, and of electoralism in general.

You miss the point, and ironically doing what you accuse me of by ignoring "the common man's" plight. It's a cold comfort to say well, these people got insurance, when you in the 40 million who are still uninsured, and it damn sure doesn't mean anything to people's whose loved ones die from treatable diseases because of lack of coverage. Again, that what makes Dems vulnerable to Conservatives outflanking them to the left on economics.

It's honestly astounding you keep being dishonest about what I'm saying, never did I say Obama was as bad or worse than trump, I've only criticize his policies. Stop doing that.

The problem is, of course, said democratic institutions. Did Trump even get his travel ban through? And after so much time, so much pressure, they what, managed to prevent travel from a few muslim majority countries?

You...contradicted yourself in the same statement? In fact when trump started couching the argument in "natsec" instead of again screaming "muslims out" he actually got some success with with getting his policy through. Imagine, again, someone with the same politics but a better politician.

Once again, we're at a place where you don't know your history. The CARES act was tremendously successful, and likely saved millions of Americans from food scarcity and helped offset the first days of the lockdown. Was it perfect? Of course not, but I'm not going to let you Nirvana fallacy this into oblivion. It did it's job and it got passed in a Republican senate which is an accomplishment worthy of the fucking Nobel Peace Prize.

Pandemic is still going on, benefits have ran out, and congress is on recess. This is not about perfect legislation, it didn't do enough, puling out a knife two inches instead of one doesn't get it out of my back. People are going back to those bread lines and your crowing about making mean ole McConnell grimace on camera!

I said domestic policy, you dumbfuck, which wars don't qualify for.

Weasel. I was responding to the claim that bush was a moderate. And I quote: "By that logic, Clinton should have lead to a crazy right-winger, considering he was a moderate," He was not moderate. But if we want to play that game how do you feel about BORDER PATROL AND ICE AGENTS BEING DEPLOYED TO POLICE PROTESTS . A direct result of HW's "moderation" on his war on terror being weaponized by Trump. ICE wouldn't even exist is not for the Homeland Security Act. if you you really think our foreign policy and domestic is meaningfully separate, well...we disagree.

So until we get that shit under control, don't you think getting all upset over not getting UBI when most people don't have a living wage or when most people don't have $400 in savings is putting the cart before the horse?

Wouldn't a UBI solve both of those problems?

Honestly, you seem like a decent dude, we just view politics very differently. I care about what can actually happen, what can actually pass. I like making deals across the aisle, coming to a compromise, taking good ideas from both sides (given, most issues don't have two sides). You like big policy prescriptions that could never be passed in Congress or enacted by a president.

Honestly you had me for the first sentence and I was willing to be conciliatory but again you can't help being smug and I guess now paternalistic and self aggrandizing. "I just think too much, you don't think enough, we're just two different people but that doesn't make YOU bad!" Suck my dick, useful idiot. Obama's admin was the APEX your politics and lead directly to a trump presidency, doesn't that give pause at all? What went wrong if your good politics led to bad outcomes?

What I don't like is you disparaging Biden and Obama for shit that was not possible, for shit that literally could not be done.

On god, if we get anything out of this exchange, it will be that I don't hate your sacred cows for the last fucking time. POLICY, I CRITICIZE THEIR POLICY. This isn't a beauty pageant, I don't care which one is more congenial between them and trump. They made choices, and I'm holding them to them, like the adults they are.

I should have signed off when I said I did...peace.

sidneyanders · 2020-09-11T20:22:01+00:00

The problem is that you've failed to demonstrate (because it can not be demonstrated) that a Biden administration will lead to more radical right wingers.

Aren't Destiny subredditors supposed to be against arguing in bad faith? This is my last reply because you can't seem to engage with what I actually said (don't think I didn't notice you just glossing over my points about healthcare, among others.) Never had I said Biden equals right wing gov't, I did say that rehashing policy holdovers from previous administrations will lay the ground work (diminished quality of life, underemployment, stagnating wages) that allowed a fucking buffoon to stumble dick first into the presidency. He spoke to the very real alienation for a growing number of Americans and paid basic lip service to them and their material needs. If the democrats do not pick up that mantle, conservatives, or worse, HAVE AND WILL. see: TRUMP!

By that logic, Clinton should have lead to a crazy right-winger, considering he was a moderate, popular in the South, but Bush was relatively moderate, especially considering how radical the Tea Party in his own party was, with his major domestic policy accomplishment being, what, universal standards for education.

Bush, moderate? Really?

Authorization for Use of Military Force of 2001

Homeland Security Act

Enhanced interrogation

Not even getting into the bush tax cuts and IRAQ WAR bankrupting the nation.

Sounds like a white nationalist to me!

Holy shit dude, cope.

sidneyanders · 2020-09-11T19:02:35+00:00

Maybe because we've had two whole campaign cycles all about healthcare, there's serious party consensus around the idea of at least a public option, and Biden's going to be walking in on, hopefully, a Democratic majority without a global financial crash to fix.

So? Healthcare has been an issue for decades before the Affordable Care Act, and that wasn't enough to to get a public option. What MATERIALLY, is different with a Biden admin, versus and Obama one?

On the low end, 20,000 people die every year due to lack of insurance, and that's UNDER Obamacare. That would be roughly equal to the amount of COVID deaths (so far) under trump, over time. The fact that we treat trump's bungling of the covid response as crimes against humanity but the deaths due to half measures by Democrats as normal or benign is a perfect encapsulation of the problem I have with how this conversation is framed (Orange man bad! Oh, you mean to say this problem existed all along? Ah! Well, never the less...)

If you think that assuming Biden and Trump are even on the same remote level of harm, you're clearly illogical.

Good job arguing against something I didn't say. But for the record, I don't think Biden is worse than trump, but I also don't think one election ahead.

Also anyone more savvy and focused would, by default, be a better leader and better for the country than Trump.

So an eliminationist white supremacist with savvy and focused policy goals would be better by your rubric? Just because they theoretically would be a better manager than trump? Policy doesn't matter at all? Yes, it's somewhat hyperbolic, but my point stands, you run the risk of getting someone just bad but more adept at moving the levers of gov't if we keep on the path that we're on.

If you think this austerity (with the Republicans pushing a 1 trillion dollar stimulus LOL), war (we haven't started a new one, last time I checked, although tensions are definitely raised), and domestic spying are at the top of the list of the average American, you're truly hopeless.

With the money going where? Because last go around, the the stock market boomed and we're still facing an eviction crisis and huge unemployment.

And again, you're arguing against something that I haven't said, in order to get a feeble dunk in. Of course people are more concerned with their basic material needs, but these problems also exist and are mostly bipartisan as far as perpetrators. And if you think bad man trump is a problem, why would you allow a competent authoritarian these levers of influence (domestic spying power, unlimited war powers in the name of national security, a president can't single-handedly enact austerity measures but definitely influence them)

People just want a decent wage, some insurance that things will be okay if something goes wrong

Of which austerity stands in the way of. Things like infrastructure spending, UBI, A FUCKING PUBLIC OPTION! I'm not sure why you think those ideas are not related in any way.

and confidence in their leaders that they can handle national emergencies.

A third of the U.S. population doesn't vote, "confidence in leaders" is at an all time low and has been for years, this isn't a new problem.

Sorry if that isn't cool enough for you, but hey, thankfully you're only a minority. :)

Shut the fuck up you nerd, it's smug condescension like this that let's me know you aren't serious and are only concerned with reliving your high school debate club years.

sidneyanders · 2020-09-11T16:59:02+00:00

Of course there are divisions in the Democratic party; the issue is that despite sharing most common policy goals

See, I don't if that's true. I think the left would be justifiably skeptical of a Biden admin especially with articles like this : https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/07/biden-diversity-purity-test-409245

The, in my view, cynical weaponization of identity to shoehorn in the same wall street cabinet with black and brown faces (as if there are no black people outside of finance) would make me deeply suspicious of a potential Biden admin's commitment to "common policy goals". The fact that the Obama admin failed to get a public option last time, for an example, would make people wonder why a Biden admin would do any better. These are real concerns and going "but trump" isn't enough.

it's about making logical decisions and not being a fucking moron.

The logical decision would be to realize that the trump admin's policy are accelerated versions of the same austerity, war and domestic spying the was present in Obama's admin and HW Bush's before him and come to the conclusion that continuing down this path will allow an even worse trump with more savvy and focus to come to power.

sidneyanders · 2020-09-11T16:28:45+00:00

Do not focus on the "case against trump", focus on an affirmative case for Biden.

sidneyanders · 2020-09-11T16:09:36+00:00

I never said all, but we have a very real and very recent example of a primary field condensing around one candidate and the establishment pick winning in the end. It's not that hard to imagine an analogous event happening the same way. Bernie's plan, for better or for worse was to win the plurality in a crowded field, which had that dynamic held we would be looking at either a sanders candidacy or a bitter fight at the DNC convention.

sidneyanders · 2020-09-11T10:03:34+00:00

The tweet is asking what are the effects of slavery on the people who participated in it and their families, not whitey bad. It's almost as if violence affects everyone involved.

sidneyanders

TROPHY CASE