5318008
@5318008@lemmy.ml
- Comment on is there a name for when you stop preventing a problem thinking it's solved and it comes back? 3 days ago:
The best existing phrase I have is, “Dropping your guard.”
It doesn’t necessarily imply anything about why you dropped your guard, and only slightly implies that the bad thing happened while your guard was down.
We could coin a new phrase here by brainstorming. I’ll start:
Fumbled the shield
- Comment on A reminder 4 days ago:
So shifting the discussion towards that rigid quantitative numbers is shifting away from where the conversation should be. That’s been my point this whole thread.
You’re implicitly assuming that there’s one place that this conversation should be. MY point this whole thread has been that “where the conversation should be” depends on your audience. To repeat myself, “if your target audience consists of people who already agree with the basic economic principle, then by all means, add as much nuance as you like.”
If your goal is to be persuasive, you need more than just being right. OP is not about the pure distillation of facts. OP is about how to be persuasive. And he’s right. That IS something that can be persuasive.
- Comment on A reminder 4 days ago:
No, I’m not making an emotional argument.
Perhaps not, but you indicated that the “emotionless language of finance and economics” constitues “conceding ground”.
If you’re not making an emotional argument, then why would emotionless language be a problem? If we have no intention of making emotional arguments, why would we be conceding ground by focusing on “emotionless” disciplines?
And then we’re talking about “winning” an argument that no longer cleanly maps onto what actually matters.
I entered this conversation by specifying a target audience. In the same capacity, “winning” depends on who you’re talking to, as does the mappability of the argument onto real life.
If someone already agrees with the same basic principles you do, you can just talk, and they’ll believe you, because people aren’t skeptical of people they agree with.
But I’m not always having a discussion with someone who shares most of my fundamental beliefs. That’s simply not a situation where nuance matters. Just getting them to understand a single basic principle that they disagree with is already hard enough.
- Comment on A reminder 4 days ago:
implicitly conceding ground by framing things in the language of emotionless finance and economics
Your mileage may vary, but I do not consider this a concession. Anyone can make an emotional argument. You usually need to actually be right in order to make an emotionless academic argument.
may actually be fighting things on less friendly territory to begin with.
When it comes to arguing for the claim being discussed… whether you’re closer to homelessness or being a millionaire (the three month thing is incidental to the main point)… then whether these disciplines are friendly territory pretty much boils down to whether you can explain it or not.
- Comment on A reminder 4 days ago:
If your target audience consists of people who already agree with the basic economic principle, then by all means, add as much nuance as you like.
If your target audience is a single, white, cis male, 55k per year salary-making, apartment-renting, roommate-having, college dropout normie, then maybe a simpler distinction will be more effective?
- Comment on It's never been about helping people 5 days ago:
What is the y-axis of that graph?
- Comment on It's never been about helping people 6 days ago:
In California, the 2026 budget for homelessness prorgams is $1.7 billion. The homeless population is 181,000. This is an average of $9400 per person per year.
- Comment on This isn't fair 1 week ago:
There’s nothing that you can explain with that fact. Inflation is a measure of dollar value in relation to goods… including goods that you don’t actually need. Simply knowing that wages outpaced inflation tells you nothing about the economic conditions of individual people.
Here’s a more detailed breakdown, which DOES emphasize the things that everyone needs:
- Comment on Well if that isn't just about the most evil thing you could openly admit to doing. 1 week ago:
“Why techer onion are bad”
- Comment on "No precedent in American history!" NYT would have defended child labor. 1 week ago:
It makes her response idiotic because it has nothing to do with the article
It’s not a rebuttal of the article, no… but it IS definitely in the same topic as the article.
Twitter is a microblogging platform… not a debate platform. If you assume that she is trying to provide a counterargument in 140 characters or less, then yes, it would seem idiotic.
Are we making that assumption?
- Comment on "No precedent in American history!" NYT would have defended child labor. 1 week ago:
The person who commented is a fucking idiot who clearly didn’t read the article
Let’s assume that everything you just said about the article is true, without any flaws. Why would that make her response idiotic?
If we mentioned the impact that cutting defense spending would have on Raytheon, Lockheed, and Boeing… “Oh no, not my military industrial complex…”
If we mentioned the impact that a new public housing program would have on the housing market… “Oh no, not the sector of the financial market profiting from the endlessly increasing price of a basic human need…”
I understand that these things would have makor financial impacts. I also understand the value of NYT writing an article about the nuances of where it would have upsides and downsides. But also, the original commenter isn’t criticizing that. She’s criticizing the business model of private insurance. Your response just leads me to ask,
Wtf is wrong with you guys where you just assume every statement is some kind of personal dig?
- Comment on My hands are filthy, burned and calloused so hers can be filled with chicken nuggets. 2 weeks ago:
People, generally, are paranoid morons. Calmly processing the facts and assessing risk are the rare exception. Even people who are good at that kind of thing are just justifying their irrational decisions after the fact.
The solution isn’t to fact-check them about Flock having no inpact on their safety. The solution is to fear-monger even harder about cameras seeing into their houses, and a private company selling their data to telemarketers.
- Comment on Can't believe its been 2 weeks 2 weeks ago:
Show me the counterfactual proving those people would have survived under a non-capitalist system.
Are you going to apply the same standard to your original claim? How many of the alleged million would have survived under a non-communist system?
- Comment on Anon doesn't have a plan 2 weeks ago:
The tax revenue per capita in Massachusetts is about $9000. (source)
We should happily pay $9000 per year to not live in Oklahoma.
- Comment on Billionaires hate democracy 2 weeks ago:
A progressive wealth tax has benefits as well. I just think there’s value in pointing out the impact that such a small percentage has. Implementing even a fraction of a percentage would make a serious impact; we don’t need to go whole hog right here, right now.
My ideal starting point for a progressive wealth tax would max out at 2%, because that’s within a standard deviation of annual S&P growth.
I understand the perspective that the extreme wealth taxes wouldn’t change the quality of life of the ultra-rich… but do you know what the long term impact on the economy would be?
I don’t. And I study this kind of thing. This is not the kind of system that responds well to massive, overnight changes. Most Americans get their food by buying it… of we fuck up, and the economy irretrievably crumbles without a backup, people will starve
As desperate as people may be for radical change, it is worth it to make these proposals in a responsible way, and ensure that we’re not doing more harm than good.
- Comment on Maybe it's time for Penguin 2 weeks ago:
I third Linux mint.
- Comment on onions 3 weeks ago:
For jalapeños and other peppers, the pith is where most of the pungency comes from. It’s also more bitter than the rear of the pepper. If you chop into quarters lengthwise, it’s easy to cut the seeds and pith away from the flesh. You’re the left with a milder, sweeter result.
… in case you’re in an experimental mood.
- Comment on onions 3 weeks ago:
shit like onions and actually use some real fucking spices from India and Mexico
… but… India eats a lot of onions… because as great as the spices are, onions are also great. You can have both. You should have both.
- Comment on Billionaires hate democracy 3 weeks ago:
I don’t want a one-time, 5% wealth tax. I want a recurring wealth tax. At 0.5%, such a tax outpaces the one time 5% in ten years.
I would settle for one time 5%… but it’s just so short-sighted. 5% in one sudden movement is actually a big ask… and are we actually going to be able to pull that off more than once?
A recurring wealth tax 1) is better in the long-term, 2) is less disruptive to the stock market (which we should care about, as long as this is the sustem we have) 3) makes for a more predictable economic environment, so people with money might actually still want to live in CA.
- Comment on The woke liberals are making our wars gay 3 weeks ago:
They included the Spotify logo. It’s just <insert song here> rather than labelling the picture as “Fortunate Sons”.