Nope. Again you missed the point.
Presidential predictions for 2024?
- Thread starter Seattle
- Start date
- Status
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
Yep. I guess so.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
It can pay to be aware of religious niceties. I have new neighbours, an Indian family, whom I have invited to a party next month. But if I did not know whether they were from India or from Pakistan (from their appearance and accents it had to be one of the two), and hence whether they are likely to come from a Hindu or a Muslim background, I might offer them food they cannot eat or something inappropriate to drink. (Or I might make some remark about geopolitics which would go down the wrong way.) There is also an Irish/Ukrainian family coming and another Irish couple from N Ireland. I happen to know the Irish/Ukrainian family are Catholic, from where their girls go to school. The N Irishman I suspect, from his Scottish-sounding name, will be Protestant. So there may be a few issues to tiptoe around there. No Jews coming, but then I live in S London rather than N.
Oh, and when I lived in Dubai there were many Indians in the office, but one of them was not Hindu but Zoroastrian - a Parsee. That was really interesting. We used to talk about these things, as we were all from different backgrounds and it was a way to break down barriers. But that was life in a multinational company, I guess.
Last edited:
yes. So, when it comes to closer connections, such as inviting one another to dinner, you ask. Do you have dietary restrictions?" "are there subjects we need to avoid?" "Is there anything I should be aware of?" like that. You don't start ferreting for clues on first meeting; that's just intrusive.
TheVat
Registered Senior Member
I have actually made that argument, at another forum. I was more pushing back on the idea that calling people on racism is a "lecture." I agree that people can shrug off well-meaning questions. In the US, unfortunately, where are you really from morphed into something less friendly than what you describe in UK. No one asks pale me where I'm really from ( Ireland, Sweden, Ukraine, Yorkshire). Not that I care for the term micro aggression - again it is the way that a useful observation on how people experience certain words becomes framed as a lecture/liberal kneejerk. Or advocating a fair taxation is framed as some mindless "eat the rich" scapegoating.
TheVat
Registered Senior Member
Only its epistemological weaknesses.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
We’re probably on the same page. I just think some tolerance and understanding should be extended to people who are not quite up to speed with where the big cities are, culturally. And some of US academia seems to be quite mad, when it comes to social issues. Identity politics is a terrible curse.
On the subject of "micro-aggression", I think is a useful term/concept when looking at psychology, or when looking into discrimination as a subject. One can observe how people commit micro-aggressions, intentionally or otherwise, and understanding where one commits them unintentionally can help improve the way one converses with others. But, at least in my experience, one needs to talk about them as a subject in their own right, not simply as a label for isolated examples.
Recently I had a conversation with someone about the BLM movement, and they trotted out the "well, all lives matter". They weren't being overtly racist - after all, it is a truth that all lives do matter. But it was an example of racial micro-aggression: to say something without understanding the purpose and context of what you're responding to, without understanding, and even unintentionally denying the experiences of others. Unintentional, sure, but when I explained what I thought they were doing it made them think. Simply identifying it and labelling it as a micro-aggression, as in "please don't be micro-aggressive", however, would not have been useful at all, unless trying to move the conversation onto the subject of micro-aggressions as a whole. They may not have even understood what was meant by the label, and even seen it as prejorative and itself aggressive, whereas explaining why they were being (unintentionally) thoughtless - i.e. addressing the substance of the instance itself - was far more conducive to discussion of the underlying matter.
Recently I had a conversation with someone about the BLM movement, and they trotted out the "well, all lives matter". They weren't being overtly racist - after all, it is a truth that all lives do matter. But it was an example of racial micro-aggression: to say something without understanding the purpose and context of what you're responding to, without understanding, and even unintentionally denying the experiences of others. Unintentional, sure, but when I explained what I thought they were doing it made them think. Simply identifying it and labelling it as a micro-aggression, as in "please don't be micro-aggressive", however, would not have been useful at all, unless trying to move the conversation onto the subject of micro-aggressions as a whole. They may not have even understood what was meant by the label, and even seen it as prejorative and itself aggressive, whereas explaining why they were being (unintentionally) thoughtless - i.e. addressing the substance of the instance itself - was far more conducive to discussion of the underlying matter.
I had a friend who has survived breast cancer twice. She's had a mastectomy by now. And when she hears people say "Save the boobies!" (a popular slogan as the result of a fundraiser here) she gets annoyed, because the goal should really be to "save the woman." Which I hadn't thought about it until she pointed it out.
I'm in neither camp. I'm a transplant from a cosmopolitan city to cattle country, so I've learned the cultural differences and try generally shrug off what I consider the intrusive, intolerant and sometimes downright rude discourse that prevail here. I've also learned which groups of people to stay away from and which are more likely to be pleasant company. But then, I'm the quintessential blender-in: nobody notices me, so I have little occasion to be offended.
Nevertheless, I have sympathy for - and perhaps am overprotective toward - people who get a lot of irritants.
Since you're constantly arguing pseudo, sometimes a citation helps clarify what you actually mean.
For instance, let's take a look at some of your arguments about inflation:
• "People like to complain about the minimum wage, for example, and they want it raised, this will also raise most other wages (why would someone do construction if they can make the same handing someone a cup of coffee?) and then they will turn around and complain about inflation.
"They are causing inflation." (#459↑)
• "Raising the prices/cost of anything without increasing productivity more than that contributes to inflation." (#462↑)
• "That's because the CEO has much more to do with the success of the corporation." (#481↑)
• "Inflation doesn't have much to do with CEO pay." (#483↑)
"They are causing inflation." (#459↑)
• "Raising the prices/cost of anything without increasing productivity more than that contributes to inflation." (#462↑)
• "That's because the CEO has much more to do with the success of the corporation." (#481↑)
• "Inflation doesn't have much to do with CEO pay." (#483↑)
All those points are fallacious, or depend on fallacy. #459, for instance, leans on presuppositions about "most other wages", worker motivation, and causes of inflation. #462, assessed in tandem with #459 further exposes the underlying fallacy: It's especially dubious coming from you, who lives in a region subject to repeated artificial inflation of housing costs inflicted not by hourly workers, but by landlords and real estate agents. The workers are not causing inflation (#459) by needing more money to pay for the increased rent (#462).
Which brings us around to CEOs. "Inflation doesn't have much to do with CEO pay" (#483), is a fallacious distraction. The more important point has to do with the CEO's relationship to the "success of the corporation" (#481). We encounter a familiar question↗ of what passes for success¹:
This part comes back to a basic question about how we define success in business. This, too, is part of "freedom". If you start a business, and it is successful, except there remains a question of what that means. Manipulating numbers to raise real estate values, increasing rent at extraordinary rates; hiring children to long hours and dangerous jobs; wage theft; overprescribing addictive drugs: Are these the behaviors of successful businesses?
For instance:
Expensive Big Mac meals and fears of surge pricing at grocery stores have put food chains and consumer product companies in politicians' crosshairs.
Walmart, McDonald's and Kroger are just a few of the companies that have found themselves in the debate over high inflation in the 2024 election.
On Monday, Sens. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Bob Casey, D-Pa., sent a letter to Kroger CEO Rodney McMullen that questioned the grocer's rollout of electronic shelf labels, arguing the technology could make it easier to increase the price of high-demand items. The letter also noted that the supermarket chain could become bigger, depending on whether it closes its pending $24.6 billion acquisition of rival Albertsons.
CNBC↱)
Walmart, McDonald's and Kroger are just a few of the companies that have found themselves in the debate over high inflation in the 2024 election.
On Monday, Sens. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Bob Casey, D-Pa., sent a letter to Kroger CEO Rodney McMullen that questioned the grocer's rollout of electronic shelf labels, arguing the technology could make it easier to increase the price of high-demand items. The letter also noted that the supermarket chain could become bigger, depending on whether it closes its pending $24.6 billion acquisition of rival Albertsons.
CNBC↱)
It's almost like part of managing inflation will require a president to have some direct influence over how private companies behave, which in turn would require transformative Congressional authorization and empowerment. You, yourself, have said↗, "Sometimes it's best to have a little less 'freedom' for the sake of society," and, yes, realtime price-gouging is probably one of those behaviors a successful business can survive without. Y'know, the sort of thing it's a CEO's job to decide, but also a "freedom" a CEO ought to be able to succeed without.
____________________
Notes:
Repko, Melissa and Amelia Lucas. "As inflation fury lingers, politicians join customers in pushing companies to cut prices". CNBC. 7 August 2024. CNBC.com. 9 August 2024. https://www.cnbc.com/2024/08/07/2024-election-inflation-grocery-prices-a-top-issue.html
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
There is nothing "pseudo" about my arguments. Rising wages, costs, rent is all inflationary. No citation needed for that. If you need one for that it's simply due to a knowledge gap on your part.
The question is as to matter of degree and as to matter of necessity due to market factors. Rents go up, wages go up because workers will leave for greener pastures. It all still contributes to inflation.
That's not a reason for not increasing wages when market forces require that. To do it when they don't is avoidable. It's easy to get an inflation spiral going. Costs go up, wages go up, then costs go up more and inflation goes up more.
The key is to try to control inflation. The government determining how much an employer will pay is not part of free market forces. The larger part of inflation these days is due to monetizing the debt. It reduces the purchasing power of the dollar and contributes to all of the above.
No, but you do need to provide citations if you are going to claim that increasing wages has a lasting and significant inflationary effect. Everything I've read suggests otherwise--there are citations within in this thread that show otherwise.
There are plenty of things which are "not part of free market forces". When the government intervenes and raises minimum wages, this is presumably to counter those non "free market forces" influences.
You claim that you are not opposed to regulation and governmental intervention, but you seem overly concerned about regulations which are intended to offset gross inequities and provide people with living wages.
Last edited:
They were just harmless tourists. Whenever I'm in tourist-mode I make certain to be heavily armed, carry a noose, and smear crap on the walls.
My town is really boring, no sights, no events, no attractions at all; completely unsuitable for tourism.
Didn't you know that smearing crap on the walls is the new initial carving? For some reason, people these days have gotten all uptight about people carving their initials into historic landmarks.
Afaic, you're welcome to the decoration of your choice on any statues of Winston Churchill and John. A. MacDonald.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
Start to really address spending and then get out of the way. Pass some laws to make it harder for the next Trump to succeed.
Not very specific, legislation-wise.
- Status