[Discussion] Election 2020

Seems like the board is set. Let’s see how this goes.

Jonman wrote:

More to the point, what is giving up on the bus and calling an Uber in this analogy?

Not the reality of the analogy nor the reality of our political system.

Amoebic wrote:
thrawn82 wrote:
trichy wrote:
Amoebic wrote:
Mixolyde wrote:

Anyone think Harris can or should try to go with "Yes, I am a cop, but as a black, Asian woman cop I know what is wrong with the legal system and here is my plan to fix it..."
Could that work?

With her carceral record being especially harsh on POC, that may not go over as well as one would hope.

Out of curiosity, is there a state for the last century that hasn't had an incarceration record which was especially harsh on POCs? To phrase another way, is there evidence that Harris specifically pursued actions with the knowledge that they would disproportionately impact POCs? I'm not trying to be clever or snide, I genuinely don't know.

Considering that the design purpose of the incarceration system itself in America was and is to stomp down on POC... I think it's safe to say no there isn't.

uh okay yes, so we've established you can't be a prosecutor without breaking a few eggs and having blood on your hands?

Kind of forest for the trees here, folks. It would be pretty gross for her to state her race as an avenue of systemic repair when she's had, as a female prosecutor of color, cop harder and firmer in order to be taken seriously within the system that makes her different, which has had her hailed as a race traitor and worse. Also like, a cop's cop. that's discomforting and not reassuring for those of us interested in abolishing the police.

However, no one would be surprised if she tried. This is politics, after all.

i should have been more clear. I meant no there isn't a state that doesn't disproportionately effect POC with it's LEO system because that problem is a feature of the system. i wasn;t trying to lay blame for that on Harris specifically, or even comment on her ability to move within that system

Jonman wrote:

More to the point, what is giving up on the bus and calling an Uber in this analogy?

Voting 3rd party.

You feel better because you didn't have to walk, but because you didn't use the bus, they shut down a bunch of routes with 4 more years of Trump.

Also busses become white only again. And privatized.

So on and so on.

Stele wrote:
Jonman wrote:

More to the point, what is giving up on the bus and calling an Uber in this analogy?

Voting 3rd party.

You feel better because you didn't have to walk, but because you didn't use the bus, they shut down a bunch of routes with 4 more years of Trump.

Also busses become white only again. And privatized.

So on and so on.

With a little more thought, I think Uber is the either the libertarian or sovereign citizen approach to catching the bus.

The thread derail via allegorical public transit is delightfully meta.

Spoiler:

Next stop: while you're ahead.

Jonman wrote:
Stele wrote:
Jonman wrote:

More to the point, what is giving up on the bus and calling an Uber in this analogy?

Voting 3rd party.

You feel better because you didn't have to walk, but because you didn't use the bus, they shut down a bunch of routes with 4 more years of Trump.

Also busses become white only again. And privatized.

So on and so on.

With a little more thought, I think Uber is the either the libertarian or sovereign citizen approach to catching the bus.

Does the UBER have gold fringe?

Amoebic wrote:

The vileness of the person doesn't negate one's ability to access them as a resourceful tool of democracy when necessary.

The exact argument of many a Trump supporter, among them many conservative Christians in my own family.

The difference is that few progressives virtue-signal their values while voting for someone whose entire life is a mockery of those same values.

Uber is for Americans who think taxi cab drivers were just making too much money. But its cool, because humans are only a stopgap measure. The industry is just prepping for self-driving cars, which is when revenue generation will explode (at least they hope).

It's just another slick way to route more money into fewer pockets, creating a still larger underclass with fewer methods of making money still. It's why UBI will probably become the topic over the next four years when the pandemic finally cedes its hold on us here.

AI should require the need to be paid for the learning they are stealing from us when we use their digital devices. We can debate all the crap that was "agreed to" but, in the end, AI continues, seemingly exponentially, to wipe out entire job markets. That either changes drastically, or we become a digitally feudal society.

And there are a ton of people that think they are on one side of the the divide, when they are not even close to being safe. To me, that has to be the discussion for how we recover from the pandemic. That's what Biden and Harris need to lay out. We've watched an insane amount of wealth transferred into tech empires. Whether they like it or not, that wealth is what will unbury us, one way or another.

JLS wrote:
Amoebic wrote:

The vileness of the person doesn't negate one's ability to access them as a resourceful tool of democracy when necessary.

The exact argument of many a Trump supporter, among them many conservative Christians in my own family.

The difference is that few progressives virtue-signal their values while voting for someone whose entire life is a mockery of those same values.

That's kind of how the whole system is wired. It's not a slippery slope just because trumpers also do it, too.

Jayhawker wrote:

Uber is for Americans who think taxi cab drivers were just making too much money. But its cool, because humans are only a stopgap measure. The industry is just prepping for self-driving cars, which is when revenue generation will explode (at least they hope).

It's just another slick way to route more money into fewer pockets, creating a still larger underclass with fewer methods of making money still. It's why UBI will probably become the topic over the next four years when the pandemic finally cedes its hold on us here.

AI should require the need to be paid for the learning they are stealing from us when we use their digital devices. We can debate all the crap that was "agreed to" but, in the end, AI continues, seemingly exponentially, to wipe out entire job markets. That either changes drastically, or we become a digitally feudal society.

And there are a ton of people that think they are on one side of the the divide, when they are not even close to being safe. To me, that has to be the discussion for how we recover from the pandemic. That's what Biden and Harris need to lay out. We've watched an insane amount of wealth transferred into tech empires. Whether they like it or not, that wealth is what will unbury us, one way or another.

Income tax on robots that replace workers paid by the corps that own them, whether it's self driving taxis or assembly line robots or whatever, should definitely be a platform for somebody. Hopefully whoever comes after Biden.

thrawn82 wrote:

Income tax on robots ...

Man, you will be first against the wall when the Robot Revolution comes!

mwdowns wrote:
thrawn82 wrote:

Income tax on robots ...

Man, you will be first against the wall when the Robot Revolution comes! :D

I fully support robots owning their own property and paying thier own income tax should they be capable of self actualization. Star Wars style robot slavery is not cool.

Republicans are now obsessed over whether or not Kamala Harris is black enough or if she can really be black if she's descended from slave owners or whether or not she's really Indian or if she can be African-American and Indian-American at the same time.

Guys, this country is f*cking bonkers.

Although I have only been listening with half an ear, Biden seems to be doing fine so far in his speech. Haven't called his VP Rice or Obama yet.

American politics feels so foreign with the extreme focus on candidates families.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

Republicans are now obsessed over whether or not Kamala Harris is black enough or if she can really be black if she's descended from slave owners or whether or not she's really Indian or if she can be African-American and Indian-American at the same time.

The worst take I've seen are Republicans who are positioning the fact she's descended from slave owners as being an example of Democratic political hypocrisy--as in "how dare Democrats support a candidate whose family included slave owners"--rather than acknowledging the reality which is her being descended from slave owners means one of Harris's ancestors was owned by a white man who repeatedly raped her.

Why is Trump on TV? He's bragging about the stock market, the judges that (#MoscowMitch) appointed during his term, GDP, and housing.

Looks like a campaign event, not a coronavirus briefing. Waiting for the networks to cut away...

So basically the same as all his other coronavirus "briefings".

The Biden/Harris speech was really good.

Made me feel legit hopeful for the first time in years.

What a strange feeling.

Aaron D. wrote:

The Biden/Harris speech was really good.

Made me feel legit hopeful for the first time in years.

What a strange feeling.

Agreed
It was really nice to hear complete sentences! (Low bar I know).

Quintin_Stone wrote:

Republicans are now obsessed over whether or not Kamala Harris is black enough or if she can really be black if she's descended from slave owners or whether or not she's really Indian or if she can be African-American and Indian-American at the same time.

Guys, this country is f*cking bonkers.

That's the great thing about Republican debates. Both sides are wrong.

India is in South Asia.

That was my point. Why aren't they just saying that she is half Indian?
Do they really think that people will confuse that with Native Americans? Does making the distinction really make it better?

Because China is in Asia and China is our enemy or some sh*t like that.

fangblackbone wrote:
India is in South Asia.

That was my point. Why aren't they just saying that she is half Indian?
Do they really think that people will confuse that with Native Americans? Does making the distinction really make it better?

As soon as you recognize that the Republican Party is the party of grievances. It will all make more sense.

Past grievances aside from Russia you mean...

fangblackbone wrote:

Do they really think that people will confuse that with Native Americans?

Yes. In droves.

fangblackbone wrote:

Do they really think that people will confuse that with Native Americans?

I mean, that number definitely isn't zero.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

Republicans are now obsessed over whether or not Kamala Harris is black enough or if she can really be black if she's descended from slave owners or whether or not she's really Indian or if she can be African-American and Indian-American at the same time.

Guys, this country is f*cking bonkers.

It's important to get your sneers exactly correct, you see.

And yes, if you said she was half Indian, a huge fraction of the electorate would be confused. I'm not sure there would even be a particularly partisan divide... it would probably split more on age, with the 50+ crowd particularly likely to get it wrong.

When I was a kid, Indian meant Native American, not Asian, and if I'm on autopilot and not really thinking, I can still hear it that way.

Malor wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

Republicans are now obsessed over whether or not Kamala Harris is black enough or if she can really be black if she's descended from slave owners or whether or not she's really Indian or if she can be African-American and Indian-American at the same time.

Guys, this country is f*cking bonkers.

It's important to get your sneers exactly correct, you see.

And yes, if you said she was half Indian, a huge fraction of the electorate would be confused. I'm not sure there would even be a particularly partisan divide... it would probably split more on age, with the 50+ crowd particularly likely to get it wrong.

When I was a kid, Indian meant Native American, not Asian, and if I'm on autopilot and not really thinking, I can still hear it that way.

My dad, South Asian Indian, grew up learning English that called native Americans red Indians. That's one way to differentiate, I guess.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

Republicans are now obsessed over whether or not Kamala Harris is black enough or if she can really be black if she's descended from slave owners or whether or not she's really Indian or if she can be African-American and Indian-American at the same time.

Guys, this country is f*cking bonkers.

After the last 4 years, especially the last 6 months, this is the largest understatement.

Delbin shared this in the discord, and I'm very much in agreement with everything stated here.

tl:dr get trump out above all else, good explainer on leftist vs liberal in this political climate.