United States Politics Thread 46

[Travis B.]

You do realize how much you echo rightist talking points, right?

[xxx]

you think he should say the opposite of his left-wing views...
___________________________________________________
i¼­Sj¼h­°Tj¯²j¯­j¼

[Travis B.]

you think he should say the opposite of his left-wing views...

I am a leftist, yet I don't repeat talking points from right-wing populists because I know that, for all their faults, liberals are better than the alternative, and repeating those talking points will only hurt them and help the right.

[Torco]

my only comment on the post-biden-stepdown situation is: see? they *can* go more prog if their electorate isn't fully unconditional. the democracy's flawed enough, no need to make it even flaweder.

and yeah unis are the subject of sooo much bloat it's hard to believe it! i remember the first few years of uni where social sciences was almost its own little fiefdom: we had maybe 30 teachs and as many non-teaching guys: you know, secretaries, the library lady, janitorial, gardening, the works. then we moved to the main uni and I noticed that most staff i came across were not, in fact, teachs: upon researching, there was a looot more non-teachs than teachs, and I understand this tendency to the growth of admin people has been huge, especially since increasingly teachers don't even work there anymore. plus, I did some work inside: everything was about reading the evaluation rubric for this or that fund and making sure other papers said what those papers wanted it to say, it was kafkian! I hear in the us they make most of their money off armoured rugby or something? yeah i do think unis are decaying in a functional sense.

You do realize how much you echo rightist talking points, right?

man, this is kind of terrifying. I've seen it many times in this thread too, "that's a right wing talking point", as if that was an argument for anything. what if the rightists are right, sometimes, huh? they're fascists, they're not delusional... not totally, at least. they have so many talking points anyway, some of 'em are bound to be right, even if by accident. do we cede more and more of the discourse to them, more and more of the lexicon, until all we're allowed to talk about is gay marriage and abortion? wait, that's kind of already happening

but seriously, if the fash say that inflation is a bitch and also mostly the result of unscrupulous businessmen, are we not allowed to point out that yes, actually, it is? i've been chided for saying "casta", meaning the rich and powerful, by leftprogs irl because milei uses the term, even though it was spain's progressive pablo iglesias that came out. the fash are idiotic and factually wrong about most things, but the sort of purity-seeking impulse they diagnose us with is indeed a flaw. if the fash say the democrats have abandoned the unions, and merely use them on campaign only to, upon being elected, collaborate in the erosion of the few labor rights yankees have... well, I don't generally see them saying that, but if they do, then they're correct. yes, even if it's ugly to say so. of course, they're wrong about most everything they say, but that doesn't justify argumentum ad fashsaysorum.

[zompist]

You do realize how much you echo rightist talking points, right?

man, this is kind of terrifying. I've seen it many times in this thread too, "that's a right wing talking point", as if that was an argument for anything. what if the rightists are right, sometimes, huh?

Abstractly, yes, the right can say things that happen to be true. In practice there's a dance of (usually) right and center that works like this:

1. GOP criticizes a Dem for something that in an ideal world would maybe be bad, but is trivial or at best misleading.
2. New York Times and other centrists write at least a story a day reinforcing this talking point.
3. Meanwhile the GOP says or does all sorts of crazy stuff that the NYT and centrists ignore.
4. Very serious people weigh in just before the election criticizing only the Dem and only for the trivial point.
5. Dems lose.
6. NYT, centrists, very serious people, and GOP all completely forget that criticism, and often do that thing themselves.

It's so common that it's completely predictable and tedious. The deficit is the perennial one, and "the Dems are elitists" is another. Hillary's e-mails was the topic in 2016. This year it was Biden's age, which was omigod two entire actual years older than Trump's. Admittedly actually swapping candidates worked out well, but that's a pretty rare case where the tactic backfired.

Talking points are attack vectors, workshopped codewords designed to pry centrists off the Dem coalition. It is not a "terrifying" thing for Dems to resist propaganda.

[xxx]

If everyone speaks in their own words,
without ever listening to those of others,
something is rotten in the state of Denmark...
__________________________________________
‫±l³jÀbQl³¾QQk¯jÀl³¾Ã‫±¿5±À‫±ä±¯Ql³d¸S¯VUl¾

[MacAnDàil]

Another thought: Many of the classes that are required for a major are unnecessary. For example, I was required to take a class about classical music, even though my major was in STEM. I understand why the music professor thinks it's important that everybody take their class about classical music (because (1) they themselves like and care about classical music, and (2) it keeps them employed), but to the majority of students, it's useless, but they're forced to take it. IMO, general education things like this should be finished in high school. However, the university will never push for that, regardless of whether it's the right thing to do, because it benefits them to force students to take more classes.

I'm not sure how the requirements have evolved over time, but it seems like the kind of thing where requirements could have kept slowly accreting (like feature creep), until students have to devote two whole years just doing general education requirements that are irrelevant to their major.

That's surprising. Classes are excellent but it does seem inappropriate to make totally unrelated subjects mandatory.

my only comment on the post-biden-stepdown situation is: see? they *can* go more prog if their electorate isn't fully unconditional. the democracy's flawed enough, no need to make it even flaweder.

and yeah unis are the subject of sooo much bloat it's hard to believe it! i remember the first few years of uni where social sciences was almost its own little fiefdom: we had maybe 30 teachs and as many non-teaching guys: you know, secretaries, the library lady, janitorial, gardening, the works. then we moved to the main uni and I noticed that most staff i came across were not, in fact, teachs: upon researching, there was a looot more non-teachs than teachs, and I understand this tendency to the growth of admin people has been huge, especially since increasingly teachers don't even work there anymore. plus, I did some work inside: everything was about reading the evaluation rubric for this or that fund and making sure other papers said what those papers wanted it to say, it was kafkian! I hear in the us they make most of their money off armoured rugby or something? yeah i do think unis are decaying in a functional sense.

To the extent that I recognise this (not much), it's more a symptom of over-adminstratisation than a problem specific to uni.

[Travis B.]

Just because something is technically-speaking "correct" when taken from a certain angle does not mean it should be said or, for that matter, be repeated. What matters more than "correctness" is propaganda value, frankly. Ragging on about how Democrat politicians are largely wealthy, well-educated "elites" is one of these things. Yes, they may be wealthy and well-educated in many cases, but emphasizing this as a negative thing is right-wing propaganda, because the right has spent a lot of time selling their own politician as not being that, even when it is completely untrue (read: J. D. Vance), and of course simply engaging in tu quoque won't work because the Republican base won't listen to what people left-of-center say anyways. Hence, people who talk about how the Democrat politicians are "elites" should be made to shut up, because it serves no good and legitimate political purpose, and that political purpose is more important than whether they are "elites" or not. And yes, propaganda is more important than truth here, because getting the right people elected and keeping the wrong people from getting elected is the most important thing here, and if "truth" would result in the wrong people getting elected, it can go to hell.

[Linguoboy]

It's so common that it's completely predictable and tedious. The deficit is the perennial one, and "the Dems are elitists" is another. Hillary's e-mails was the topic in 2016. This year it was Biden's age, which was omigod two entire actual years older than Trump's. Admittedly actually swapping candidates worked out well, but that's a pretty rare case where the tactic backfired.

Speaking of e-mails, the difference in the media's reaction to the leak of Clinton's emails in 2016 and the leak of emails and other documents from the Trump campaign in 2024 is...something. Like I guess it's good that they're not taking the bait from bad actors trying to influence the election this time around, but it sure is interesting that they only find their ethics when it would otherwise harm the GOP candidate.

[Linguoboy]

Another thought: Many of the classes that are required for a major are unnecessary. For example, I was required to take a class about classical music, even though my major was in STEM. I understand why the music professor thinks it's important that everybody take their class about classical music (because (1) they themselves like and care about classical music, and (2) it keeps them employed), but to the majority of students, it's useless, but they're forced to take it. IMO, general education things like this should be finished in high school.

should be ≠ are

One of the consequences of succeeding in getting more people to attend college is that the assumptions you can make about what the typical student has been exposed to previously in their academic career have changed--a lot. I went to a traditional college preparatory school; by the time I arrived at college, I'd written dozens of expository essays. My classmate who attended public school in Hawai'i hadn't even written one. I had to take two years of a foreign language; most high schools no longer have a foreign language requirement at all.

So, yeah, ideally college entrants would have already had classes on Classical music. But conservative austerity and GOP hostility to education means that arts education has been gutted in most public school systems. That required music class for STEM majors may well have been the only one that some of your fellow students have ever had the benefit of. If that kind of well-rounded education doesn't matter to you, then fine, there are plenty of alternatives to a four-year liberals degree. But I've also seen the results of, say, not requiring STEM majors to take classes in the arts and humanities and they are not pretty. (Stable Diffusion and ChatGPT, anyone?)

[Travis B.]

Another thought: Many of the classes that are required for a major are unnecessary. For example, I was required to take a class about classical music, even though my major was in STEM. I understand why the music professor thinks it's important that everybody take their class about classical music (because (1) they themselves like and care about classical music, and (2) it keeps them employed), but to the majority of students, it's useless, but they're forced to take it. IMO, general education things like this should be finished in high school.

should be ≠ are

One of the consequences of succeeding in getting more people to attend college is that the assumptions you can make about what the typical student has been exposed to previously in their academic career have changed--a lot. I went to a traditional college preparatory school; by the time I arrived at college, I'd written dozens of expository essays. My classmate who attended public school in Hawai'i hadn't even written one. I had to take two years of a foreign language; most high schools no longer have a foreign language requirement at all.

So, yeah, ideally college entrants would have already had classes on Classical music. But conservative austerity and GOP hostility to education means that arts education has been gutted in most public school systems. That required music class for STEM majors may well have been the only one that some of your fellow students have ever had the benefit of. If that kind of well-rounded education doesn't matter to you, then fine, there are plenty of alternatives to a four-year liberals degree. But I've also seen the results of, say, not requiring STEM majors to take classes in the arts and humanities and they are not pretty. (Stable Diffusion and ChatGPT, anyone?)

Agreed. The people who want to reduce all education to "STEM" and nothing more, or who would prefer people not get educated at all in the first place, can go straight to hell in my book.

[Raphael]

But I've also seen the results of, say, not requiring STEM majors to take classes in the arts and humanities and they are not pretty. (Stable Diffusion and ChatGPT, anyone?)

Not sure if mandatory arts/humanities classes would have prevented that - remember the saying about horses and water.

It's possible that, in contexts where humanities people do things one way, and STEM people do things another way, that's because of the different educations they had. But it's also possible, and I think it might well be more likely, that people who go in for a humanities education tend to be one "psychological type" of person, and people who go in for a STEM education tend to be another "psychological type" of person, and that that's the main reason why they tend to do things differently in certain contexts. And if that should be the case, then making STEM people take humanities classes won't necessarily make them think or act more like humanities people.

Agreed. The people who want to reduce all education to "STEM" and nothing more, or who would prefer people not get educated at all in the first place, can go straight to hell in my book.

OK, I don't want to reduce all education to STEM and nothing more, and I certainly wouldn't prefer people not get educated at all in the first place. But I think that STEM professions, and law, and education itself, should be the only fields where academic degrees are required to get a job, or to have a career. All other fields, or at least all other civilian fields, should be open to people whose post-high-school education consisted of apprenticeships. Yes, including higher management and politics.

[Travis B.]

Agreed. The people who want to reduce all education to "STEM" and nothing more, or who would prefer people not get educated at all in the first place, can go straight to hell in my book.

OK, I don't want to reduce all education to STEM and nothing more, and I certainly wouldn't prefer people not get educated at all in the first place. But I think that STEM professions, and law, and education itself, should be the only fields where academic degrees are required to get a job, or to have a career. All other fields, or at least all other civilian fields, should be open to people whose post-high-school education consisted of apprenticeships. Yes, including higher management and politics.

I'm not sure if I agree, because computer programming is a STEM field, yet I am against the idea that you need to have a Computer Science degree to get a job in that field (even though a Computer Science degree is very helpful in understanding computing).

[Torco]

Talking points are attack vectors, workshopped codewords designed to pry centrists off the Dem coalition. It is not a "terrifying" thing for Dems to resist propaganda.

true and true, but I still think "that's a thing rightists say" is not like... an argument, you know? what's terrifying is the usage of this counter-tactic: like, "it's an election year, if you talk about that, then you're playing into their game". plot twist: "that" is warcrimes, collaboration in genocide, disappearing people or, you know, basically whatever. And like, all of the years are an election year, you know? I get the need for electoral-times strategy sometimes, pragmatism and all that, but when it's three years of campaign for a four year presidency, it kind of becomes just a perennial silencing tactic usable on anyone to the left of joe mansion, innit ?

Ragging on about how Democrat politicians are largely wealthy, well-educated "elites" is one of these things.

so like... we're not supposed to talk about how we're ruled by wealthy people, and about how both the fash and the "center-left" are ultiamtely subservient to the interest of the wealthy... cause that'll help the right? i don't know if this is the correct word but it feels... campist.

To the extent that I recognise this (not much), it's more a symptom of over-adminstratisation than a problem specific to uni.

put that way, I guess what i'm saying is theres just soo much overadministration in unis i know, at least... as wikipedia puts it, "The generally increasing share of administrative staff and reduced share of teaching and research staff has been criticized".

[zompist]

so like... we're not supposed to talk about how we're ruled by wealthy people,

Oh jesus. No one is silencing you. At least not till your fash friends win all over; then you'll see some silencing.

Meanwhile, the actual GOP VP candidate wrote a forward for a book declaring liberals "unhumans" and has proposed stopping federal aid for colleges that allow pro-Palestinian protests; and the actual GOP presidential candidate is declaring that when workers strike they should all be fired, and also proposing to go to war with Mexico. But sure, the real problem is that you can't agree loudly with right-wingers.

[Travis B.]

Torco, you obviously don't understand how propaganda works.

[Raphael]

I'm not sure if I agree, because computer programming is a STEM field, yet I am against the idea that you need to have a Computer Science degree to get a job in that field (even though a Computer Science degree is very helpful in understanding computing).

I should have phrased that differently. My point is not that degrees should be necessary in all STEM fields, but that they shouldn't be necessary in most other fields.

[xxx]

Torco, you obviously don't understand how propaganda works.

must we fight propaganda
with propaganda...
____________________________________________________________
k°ê°‚ÁRRz°³]WÃkÁÀ]갂

[keenir]

Torco, you obviously don't understand how propaganda works.

must we fight propaganda
with propaganda...

that usually happens voluntarily

[keenir]

and also proposing to go to war with Mexico.

is he still upset that Mexico refused to pay for his wall? one would think that with everything else piling up, thats one thing he'd be willing to let drop. yeah, my bad there.