Bishop149 wrote: ↑Wed, 9. Jan 19, 20:42
As long as no one is affected by those views in anyway then yes, I'd agree.
I would suggest however this is little more than a thought exercise, it would be almost impossible to hold such views and have them not impact society.
Unless you went a lived in a cave.
"-almost impossible to hold such views and have them not impact society..." What, are their brains sending out dangerous society-radiation or something?
Morkonan wrote: ↑Wed, 9. Jan 19, 19:52
...Correct, all of these things could have been done at the discretion of the organisers, and such actions are not required by law.
The reality is that such sanctions are very rarely taken, and absolutely never against anyone with any degree of power or influence.
It is this latter point in particular that would require force of law to correct which I what I'd propose.
Although seeing as senior (male) academics frequently get away with things that actually ARE crimes (such as the sexual assault of their students) even this is a little optimistic TBH...
Make a complaint against those who held the convention for failure to maintain appropriate decorum.
...How about if I said I was going to do it in 12 years but after those 12 years I only made about a third of the required progress.
A waste of effort? Do you think I'd have galvanised enough support to achieve as much as I had if I'd initially said it was going to take 100 years?
As I said, I don't have a problem with this particular political trick. . . . . you might call it dishonest or disingenuous and I suppose it is, but hey if its the only way to get us to Mars!
This is partially a problem of short term governments being incompatible with long term goals, hence politicians over promise what they can deliver in the time frame they have.
So, intentionally submitting a false deadline that is terribly inadequate is appropriate because it would result in increased gains compared to the result if a later deadline was given?
There's this thing called "Basic Project Management." The idea being that you have one big Day 0 that is broken up by smaller, internal, deadlines for particular elements of the project. That way, when Day 0 finally comes, one can be sure that one has done their best to
manage the
project so that it meets the stated deadline.
On the first day of the project, a bunch of people are going to get together and say "This project can't be done in 12 years." Then, they're going to go to whoever gave them that deadline and prove to them why its unrealistic. That deadline would survive the amount of time it takes the people at that meeting to finish one cup of Executive Office Grade complimentary coffee... or cappuccino or whatever the director's office is serving up.
And, of course, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez gave the same reason that you did: "They'd make more progress, more quickly, if they had such a short deadline..." <paraphrased> Do you know what that means?
It means she has never had any experience dealing with long-term projects or managing long-term or large projects... It means, she pulled one of those "great ideas" she had out of her butt and thought it was so totally awesome that it was deserving of a major splash in an interview because she didn't have the experience, knowledge, or practical intelligence to understand it could never pass muster. Even if a bunch of practically brain-dead Congresspersons went along with it, the project Director would be standing before Congress the next day, explaining to those squabbling kindergartners that they won't be able to get want they want due to reality intruding.
Her idea that includes that ludicrous deadline of 12 years to convert the US out of fossil-fuel use is worthless. It has no worth because it would never even get started since smarter people would have to be hired to actually accomplish the project.. Then again, the only ones that would agree to work on such a project either intend to commit fraud or are idiots, so maybe it would live on the books for awhile.
Indeed, but I would propose that whilst we are both judging the merit of her ideas, you are also judging her ability to implement them.
At this stage I think the former is fine (although we clearly disagree) but the latter is unfair.
I know when someone makes a suggestion that indicates they don't know what they're talking about. And, if they don't know what they're talking about, they're going to have to learn on their feet if they try to implement it. So, I will say that the suggestions I have heard don't have any merit on their face, because the proposed mechanisms suggested to implement those suggestions are forbidden by natural law (or what passes for it). But, I will withhold judgement on what her performance may be in the future, since she's already elected. She could be a good "Poster Child" for the Democrats and they might try to build her up a bit. Congresspersons might add her name to Bills as a co-sponsor, giving her some airtime. She might get some internal support, getting fed some nice topics and headlines to help build her image, etc. She is, after all, still young and could be built into whatever they think they want. Of course, she could rebel. If that happened, she'd be "cast out." No funding, someone would run against her, a bunch of negative press, etc..
...What motivation does Candidate A have to cater to the Lemon people? Why should they give one single hoot about the Grapefruit people? (2%! Pah! Irrelevant!)
This is how FPTP works, winner takes all, everyone else gets nowt.
Well, for one, the candidate would probably not be re-elected with that sort of significant difference. They'd also be subject to a lot of bad press and constant picketing, complaining, endless motions, etc.. that would make their job very difficult, since other lawmakers would want to avoid the bad press.
But, we also have "Rights" that are to help prevent the Minority from being tyrannized by the Majority. There's a host of laws that could come into play to prevent people from having things forced upon them or being denied certain Rights. I'd imagine the Supreme Court would get involved.
But, the obvious fact is that they are elected as a Representative of ALL of their constituents, not just those who voted for them. If injustice occurs, that's not exactly something that's predictable. Most lawmakers hate making rules that their voters know will inconvenience them or make their lives harder... The keyword being "know." They're quite happy to make crappy legislation that is so complex that people don't realize they're getting screwed.
And, it's almost always in favor of a tiny number of influential people... So, maybe it's a conspiracy by the Grapefruit lovers who just happen to own all the orange groves?
Its not bad, it covers the concept at a very broad level.
To be more specific about my problem with it, its the idea of treating all viewpoints as if they have equal merit. The idea of eternal compromise.
Oh the idea all sounds well and good enough until it starts hitting the extremes, I will not compromise with a racist. I will not meet them in the middle by acknowledging that "Perhaps they have a point about immigration".
Or as I already touched on the idea that you can somehow debate away extremist views. . . . . you can't. This is not how you deal with them, in attempting it you only legitimises them.
The idea has similar issues (although not as stark) when operating outside the extremes as well, a stupid idea with extremely limited merit is never worth "compromising" over.
Well, you're not quite a "Centrist." You seem to have a set of principles that you feel are inviolate, that's all. Perhaps you're a little fuzzy on how those principles should be protected?
In terms of economic policy, it manifests in the idea that free market economics will somehow magically poop out a fair and equal society if we manage it just so with a relatively light touch.
This idea is (and I'm not going to mince my words here) complete and utter f***ing bull****.
How much are the "markets" responsible for an "equal society?" Do the members of that society have any responsibility? The idea isn't that the market should provide anything more than the most fertile ground for an individual's success. BUT, the government also has some responsibility to provide for a stable, healthy, society by instituting laws and regulations that foster those things. One of those things is to see that factors outside of the individual's control do not unduly or unfairly hinder this. That doesn't always work, granted. Some would say that given certain population sizes, it won't ever truly work - Someone is always going to be on the bottom, even when their yacht is only 20' long and their neighbor's is 40'.
AFAIK, there is no unrestricted free-market economy in existence, largely because of the regulations necessary to provide protections and "equal opportunity" for individuals to see that all are afforded equal opportunity of access.
Defining what you believe is hard enough. Figuring out if someone else's definition adequately represents your own belief is even more difficult.
I'm glad you feel my pain brother!
Well, we all don't share the same brain so we're bound to have differences in thought. There won't be any ideals matched between your thoughts and anything else. The best you can hope to achieve is agreeing with something that is "close enough" to achieve the points that have the most meaning to you. And, if you ever truly settle on one of those things that has a "good enough" match for you to be forever happy in your choice, you'll be the first...
