Red Mosquito

epilogue wrote:

washing machine wrote:

epilogue wrote:

washing machine wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:We're not voting for the next Jesus. People should vote for their best interests. I don't care about Trump enough to want to punish him by vote. He's a billionaire with a supermodel wife and a gigantic son. Face it, he already won. Let go of the bitter socialist resentment that eats your soul away!

While we're at it, stop looking to the government to police your morals. Vote with your dollars and tell the market how you feel.

I understand that this comment with be antithetical to the spirit of the conversation over the last few pages, but... that's a pretty privileged comment. It just doesn't work because there are too many people that can't do that or that it doesn't apply to.

Don't you think those who have the means to support progressive causes they believe in would have a more direct impact supporting in the market? If yes, don't you think the market would respond more efficiently than phony politicians that are using your causes (poorly, as it seems) for demographic share?

I literally have no idea what you're asking. But I can tell by context clues that there's a bad-faith answer that you want me to veer toward... so, I'm just gonna go ahead and say no. Because that feels like the thing you want me to say.

This isn't a gotcha question. This is a dialogue. Or can be, if you let it.

Let me rephrase -- what can privileged people do to in a free market to support/align with causes outside of politics? Why is the government arena where social issues need to play out?

BurtReynolds wrote:I don't know what you're talking about.

Ok “X”

washing machine wrote:

epilogue wrote:

washing machine wrote:

epilogue wrote:

washing machine wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:We're not voting for the next Jesus. People should vote for their best interests. I don't care about Trump enough to want to punish him by vote. He's a billionaire with a supermodel wife and a gigantic son. Face it, he already won. Let go of the bitter socialist resentment that eats your soul away!

While we're at it, stop looking to the government to police your morals. Vote with your dollars and tell the market how you feel.

I understand that this comment with be antithetical to the spirit of the conversation over the last few pages, but... that's a pretty privileged comment. It just doesn't work because there are too many people that can't do that or that it doesn't apply to.

Don't you think those who have the means to support progressive causes they believe in would have a more direct impact supporting in the market? If yes, don't you think the market would respond more efficiently than phony politicians that are using your causes (poorly, as it seems) for demographic share?

I literally have no idea what you're asking. But I can tell by context clues that there's a bad-faith answer that you want me to veer toward... so, I'm just gonna go ahead and say no. Because that feels like the thing you want me to say.

This isn't a gotcha question. This is a dialogue. Or can be, if you let it.

Let me rephrase -- what can privileged people do to in a free market to support/align with causes outside of politics? Why is the government arena where social issues need to play out?

Rolling your eyes at me definitely makes me trust you more, so thanks for that. Means a lot coming from a person who says we need to listen to each other and find common ground.

What we're taking about (unless we're moving goal posts) isn't outside of politics. What I'm saying is that there is no equality at the political table. So acting like "the market" will solve everything is disingenuous.

You want to assert that it's the fault of "phony politicians" but that just isn't true. That isn't reality. This isn't about politics, it's about society.

The marginalized don't have the same representation and twice the stake.

epilogue wrote:

washing machine wrote:

epilogue wrote:

washing machine wrote:

epilogue wrote:

washing machine wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:We're not voting for the next Jesus. People should vote for their best interests. I don't care about Trump enough to want to punish him by vote. He's a billionaire with a supermodel wife and a gigantic son. Face it, he already won. Let go of the bitter socialist resentment that eats your soul away!

While we're at it, stop looking to the government to police your morals. Vote with your dollars and tell the market how you feel.

I understand that this comment with be antithetical to the spirit of the conversation over the last few pages, but... that's a pretty privileged comment. It just doesn't work because there are too many people that can't do that or that it doesn't apply to.

Don't you think those who have the means to support progressive causes they believe in would have a more direct impact supporting in the market? If yes, don't you think the market would respond more efficiently than phony politicians that are using your causes (poorly, as it seems) for demographic share?

I literally have no idea what you're asking. But I can tell by context clues that there's a bad-faith answer that you want me to veer toward... so, I'm just gonna go ahead and say no. Because that feels like the thing you want me to say.

This isn't a gotcha question. This is a dialogue. Or can be, if you let it.

Let me rephrase -- what can privileged people do to in a free market to support/align with causes outside of politics? Why is the government arena where social issues need to play out?

Rolling your eyes at me definitely makes me trust you more, so thanks for that. Means a lot coming from a person who says we need to listen to each other and find common ground.

What we're taking about (unless we're moving goal posts) isn't outside of politics. What I'm saying is that there is no equality at the political table. So acting like "the market" will solve everything is disingenuous.

You want to assert that it's the fault of "phony politicians" but that just isn't true. That isn't reality. This isn't about politics, it's about society.

The marginalized don't have the same representation and twice the stake.

Sorry about the eye roll, you're just frustrating to exchange with because you come at questions very defensively. I should have just said that.

Anyway, I think the private sector is where change to be impacted in a more meaningful and genuine way, but there should not be a moral imperative coming from anybody... especially the government I think that absolutely we can realize a better society outside of politics. That's all.

Or do

tragabigzanda wrote:Reid and Joe, I believe you both mean well here. You’re talking past each other.

Reid advocated for the market as the best place for social issues to be addressed.

Joe countered that’s a privileged position, intimating that those without means don’t have that luxury.

Then Reid maintained a focus on those with means, without addressing Joe’s point.

You guys are at the precipice of some moderate understanding here. Don’t give up.

lol. You can't help yourself, can you?

washing machine wrote:

epilogue wrote:

washing machine wrote:

epilogue wrote:

washing machine wrote:

epilogue wrote:

washing machine wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:We're not voting for the next Jesus. People should vote for their best interests. I don't care about Trump enough to want to punish him by vote. He's a billionaire with a supermodel wife and a gigantic son. Face it, he already won. Let go of the bitter socialist resentment that eats your soul away!

While we're at it, stop looking to the government to police your morals. Vote with your dollars and tell the market how you feel.

I understand that this comment with be antithetical to the spirit of the conversation over the last few pages, but... that's a pretty privileged comment. It just doesn't work because there are too many people that can't do that or that it doesn't apply to.

Don't you think those who have the means to support progressive causes they believe in would have a more direct impact supporting in the market? If yes, don't you think the market would respond more efficiently than phony politicians that are using your causes (poorly, as it seems) for demographic share?

I literally have no idea what you're asking. But I can tell by context clues that there's a bad-faith answer that you want me to veer toward... so, I'm just gonna go ahead and say no. Because that feels like the thing you want me to say.

This isn't a gotcha question. This is a dialogue. Or can be, if you let it.

Let me rephrase -- what can privileged people do to in a free market to support/align with causes outside of politics? Why is the government arena where social issues need to play out?

Rolling your eyes at me definitely makes me trust you more, so thanks for that. Means a lot coming from a person who says we need to listen to each other and find common ground.

What we're taking about (unless we're moving goal posts) isn't outside of politics. What I'm saying is that there is no equality at the political table. So acting like "the market" will solve everything is disingenuous.

You want to assert that it's the fault of "phony politicians" but that just isn't true. That isn't reality. This isn't about politics, it's about society.

The marginalized don't have the same representation and twice the stake.

Sorry about the eye roll, you're just frustrating to exchange with because you come at questions very defensively. I should have just said that.

Anyway, I think the private sector is where change to be impacted in a more meaningful and genuine way, but there should not be a moral imperative coming from anybody... especially the government I think that absolutely we can realize a better society outside of politics. That's all.

What was defensive about my reply to your post?

"i can tell there's a bad faith answer you want me to veer toward"

Sorry Joe, sorry trag. I'm sure if we really worked at it this conversation, it could be enlightening, but time is precious and I'm going to stop wasting mine and the board's bandwidth.

washing machine wrote:"i can tell there's a bad faith answer you want me to veer toward"

Sorry Joe, sorry trag. I'm sure if we really worked at it this conversation, it could be enlightening, but time is precious and I'm going to stop wasting mine and the board's bandwidth.

Wise. Don't do emotional labor for them!

washing machine wrote:"i can tell there's a bad faith answer you want me to veer toward"

Sorry Joe, sorry trag. I'm sure if we really worked at it this conversation, it could be enlightening, but time is precious and I'm going to stop wasting mine and the board's bandwidth.

Of course. I look forward to more rallying around people like Kevin Davis who advocate listening to others and finding common ground.

The right is absurd

[quote="tragabigzanda"]Reid and Joe, I believe you both mean well here. You’re talking past each other.

Reid advocated for the market as the best place for social issues to be addressed.

Joe countered that’s a privileged position, intimating that those without means don’t have that luxury.

Then Reid maintained a focus on those with means, without addressing Joe’s point.

You guys are at the precipice of some moderate understanding here. Don’t give up.[/quote]

Dare I try again?

I think I understand where we're at, and I have some refreshed thoughts on this re: private sector and social issues.

I'm a working class guy. I care about my family first, so every election, that is how I vote. I want more money coming to my household. This is for survival reasons, but it is also for social justice reasons and here's why:

When I can, I support non profits and brands that align with my social justice values. I think that if more people did this (and if I MYSELF did this more *guilty*) in the private sector, brands and non profits would adapt -- it would be in their best interest to follow the money.

Then, we could get back to the government our founders intended, shaping the free market to work for us instead of in alignment with political money that plays us against each other on social issues for votes.

We could get away from this idea that our politicians have to be some Jesus type figure and do our own hard work, freeing up the govt to simply build us roads and send out our mail.

Regarding the above, I did not vote for Trump as I do not believe he aligns with this philosophy. Just saying.

Do you believe the market would take care of social justice issues? who would pay for that?

VinylGuy wrote:Do you believe the market would take care of social justice issues? who would pay for that?

We're getting above my economic expertise, but...

I believe it could, but it would take a lot of money in the private sector. Less taxes, fair wages, local jobs, etc. that money would pay for it. Donations to local and national non-profits, etc

I mean this in a respectful, humble way, but could you dumb that down for me?