$50K? The average American isn't a CP poster pulling down that large green. The average American makes $41K and lives paycheck-to-paycheck. Don'tCare is going to have appalling outcomes for most Americans.
I'm giving a rosier perspective than normal to illustrate the point. If a comfortable income can't afford it...
There's a hefty tax break for heath insurance companies under the new Republican healthcare reform legislation that could translate into higher pay for top executives.
The bill would roll back a provision of the 2010 Obamacare law that placed a $500,000 limit on deductions for each executive's compensation, according to a summary from the staff of the House Ways and Means committee
Five major insurers paid their CEO's $73 million in 2015, the most recent year for which pay has been reported. Only $2.5 million of that was deductible under Obamacare tax laws. But more than $70 million of that would be deductible under the proposed Republican legislation.
Also, Chaffetz is quickly become the biggest ####### in America.
He fits right in with the administration. A clueless, heartless idiot.
What's even worse than the iphone part of the statement was him then saying he believes people should be self-reliant.
So a person gets cancer, or get diagnosed with MS or has a stroke or etc and they lose coverage/have huge health bills that they bankrupt themselves and family. The answer to that is "be more self-reliant"? Really?
Pretty sure he is calling Liberals idiots that are too stupid to understand why they are against something, and are easily goaded by superior Conservatives.
I'll spoiler this response for people who would rather be talking about the Trump ####-up du jour.
Spoiler!
Your characterization of his post isn't exactly charitable. What he's saying is that the practice of shouting down and de-platforming speakers you don't agree with means you never have to confront ideas and people you don't agree with. If you never have to defend your views, they're held as a dead dogma. This isn't a new argument; it goes back several hundred years as a foundational principle of free speech - we want an open marketplace of ideas not just because the minority view might be right, but because even if it's wrong, it's important to test our views against opposition to strengthen them and gain a full appreciation for our basis for believing in them.
In other words, it's exactly what Van Jones said in that video I posted. I love his metaphor; "I'm not going to take all of the weights out of the gym. That's the entire point of the gym. This is the gym." College, university, these are places where people should never be safe from opposing viewpoints. Many of those are going to be considered offensive or upsetting to some degree or other, but that's the point. You have to be able to deal with those diverse opposing views intellectually or you aren't an intellectual.
As for whether it's specifically a problem with the campus left (who I'm not going to call "liberal"), yeah, it clearly is, hence why these stories happen all the time and why everyone from me to Barack Obama has made note of it and decried it to varying degrees. It's a side effect of one side's views being in the clear moral majority in a particular environment, which is very obviously the case on campus.
Quote:
My comment about Milo, was illustrating that it's possible that universities etc. should not just let anyone speak there carte blanche.
How about a white supremacist that advocates violence against non whites? should they be allowed to speak at universities? should Liberals let them, not just because they are stupid and don't understand their own arguments, but because of free speech and the 1A? Should Milo be allowed to go give a speech about the positive aspects of pedophilia?
First, if Milo wants to do that speech, and the university administration or some student organization has invited him to give it (which seems unlikely), then yes - he should be able to make it. That's key - the people whose talks are being shut down are in every case I'm aware of invited by other students or the faculty. Another group of students gets angry that this clearly evil person is giving a talk, and concludes that they should get to decide who is allowed to speak, and by extension what sorts of views their fellow students should be allowed to hear, on campus. That's a problem.
As far as Milo goes (and this is apparently a moot point because I gather that whole 'pedophilia's fine' thing has more or less ruined his "career"), the people who oppose his views - you and me included apparently - should go, listen, stand up at the microphone during the question period and point out why he's an idiot. Alternatively you can do one better: do exactly what was supposed to happen in Middlebury and arrange for the event to be a conversation between two people who disagree with each other, so that diverging views are represented. This is what was done a couple of times last year with Jordan Peterson at U of T and his refusal to address people by gender-neutral pronouns; they had one or more additional speakers give a different perspective at the same event. Or stage a separate event, or respond to the event in the student newspaper, and so on. There are a ton of ways to address these things that don't involve, for example, putting on a ski mask and assaulting another human being for being willing to talk to someone you don't like.
I agree with you that I'd draw the line at not permitting any speaker to incite violence. I'd also probably be pretty okay if you had a rule that said no speaker could individually single out for criticism any particular student (other than those who engage them directly at the talk obviously) which I understand from that Real Time interview was part of Milo's schtick.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Last edited by CorsiHockeyLeague; 03-07-2017 at 10:29 AM.
Your characterization of his post isn't exactly charitable. What he's saying is that the practice of shouting down and de-platforming speakers you don't agree with means you never have to confront ideas and people you don't agree with.
wait wait wait. so this is a Liberal thing? Liberals do this because they are dumb, and Conservatives don't?
Well, color me surprised to learn this.
wait wait wait. so this is a Liberal thing? Liberals do this because they are dumb, and Conservatives don't? Well, color me surprised to learn this.
I gather you're not actually interested in discussing this? If you're not even going to bother considering the point (which has to do specifically with the fact that the left is in the moral majority in particular on campuses and therefore doesn't have to defend its views) and are just going to continue posting total non-sequiturs, we're not going to get anywhere.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
I met a women last year while traveling. Mid forties and was suffering hard times after the financial meltdown of 2008. She was faced with the reality of having to cancel her health insurance for a few months. Before she did she went and got a check up and a full health stamp of approval.
Insurance cancelled.
Two months later she had an anuerism. She spent a fair amount of time in the hospital. While she was recovering she was having to make decisions about accepting an aspirin/Tylenol while in the hospital bed because she knew she couldn't afford to pay for the treatment. Meanwhile the staff was just telling her not to worry about it the cost of the Tylenol it's your health - you can sort it all out later. In the end it was a 250k bill.
The only reason she didn't go bankrupt was due to the fact that she had a friend who was a lawyer who went to bat for her to negotiate with the private hospital.
He basically said to them - you either get this amount of nothing.
I was floored when I was told this story. As a Canadian I take our system a human right. I couldn't even imagine having to make a decision about going to see a Dr because of how much this is going to cost me. Refusing a Tylenol in care because each one was 12 bucks. Imagine the kind of stress that puts on a recovery. I find it absurd because I was lucky enough to grow up somewhere that has this available to its citizens.
In my opinion there is so much wrong with America and number on on that list is health care.
__________________
Shameless self promotion
The Following 23 Users Say Thank You to surferguy For This Useful Post:
I met a women last year while traveling. Mid forties and was suffering hard times after the financial meltdown of 2008. She was faced with the reality of having to cancel her health insurance for a few months. Before she did she went and got a check up and a full health stamp of approval.
Insurance cancelled.
Two months later she had an anuerism. She spent a fair amount of time in the hospital. While she was recovering she was having to make decisions about accepting an aspirin/Tylenol while in the hospital bed because she knew she couldn't afford to pay for the treatment. Meanwhile the staff was just telling her not to worry about it the cost of the Tylenol it's your health - you can sort it all out later. In the end it was a 250k bill.
The only reason she didn't go bankrupt was due to the fact that she had a friend who was a lawyer who went to bat for her to negotiate with the private hospital.
He basically said to them - you either get this amount of nothing.
I was floored when I was told this story. As a Canadian I take our system a human right. I couldn't even imagine having to make a decision about going to see a Dr because of how much this is going to cost me. Refusing a Tylenol in care because each one was 12 bucks. Imagine the kind of stress that puts on a recovery. I find it absurd because I was lucky enough to grow up somewhere that has this available to its citizens.
In my opinion there is so much wrong with America and number on on that list is health care.
Health care arguments get so illogical that I don't how it could ever get to a good place. There were significant amount of people in her same place who voted against Hillary because they hated that Obamacare forced them to buy health insurance.
The big problem is that 75% of American's have decent enough health insurance (either through their employer, Medicare or Medicaid), where they could end up with a couple thousand in medical bills as a worst case scenario. There's the 25-30% who have to fend for themselves for insurance that are in the crappiest spot. Obamacare helped a lot of those people out, but it also alienated a lot of those people. Most of those people were people who (foolishly, IMO) thought that it was worth the risk to either go with no insurance or very high deductible insurance and now health insurance cost them more.
The political challenge is how do you sell the public on helping the 25% of people who negotiate their own insurance, when that 25% of people even is split on how they should be helped. The contingency plan for a lot of people (whether they consciously recognize it or not) is if something happens, they go to the ER who can't refuse them, and bankrupt their bills. And apparently a lot of people want that right to continue to be able to do that.
I don't know how you'd say it in a politically correct way, but someone needs to stand up and say if you don't agree with an individual mandate, and you have the means to insurance, and you don't have cash to put up front, then you don't get to go to the ER when something bad happens.
If republicans were true to what they believed in, they would agree that having a free ER safety net is not taking personal responsibility.
I gather you're not actually interested in discussing this? If you're not even going to bother considering the point (which has to do specifically with the fact that the left is in the moral majority in particular on campuses and therefore doesn't have to defend its views) and are just going to continue posting total non-sequiturs, we're not going to get anywhere.
To be honest, the biggest issue with Peter's comment was "and liberals in general."
You can make your usually verbose arguments for it, but the free speech on campus debate is not being played on equal footing.
Young people of varying left-wing ideologies protest specifically toxic right-wing speakers, and yet conservatives like Peter feel very comfortable framing this as "the problem with liberals in general." Are these protesters violently rebelling against conservatives in general? or just the ones who hold specific views?
Do we know that all of the protesters are liberals? The problem I see with the entire debate is that peaceful protest is wonderful and a key part of our culture. I disagree with the blocking of the doors or the violence that eventually erupts, but people like yourself and peter VERY conveniently fall into the comfortable categorization of the problem being "liberals" or "the left" or whatever, and not of the much more direct issues of resorting to physical violence. This specifically is not an issue that is (in any way) exclusive of left-of-center ideologies, so it's categorization as a left-wing issue is disingenuous and deserving of the the laziest of rebuttals (which is why you find you're not "getting anywhere").
It's just ridiculous and moronic is all, that liberals are generally categorized as violent protesters unable to form the lines of thought required to defend their position (according to Peter), but when conservatives get called out for being racist, they panic and vote for Trump or cry foul.
Protest is great, and it's an wonderful way to "have the debate" like you and Peter are desperate to do.
Often on campus, I see the anti-abortion people with their blown-up pictures of dead fetuses. You know what else I almost always see? Someone protesting by holding their own sign, or standing in front of the image, or professing their pro-choice stance to the anti-abortion sign holder. This is protest. This is good. I don't see any fights. These people aren't blockaded from trying to spread their anti-abortion message... but liberals on campus are supposedly the problem. I think I've seen one anti-abortion person get upset that a "liberal" was blocking their sign, and I've seen one "liberal" raise their voice. Never a moment of violence in the multiple times I've witnessed these interactions. But "liberals" have a problem "in general."
My opinion: people see only what they want to see, and conservatives love the confirmation bias that a news report on a left-wing protest turned ugly presents. Love it all you want. It's sad, and worthy of very little intellectual consideration.
The Following 15 Users Say Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
Are these protesters violently rebelling against conservatives in general? or just the ones who hold specific views?
That's the issue, they are rebelling, to varying degrees, against having to hear from people (or even having other people on campus hear from people) whose views they find odious. They're not just white supremacists, they're people like Murray, or people like Rice, or people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, or people like Greg Lukianoff. Those last two aren't even conservatives by any rational definition of the term.
Quote:
Do we know that all of the protesters are liberals?
Leaving aside the point that I don't see these people as anything resembling "liberal" and using instead "left wing"... Yes? Unless you have some instance you're aware of where campus Republicans have attempted to prevent a talk from a left-wing speaker from taking place using these mob tactics. I'm not aware of any such thing happening, and if it did, I've little doubt it would be reported on.
Quote:
The problem I see with the entire debate is that peaceful protest is wonderful and a key part of our culture. I disagree with the blocking of the doors or the violence that eventually erupts, but people like yourself and peter VERY conveniently fall into the comfortable categorization of the problem being "liberals" or "the left" or whatever, and not of the much more direct issues of resorting to physical violence.
Physical violence is definitely a part of it, and as I say, I'm not aware of this stemming from groups you'd call "right wing", with one exception - a Milo supporter shooting an antifa person at yet another one of these things designed to shut down a speech on campus. Which is part of the point here - if you try to silence people, violence is the endgame. Inevitably. The decision point is we either resolve our differences by letting everyone have their say and the best ideas win out, or we kill each other. Conversation or violence, take your pick. Those are the only options.
Quote:
categorization as a left-wing issue is disingenuous and deserving of the the laziest of rebuttals (which is why you find you're not "getting anywhere").
According to my PM inbox I wasn't getting anywhere because I was arguing with a troll, but anyway, it is a left wing issue these days. It's not solely a left wing issue, but it used to be almost exclusively a right-wing issue when the right wing (i.e. Christian conservatives) formed the moral majority of society. That's no longer the case, and now that the left clearly have the cultural credibility of being presumed right in many contexts - campus being one - to enforce their moral view and eliminate dissent rather than confronting it with the ideas that have won prevalence to begin with.
Quote:
when conservatives get called out for being racist, they panic and vote for Trump or cry foul.
If I get called a racist I'm likely to cry foul, because I'm not a racist. It's a knee-jerk reaction among many people these days, as if it's a cheat code to win any argument.
Quote:
Often on campus, I see the anti-abortion people with their blown-up pictures of dead fetuses. You know what else I almost always see? Someone protesting by holding their own sign, or standing in front of the image, or professing their pro-choice stance to the anti-abortion sign holder. This is protest. This is good.
I'd agree, but there is an absolutely huge body of examples, whether you're aware of them or not, of such clubs being de-funded and forced into obscurity by campus groups and the administration. The back and forth you describe, where both sides are represented, isn't what many of the left-leaning groups who have the power to enforce their views want. They just don't want to hear from opponents. They are blockaded, at every turn, from spreading an anti-abortion message - and here's where I put the required shibboleth that I'm pro choice, in case people are getting the wrong idea here.
Quote:
My opinion: people see only what they want to see, and conservatives love the confirmation bias that a news report on a left-wing protest turned ugly presents. Love it all you want.
What are you talking about? I'm not a conservative.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Last edited by CorsiHockeyLeague; 03-07-2017 at 12:08 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Health care arguments get so illogical that I don't how it could ever get to a good place. There were significant amount of people in her same place who voted against Hillary because they hated that Obamacare forced them to buy health insurance.
The big problem is that 75% of American's have decent enough health insurance (either through their employer, Medicare or Medicaid), where they could end up with a couple thousand in medical bills as a worst case scenario. There's the 25-30% who have to fend for themselves for insurance that are in the crappiest spot. Obamacare helped a lot of those people out, but it also alienated a lot of those people. Most of those people were people who (foolishly, IMO) thought that it was worth the risk to either go with no insurance or very high deductible insurance and now health insurance cost them more.
The political challenge is how do you sell the public on helping the 25% of people who negotiate their own insurance, when that 25% of people even is split on how they should be helped. The contingency plan for a lot of people (whether they consciously recognize it or not) is if something happens, they go to the ER who can't refuse them, and bankrupt their bills. And apparently a lot of people want that right to continue to be able to do that.
I don't know how you'd say it in a politically correct way, but someone needs to stand up and say if you don't agree with an individual mandate, and you have the means to insurance, and you don't have cash to put up front, then you don't get to go to the ER when something bad happens.
If republicans were true to what they believed in, they would agree that having a free ER safety net is not taking personal responsibility.
Unfortunately that 25% is constantly shifting. It's not the same people at all times and the reality is that percentage is actually larger if you were to open up the time frame from this specific moment in time to the last couple of years.
Someone loses a job and can't afford continuation coverage. They develop or get diagnosed with something when not covered. They get a job and can afford to pay at the same level they were, but all of a sudden they have a pre-existing condition when not under active coverage. The price goes up and they can no longer afford the same level of coverage.
And that's sort of what happens to many people...a steady erosion of coverage effectiveness through little, if any, fault of their own. No amount of tax credits or HSA accounts is going to fix that. Only one thing fixes that but they are so scared of doing it in case they piss off their friends in the insurance game.
At some point the selfishness has to end and people are going to say to themselves "you know what? It DOES matter that my next door neighbour has access to the care they need. It's better for society" Now Americans are about 70 years behind on this realization but it's coming. The younger generation skew to this belief significantly and I can't help but think the backslide to outright stupidity the GOP is going to pass might just be the kick in the ass a bunch of the population needs to understand what the actual solution is.
It won't be a perfect solution...it never is but it will be a much better place to start from.
Did everyone miss the fact that I was quoting from an essay, and that I personally did not make any gross characterizations of liberals or any other group for that matter?
People understood that, right?
Also, if anyone, once again, went back to the record, they would see that I have a very low opinion of Donald Trump.
Anyway, this isn't really a discussion anymore, and hasn't been one for some time. There are excellent posters in this thread, and I count lefties like rubecube PepsiFree among them, who try to get a conversation going, but either end up falling for the same old 3 minutes of hate routine or being subsumed by it. Not a comment on CP at all, or even individual posters, but just a really sad sign of the way things are going in the culture.
Young people of varying left-wing ideologies protest specifically toxic right-wing speakers, and yet conservatives like Peter feel very comfortable framing this as "the problem with liberals in general." Are these protesters violently rebelling against conservatives in general? or just the ones who hold specific views?
Within the culture of the university, it is absolutely a left-wing problem. Posters like New Era, a college instructor who condones violent protest against people he doesn't like, is my case in point.
Quote:
I disagree with the blocking of the doors or the violence that eventually erupts, but people like yourself and peter VERY conveniently fall into the comfortable categorization of the problem being "liberals" or "the left" or whatever, and not of the much more direct issues of resorting to physical violence. This specifically is not an issue that is (in any way) exclusive of left-of-center ideologies, so it's categorization as a left-wing issue is disingenuous and deserving of the the laziest of rebuttals (which is why you find you're not "getting anywhere").
Great, so we agree that violence isn't an acceptable means to shut down unpopular speech.
Quote:
It's just ridiculous and moronic is all, that liberals are generally categorized as violent protesters unable to form the lines of thought required to defend their position (according to Peter), but when conservatives get called out for being racist, they panic and vote for Trump or cry foul.
WikiLeaks is dumping CIA stuff now, the spooks must have something on Don or Vlad. Wait I mean WikiLeaks is a totally legitimate organisation and definitely not interested in assisting one side over the other.
Just so long as we get to eat Trump's dinner first.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
WikiLeaks is dumping CIA stuff now, the spooks must have something on Don or Vlad. Wait I mean WikiLeaks is a totally legitimate organisation and definitely not interested in assisting one side over the other.
