Yeah.
I don’t really give a rats ass about those of us that looked up such things back then. This is 2016. Put your references in a web accessible form, preferably with real statistics including standard deviations, etc. that is where I am coming from.
So my answer is basically the same as before, if you want to know then look it up and if the info isn’t right there then ask for it. Just because it is 2016 doesn’t really excuse people from making some effort on their own.
Fussing for lack of spoon fed citations doesn’t make sense to me at all.
I think we’re a little bit off here. I think we disagree on some fundamentals. I don’t dislike you though. If you want to branch out into another topic, I’m cool with that.
Its cool we didn’t go too far OT. This fork can be done
So. What do you disagree with?
Probably you and I agree that being able to research or check what people claim so deep down we’re probably in agreement
Brookings is a think tank which is a little to Clinton’s left. The Center for American Progress is a little more to her left. Neither is exactly left-wing, but are examples of “mainstream” think tanks which occasionally articulate progressive policies.
Does the SPLC count? I mean, they’re mostly an advocacy group, like the ACLU, but don’t they also express policy positions?
There are some left wing think tanks:
What do we mean if we decide to say we’re going to ask the “smart” people to solve problems? Is that how social problems are solved?
Good find. I wonder if their concept of moral factors makes any sense to me or if it’s just political stuff?
Oddly enough I have an interest in starting a think tank about morals and technology but from a blatant and open view of different cultures religious morals. No interfaith huggy wuggy hippie crap but some people who know their material and aren’t afraid to disagree with each other respectfully.
Sorry to start the topic last night, and then fall asleep! I had been meaning to post asking about think tanks for a few days, so I did so while it was on my mind.
I don’t mind that this demonstrates a cynical attitude, but I’d say that rather than prerequisites, what you are listing here are more criticisms of what I think makes most think tanks lame. This is why I asked about more progressive kinds. What if one’s actual goal is to advocate policies which are based upon evidence instead of authority and obfuscation? It is easy for me to see how there are many lame examples, but I am interested in the reasons why, and what else can be done.
I agree that the level of scholarship can be quite poor, but there is quite a range. It’s been a while since I read a think tank publication. Reasoning which can’t be audited IMO isn’t good for anything, and certainly isn’t worth paying for. Obviously there is a factor of some people paying for poorly-conceived papers which only confirm their own biases, but I’d suggest that that might be more of a subversion of think tanks than their actual purpose.
Yes, this is the sort of thing which got me thinking. The intellectual climate of the US as represented in mass media appears quite stultified. There are so many conservative and crackpot think tanks that I thought it might be nice to balance that somewhat. And wondering, why don’t people? It is easy to complain about lobbies and think tanks, but if we don’t provide counters to their horrible policy ideas, then those are going to get acted upon anyway. Why not cultivate an ecosystem of progressive ideas in government and media instead of simply complaining? Or otherwise, who might be doing some of thst work already?
I have another observation. The vertical integration of think tank papers and policy reports.
Basically, if you can devise a system that goes from original research to staffers, lobbyists, and congresscritters, you will have a successful think tank no matter what you publish. Access and integration between those two points is of greater value to the tank than their actual work.
Wanna brainstorm some ideas how to do that? I’m game.
I push hard for direct democracy and delegate-based systems, but the counter to this I usually get is that “we already have a great representation-based system here, except it’s always broken and coopted by jerks”. Many leftists claim to want “fairness”, but when I demonstrate any systems which actually have nobody with more/less power than anybody else, they are terrified.
So, I am looking at the mechanisms which are in place now. How representatives get informed of situations and potential policies. I think that a think tank could be quite egalitarian, but it might be challenging to distill coherent publications out of a huge, inclusive body of participants. I agree that think tanks are a bit elitist, but so are representative systems, at least as they currently exist in the US.
A more difficult task might be not the solving, but rather getting people to even agree as to what constitutes “a social problem”.
Let me preface by reply by stating that I’m pretty much a fallen leftist. What I see here and from a distance in the US looks like all the “left/progressive” can do is complain or toe a party line. That’s a shame in my eyes. I’d be interested to see a practical left think tank, one that can put forth agendas and plans that don’t look like reheated Patrice Lamumba University term papers.
Let me also clearly say that while I consider myself of the “right” I’m very disappointed with the current crop back in the US. I’m far happier with the Japanese govt at the moment (regardless of how I got shouted down and n another thread). What I said above? I’d like to see “both sides” have some smarts.
Can you share an example of one of those systems so we have a common frame of reference?
These days, the term “fallen leftist” may place you on the right of David Brooks — one of the braver GOP fellow travelers to argue unequivocally and publicly against GOP support for state-sponsored racism against stateless people.
Brooks has called on the GOP to propose:
. . . policy ideas to help the working class, like wage subsidies, a higher earned-Income tax credit, increased child tax credits, subsidies for people who wanted to move in search of work and exemption of the first $20,000 in earnings from the Medicaid payroll tax . . . a conservatism that emphasized social mobility at the bottom, not cutting taxes at the top.
Have you fallen further to the right than David Brooks?
Sorry but I can’t parse that phrase. Can you put it in plain American?
Well, for an obvious example the innocent civilians in Palestine are stateless and people who believe in basic human dignity consider many of Israel’s actions with respect to them (collective punishment, industrial discrimination, etc.) to be racism sponsored by a State. (Also the collective punishment violates the Geneva conventions…but that’s a whole other discussion)
That’s hardly the only example of institutionalized racism (Sri Lanka, Algeria, and Malaysia jump to mind right off), but the people they discriminate against aren’t considered stateless… and one can arguably include discrimination against refugees in that category as well as they’re generally considered stateless, but that’s a fuzzier scenario.
Mistreat the strangers in your community?
Well put!
By the way to answer your final question above, Brooks seems to be saying good things which the GOP needs to hear. I’m not familiar with his opinions otherwise but I should look into him.
