nice try
On the topic of think takes that are based on reason rather than ones that are focused on one ideology or anotherā¦that was a big dream back in the 90s but the term āThink Tankā got usurped pretty quickly for political purposes and a lot of people who are doing basically the same sort of thing distance themselves from the term.
The big problem with the āinfluencing policyā approach is that itās become absurdly politicized and focused on power brokerage, so places like the Heritage Foundation make it hard to recruit truly good researchers into them while calling them āThink Tanksā.
Plus weāve evolved since then thanks to the internet. Transparency is a LOT easier now. We have knowledge forums, educational resources, and the like. Bigthink is a great example of that sort of approach. There are also lots of institutions that are non-ideological think tanks (or āpolicy research institutesā) like NBER and such that fit the more classic mold and do more direct policy analysis.
Fundamentally, itās a great ideaā¦get people together to responsibly analyze big issues, itās just that āThink Tankā isnāt associated with freedom from bias anymore.
3 Likes
Explain, please. Thatās exactly what David Brooks was arguing against. and the only well known example of state sponsored racism against stateless people.
2 Likes
Simply that you picked a predictable opening example to try and bait me given that Iāve argued the topic before where it was relevant but in this case it was frankly just trollish.
1 Like
Dude, it doesnāt matter what opinion you have and I didnāt know you were firmly on one side or another (or if I did I forgot).
David Brooks (who was what the sentence that you replied to was about) recently argued against the occupation which is the only well known example of
- State sponsored Racismā¦
- Against Stateless People.
Itās not some subject that goes away because you donāt want to talk about it or something. Innocents having their lives ruined is vastly more important than somebodyās āfeelingsā. You wanting to hold an unpopular opinion and have it never discussed doesnāt make it coming up in obvious context ātrollingā
2 Likes
As usual mondoweiss distorts, that wasnāt the main point of the NYT article. As an FYI mondoweiss is pretty much a crackpot site to begin with.
But as you see thatās the āstateless personsā that David Brooks has been recently associated with shifting stances on. (even if, and I agree, only mildly)
Now, that being said, since weāre talking the Republican party itās ALSO possible that we could refer to the Syrian Refugees as stateless (though thatās not the typical designation), in which case weād be talking about immigration policyā¦which I donāt recall David Brooks having a strong argument against the party on, but is a totally legitimate statement. The right is currently favoring discrimination against the refugeesā¦but weāre hearing it being religious (no Muslims!) or cultural (No Syrians!) rather than a purely racial thing. In fact thereās been a special effort to make that conservation religious (itās okay if theyāre Christian!)
Still, Iāll roll with it. I was very seriously just citing the obvious example because itās the Palestinians that are most commonly referred to as āstateless peopleā.
Honestly I donāt think itās something to be sensitive about. My country is also engaging in assholery to all kinds of people and has a history of actual slavery, so who am I to talk?
2 Likes
Considering that Iāve already said Iām unhappy with the current lot on the right in the US, this particular bit of crazy talk doesnāt change anything. In fact US refugee clearance before they get on American soil is already very strict so any whargarble by nativists/attention seekers is just that.
Just because Iām an american citizen and consider myself āof the rightā doesnāt automatically mean I agree with any/everything the GOP or its members do or say.
Let me address one more point. Brooks wrote about whether or not it makes sense for the State of Israel to engage itself in Judea & Samaria, not about some Arabs who may or may not be stateless. Note also race was not addressed and honestly isnāt a meaningful factor in that conflict to begin with so the idea of racism having something to do with it is a fiction.
Its not a matter of being sensitive, just a matter of addressing facts.
Well yeah, I didnāt find a tight association with racism anywhere, though arguably race factors in with EVERY example weāve hit on (Mexicans, Refugees, Palestinians, etc.), Iād just say itās not a primary factor. So with no clear indication going back to the only technically stateless individuals who suffer state-sanctioned racism wasnāt exactly driving trollies, was it? I sincerely thought thatās what that sentence was about for really obvious reasons.
I even went to the extra effort to point out NON Israel examples in my post because the Israel/Palestine thing isnāt the only example of behavior thatās pretty much identical but doesnāt fit the State vs. Stateless definition for purely technical reasonsā¦which I disagree with (civilians donāt care about definition wars)
Which is groovy. Iām more āof the leftā but honestly things like the anti-GMO crowd and some of the anti-technology factions drive me batty. I like to think most of us arenāt perfect fits for the craziness that is inherent in our overly polarized political system!
2 Likes
When you bring that phrase repeatedly and open with the Israeli/Arab conflict you are intruding non facts in a way that appeals to emotion. Were there a case of state sanctioned racism, would the following factual conditions exist?
- Arab Israeli citizens with equal protection under the law, voting rights, access to civil courts, etc.
- Arab members of the Knesset
- Arabic being one of the official languages of the State
- Arabs be they Muslim, Christian, Bahai, or without religion having more freedom to express their beliefs than some places in Europe? Specifically, a muslim arab woman employed as a civil servant by the State of Israel can cover her hair if she chooses to while at work. This is illegal in France for example
I objected to your usage of this phrase as non factual and leading and frankly trollish.
Your other examples may or may not have been problematic but in this case I can address your language with facts.
This said, I must sleep now. Iāve been awake and at work for almost 24hrs and desperately need to sleep for a few hours before I go back to workā¦
You realize I didnāt actually use the phrase first, right? I was just saying what it may have meant in the context of David Brooks.
It was the āStateless Peopleā bit that I keyed off of, because it had more precision.
Go check the history!
1 Like
Getting back to the topic. Any good Think Tank examples anyoneās aware of? Or is the term the problem, because thatās what Iām seeing.
1 Like
I think the difference between a group like SPLC and a CAP is the focus of their advocacy. To invent a naive example, CAP might issue a report from their in-house economists arguing that racism is bad because it depresses the economy, SPLC would instead issue a report saying āhere are the examples of racism we uncovered this weekā then file an amicus brief or two. The distinction is a little blurred because occasionally pure advocacy groups commission expert studies, and sometimes think tanks monitor bad behavior and issue amicus briefs.
6 Likes
Because this pack of dunderheaded clowns almost always argue from bad faith, so fuck them, with bricks.
They seem to have one overriding agenda as far as I can tell, which is to make everything as bad as possible for everyone, except for a privileged handful living in an ultimately doomed fantasy land.
4 Likes
āfairnessā
āterrifiedā might not be a āfairā word to use brah.
shared meanings being paramount to any discussion, after all.
Who is āentitledā to define āfairnessā after all? In conversation with you, I know it is you. But with other people it gets complicated, as they have this pesky mutuality thing going on. Whatever that means.
2 Likes
Please donāt make this thread also a word fight with @popobawa4u
2 Likes
Who is āentitledā to define āfairnessā?
If one is going to use a word to demean a broad category of people in caricature (e.g. āleftistsā) as being outside of a paradigm defined by an individualā¦ when do those held in open caricature begion to exist in conversation again, as non-caricatures?
This just sounds like -how to build a better streamroller- to me. How to push away those who push one away.
this isnāt a word fight, I didnāt put āfairnessā in quotes like it is some objective thing. This is me asking āwho gets to define fairnessā? And is that person taking account of their existing privelege, or just seeking more like any other animal naturally would.
Fairness is a really subjective concept. If you canāt take the time to understand what other people actually think, and would prefer to reduce them to caricature with feelings and neeeds assigned by the steamroller driverā¦ well, thebig fish always thinks things are fair and could never be otherwise in a just world.
Same as the old boss, really, would it not be?
1 Like
It seems to me that fairness of any given system would be defined by its participants.
The big distinctions I see here are what I define as hierarchical systems, where some are recognized as having more or less ability to define fairness than others - versus egalitarian systems, where each participant is recognized as defining what fairness is, equally.
Presumably, such a category of people would not be caricatures to themselves, so it depends who you ask. As people speak up and act, they socially define themselves, for those who notice and listen. That is what frustrates me about many of those who consider themselves leftists and liberals, that they seem to too often let others control their societal and group narrative.
If you believe in privilege, then this suggests that you see societies as what I classify as hierarchical constructs. Is anybody objectively ābetterā or āmore specialā generally, or does it only suit them to suppose that they are? And why would this convince anybody else?
What I am pushing for is āno bossā, so - NO.
2 Likes
please donāt make this thread also a word fight with @AcerPlatanoides
4 Likes
Oh, no! You said their name!
I wonāt, but I thought that a small clarification wouldnāt hurt, since the matter of āwho frames the narrativeā is part of what got me thinking about this.
2 Likes
