Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Sick Giant

waitbutwhy.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–138 of 138 posts

Re: A Sick Giant

#131

Post by emmanuel_1234 »

wayoutthere wrote: post #69
capableweb wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think to gain anything from long form articles, you need to read and consider what's being written, rather than skimming, looking for the holy grail.

What the author says here is better said by a dozen others. I just had an overwhelming feeling of no shit sherlock when reading this -- yes, it's obvious our media is polarized, for obvious reasons. I'm going to guess his next chapter is about how money ruined the media and politics, which is "why you shouldn't write about these things" -- because the people with the loudest voice have the most to gain from the polar…

(isn't philosophy, literally, love for wisdom?)

Re: A Sick Giant

#132

Post by AnimalMuppet »

jessaustin wrote: post #130
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's nothing polarizing or extreme about noticing oligarchy. See, you and snarf21 keep assuming that we live in an oligarchy (perhaps snarf21 more strongly than you). You keep assuming that everyone can see that. Not only can't I see it, I'm pretty sure you're wrong. And I suspect that, if you polled HN, you'd find that about 80% of people believe that we do not actually live in an oligarchy (all numbers made up…

Which is it? Do the bastards "have too much influence" or don't they? Not all elections are decided by massive campaign contributions from the wealthy, but lots of them are. We haven't bombed or sanctioned every nation populated by brown people, but we've bombed or sanctioned lots of them. Real wages haven't been stagnant forever, but they have been stagnant since 1973. If you want to draw a line just this side of "o…

The definition of oligarchy (I looked it up) is "rule by the few". Not "the rich", but "the few". So: Are we ruled by the few? Not "do they have outsized influence", but "are we ruled" by the few?

I would say no.

If you think we are, then do you think that Warren's tax on the rich is just a smokescreen that those in control are putting forth to hide that they are in control? Or do you think that Warren will not be allowed to win? Or do you think that, if she wins, she will never actually do what she says she's going to do? Or do you think that the tax on the rich is really what the few want to do? (At that point, your hypothesis is unfalsifiable, because anything that happens is what the few wanted to happen.)

Re: A Sick Giant

#134

Post by jessaustin »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #132
jessaustin wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is it? Do the bastards "have too much influence" or don't they? Not all elections are decided by massive campaign contributions from the wealthy, but lots of them are. We haven't bombed or sanctioned every nation populated by brown people, but we've bombed or sanctioned lots of them. Real wages haven't been stagnant forever, but they have been stagnant since 1973. If you want to draw a line just this side of "o…

The definition of oligarchy (I looked it up) is "rule by the few". Not "the rich", but "the few". So: Are we ruled by the few? Not "do they have outsized influence", but "are we ruled " by the few? I would say no. If you think we are, then do you think that Warren's tax on the rich is just a smokescreen that those in control are putting forth to hide that they are in control? Or do you think that Warren will not be a…

Any analysis that relies on Warren will be "unfalsifiable". We don't have to watch the news much to realize that they're not afraid of Warren. Is that because they think she's fibbing about how she's going to crack down on the 1%? Maybe that's part of it, but the bigger factor is that they know Trump won't lose to "Pocahontas". The coverage she gets is very different than what e.g. Sanders or Gabbard get, because they're real in a way that neither Trump nor any opponent he has faced has been.

(Your back-and-forth about "few" vs "some" vs "1%" or whatever just proves the point about oligarchy.)

Re: A Sick Giant

#135

Post by AnimalMuppet »

jessaustin wrote: post #134
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The definition of oligarchy (I looked it up) is "rule by the few". Not "the rich", but "the few". So: Are we ruled by the few? Not "do they have outsized influence", but "are we ruled " by the few? I would say no. If you think we are, then do you think that Warren's tax on the rich is just a smokescreen that those in control are putting forth to hide that they are in control? Or do you think that Warren will not be a…

Any analysis that relies on Warren will be "unfalsifiable". We don't have to watch the news much to realize that they're not afraid of Warren. Is that because they think she's fibbing about how she's going to crack down on the 1%? Maybe that's part of it, but the bigger factor is that they know Trump won't lose to "Pocahontas". The coverage she gets is very different than what e.g. Sanders or Gabbard get, because the…

> (Your back-and-forth about "few" vs "some" vs "1%" or whatever just proves the point about oligarchy.)

I don't think that it proves any such thing, except apparently in your mind. Nor do I think that I was going "back and forth" between "the few" and "some". The 1%, perhaps, if you accept Warren's plan as targeting them.

By the way, this oligarchy that you think rule - are they more or fewer than the 1%?

I think that your point about Sanders is rather a large concession on your part. You seem to be saying that "the oligarchy" are concerned that Sanders might win, and therefore are orchestrating press coverage against him. But if they are concerned that he might win, then they clearly don't rule. Otherwise, they would have no such concern.

Re: A Sick Giant

#136

Post by jessaustin »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #135
jessaustin wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any analysis that relies on Warren will be "unfalsifiable". We don't have to watch the news much to realize that they're not afraid of Warren. Is that because they think she's fibbing about how she's going to crack down on the 1%? Maybe that's part of it, but the bigger factor is that they know Trump won't lose to "Pocahontas". The coverage she gets is very different than what e.g. Sanders or Gabbard get, because the…

> (Your back-and-forth about "few" vs "some" vs "1%" or whatever just proves the point about oligarchy.) I don't think that it proves any such thing, except apparently in your mind. Nor do I think that I was going "back and forth" between "the few" and "some". The 1%, perhaps, if you accept Warren's plan as targeting them. By the way, this oligarchy that you think rule - are they more or fewer than the 1%? I think th…

Well, they haven't assassinated him yet... you seem sort of eager to shit on my hope. The last three presidents ran for office promising no more stupid foreign wars. Are you trying to force me to admit that democracy in USA is a sham?

[EDIT:] Sorry, it's clear to me now that this is what you intended with your whole "how few is few?" routine. Clearly you don't consider it "oligarchy" when 51% of votes are used as toilet paper.

Re: A Sick Giant

#137

Post by AnimalMuppet »

jessaustin wrote: post #136
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (Your back-and-forth about "few" vs "some" vs "1%" or whatever just proves the point about oligarchy.) I don't think that it proves any such thing, except apparently in your mind. Nor do I think that I was going "back and forth" between "the few" and "some". The 1%, perhaps, if you accept Warren's plan as targeting them. By the way, this oligarchy that you think rule - are they more or fewer than the 1%? I think th…

Well, they haven't assassinated him yet... you seem sort of eager to shit on my hope. The last three presidents ran for office promising no more stupid foreign wars. Are you trying to force me to admit that democracy in USA is a sham? [EDIT:] Sorry, it's clear to me now that this is what you intended with your whole "how few is few?" routine. Clearly you don't consider it "oligarchy" when 51% of votes are used as toi…

I deny you the right to put words in my mouth. Please stop misrepresenting my position and my words, trying to make it sound like they support your ideas. They don't.

Re: A Sick Giant

#138

Post by harimau777 »

0x8BADF00D wrote: post #129
robbrown451 wrote: post #47

He makes plenty of good points, but completely fails to make mention of how plurality voting (also known as "first past the post") results in two dominant parties, rather than electing people who represent the preference of the median voter. This is known as Duverger's Law, and I would argue it is about 90% responsible for everything he speaks of. Voting systems that don't do this exist. Approval voting is one of the…

There are some interesting voting systems out there, including quadratic voting, that used market based mechanisms. Maybe something more useful would be something like a prediction market where people can pay to express a preference for a particular policy decision. Everyone would receive an amount of credits depending on the amount of property they own (not necessarily land, but some abstract notion of property).

It seems to me that would favor those with more property at the expense of those with less which would be unjust. Am I misunderstanding?
Post reply on HN