Just don't go all the way in the other direction. In France where I live, many people believe a lot of sectors of the economy should be public, and that causes a lot of issues. I think there is a...
Just don't go all the way in the other direction. In France where I live, many people believe a lot of sectors of the economy should be public, and that causes a lot of issues. I think there is a reasonable middle ground to find, and that compromise has to be found on a case by case basis. Blanket statements such as "free markets 4ever" or "greedy corporations should take their hands off public service" are completely useless stances.
Private sector competition and incentives with public sector oversight and accountability seems like the ideal way to go as a general rule of thumb. Monopolies end up not really being a problem...
Private sector competition and incentives with public sector oversight and accountability seems like the ideal way to go as a general rule of thumb. Monopolies end up not really being a problem and could be more easily broken up, the lack of complete autonomy mitigates skirting around laws and regulations, and the competition and incentives encourages innovation.
Of course, this all assumes that we don't have politicians who aren't enthusiastically fellating corporate donors and allowing regulatory capture to run rampant. There would definitely be details that would need ironing out. Even then, no solution will end up being perfect because all solutions hit the limitation of the assumption that our government will respect the laws and regulations that are supposed to punish them for wrongdoings.
"Private sector competition and incentives with public sector oversight and accountability seems like the ideal way to go as a general rule of thumb." - that's what happened with rail...
"Private sector competition and incentives with public sector oversight and accountability seems like the ideal way to go as a general rule of thumb." - that's what happened with rail privatization in the UK in the 1990s, with decidedly mixed results. Very often public sector oversight of a "natural monopoly" that everyone needs - like rail/road or energy infrastructure - mean that when the private company cuts corners and screws up the taxpayer has to end up paying anyway, and you have a de facto nationalized industry but where the private owners reap the profits (after paying laughable fines).
I forgot to point out something that covers that particular point: If you have something that is generally considered a public need, then it shouldn't be in the private sector at all....
I forgot to point out something that covers that particular point: If you have something that is generally considered a public need, then it shouldn't be in the private sector at all. Infrastructure would be considered a public need, so it should be managed publicly.
New Internationalist describe themselves as New Internationalist is a leading independent media organization dedicated to socially conscious journalism and publishing. We are proud to be a...
They're regarded as left leaning, but I wouldn't call them a socialist publication myself. Morning Star or Socialist Worker they are not. They're far more thoughtful than those two publications.
I never argued that though. I was trying to prompt a more considered response from @savannajeff though. I'd have enjoyed reading anything he'd provided that countered the article I posted.
I never argued that though. I was trying to prompt a more considered response from @savannajeff though. I'd have enjoyed reading anything he'd provided that countered the article I posted.
I agree that knowing about whose perspective some views are coming from is important. That's why you should also have in mind that /u/Savannajeff is a neoliberal who often presents his ideology as...
I agree that knowing about whose perspective some views are coming from is important. That's why you should also have in mind that /u/Savannajeff is a neoliberal who often presents his ideology as science on reddit, though usually not in such a lazy way as in this thread.
I don’t get it either for what it’s worth. Your initial comment was innocuous. I don’t understand why people have gotten their panties in a bunch over this.
I don’t get it either for what it’s worth. Your initial comment was innocuous. I don’t understand why people have gotten their panties in a bunch over this.
It was basically an ad hominem attack: rather than addressing any of the issues raised in the article/blog/opinion piece/whatever, SavannaJeff merely tried to discredit the source. That doesn't...
It was basically an ad hominem attack: rather than addressing any of the issues raised in the article/blog/opinion piece/whatever, SavannaJeff merely tried to discredit the source. That doesn't jibe well with a lot of people's ideals for this site as a home for high-quality discussion.
If someone posts an article from the daily mail or national enquirer I would have done the same thing. Ad hominem wouldn’t really apply under those circumstances would it? I understand the...
If someone posts an article from the daily mail or national enquirer I would have done the same thing. Ad hominem wouldn’t really apply under those circumstances would it? I understand the socialist aspect is still a touchy subject but was what s/he said blatantly incorrect?
Yes, it would. The defintion of ad hominem is an attack "directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining". In this case, rather than attacking the person, you'd be...
Ad hominem wouldn’t really apply under those circumstances would it?
If there's a problem with the argument, address the argument itself. Don't dismiss it merely because it came from a website you don't like or approve of.
Or you could simply not comment at all if you think it's so bad it's not worth engaging with.
At a certain point, using a particular source says more about the person who used it than what the source said. It’s baffling that I mentioned the national enquirer and you didn’t even flinch....
At a certain point, using a particular source says more about the person who used it than what the source said.
It’s baffling that I mentioned the national enquirer and you didn’t even flinch. “Yup that’s ad hominem!”
That’s.... yeah. I don’t even know what to say. I know you compared yourself to the Socratic method earlier. I would argue that you’re closer to the crux of the paradox of acceptance.
Again, you're making it about the person presenting the argument rather than about the argument itself. I don't really know what the "national enquirer" is, but the principle applies to all...
At a certain point, using a particular source says more about the person who used it than what the source said.
Again, you're making it about the person presenting the argument rather than about the argument itself.
It’s baffling that I mentioned the national enquirer and you didn’t even flinch. “Yup that’s ad hominem!”
I don't really know what the "national enquirer" is, but the principle applies to all arguments and sources. If you're discrediting the source rather than addressing the argument, you're on the wrong track.
Anyway, I think there's enough derailing here already. I've done my bit, so I'm moving on. Feel free to have the last word if you want!
You don’t know what the national enquirer is but that’s the hill you’re unironically choosing to die on. I hope block user gets instituted soon. You clearly have nothing of value to add to any...
You don’t know what the national enquirer is but that’s the hill you’re unironically choosing to die on. I hope block user gets instituted soon. You clearly have nothing of value to add to any discussion whatsoever.
I'm starting to feel that way about a few people on this site. Maybe the people I'm thinking of will be able to contribute more meaningfully in the future though, so I hope a "block user" feature...
You clearly have nothing of value to add to any discussion whatsoever.
I'm starting to feel that way about a few people on this site. Maybe the people I'm thinking of will be able to contribute more meaningfully in the future though, so I hope a "block user" feature is some way off.
In principle, I agree a "block user" function is undesirable. Pragmatically though, if Tildes grows to say 100k+ users, there may be someone you find so odious you just don't want to have to deal...
In principle, I agree a "block user" function is undesirable.
Pragmatically though, if Tildes grows to say 100k+ users, there may be someone you find so odious you just don't want to have to deal with them.
the national enquirer is pretty much the single least credible publication to ever exist. almost everything they publish is inflammatory, blatantly false, and completely without substantial...
I don't really know what the "national enquirer" is
the national enquirer is pretty much the single least credible publication to ever exist. almost everything they publish is inflammatory, blatantly false, and completely without substantial backing.
but the principle applies to all arguments and sources. If you're discrediting the source rather than addressing the argument, you're on the wrong track.
I disagree. while I agree on an academic level, this isn't an academic website. on a matter of pure practicality, I'm not going to argue the merits of any point of view which cites the national enquirer as its sole source because it's firmly established a pattern of behavior that makes it not worth considering.
If a viewpoint is worth considering you will definitely be able to find a better source than the national enquirer to support that viewpoint. the use of it as your sole backing is basically signaling "the only thing I could find to support my point is a bunch of known, well established liars".
again, as a matter of practicality, I'm not going to bother. why should I spend hours of my life typing out a response to the national enquirer? there's literally no point. If I brought the...
again, as a matter of practicality, I'm not going to bother. why should I spend hours of my life typing out a response to the national enquirer? there's literally no point.
If I brought the argument "The Kardashians are aliens because I looked through their garbage and didn't find any toilet paper rolls", is that really anything worth responding to or considering? it's just so blatantly wrong and illogical that it would be, literally, a waste of your time to respond.
edit:
like it or not, human beings are not going to be perfectly 100% objective and rational 100% of the time, and nor should they. they should learn to distrust people and publications that repeatedly and consistently lie to them.
Of course. But the person who started this comment thread didn't think it was a waste of time to respond. They did respond: by attempting to discredit the source. If it's not worth someone's time...
Of course. But the person who started this comment thread didn't think it was a waste of time to respond. They did respond: by attempting to discredit the source.
If it's not worth someone's time to respond to a totally pointless article, then it's not worth their time to discredit the source, either. They can just scroll on by.
I think that what they were attempting to contribute was the information that the source was probably not credible and that it would be better to find an alternate source with more backing. For...
I think that what they were attempting to contribute was the information that the source was probably not credible and that it would be better to find an alternate source with more backing.
For example, I took the time to tell you why the national enquirer is regarded as less credible than toilet paper, so now you'll probably look at their articles with more scrutiny than you normally would. maybe you'll still read a couple the first few times, but you'll likely come to agree with me that you won't be reading any more from them.
people tend to just kinda believe what they read in articles if it supports what they believe in. I think that the warning that a source should be viewed with extra scrutiny is useful.
I think it might be helpful for you to double check what they actually wrote:
I wouldn't really take this at face value, coming from a rather well known socialist magazine. It's an editorial, not economic research.
which is exactly what you've just agreed is reasonable; nobody should take the national enquirer at face value because they are known liars, and while I'm unfamiliar with the publication op posted, I appreciate the warning to give the article more scrutiny due to it being a heavily biased source.
See... I focussed on a different part of that comment: "coming from a rather well known socialist magazine". They're not saying the article is dodgy because it's coming from a publication known...
See... I focussed on a different part of that comment: "coming from a rather well known socialist magazine". They're not saying the article is dodgy because it's coming from a publication known for articles that are "blatantly false, and completely without substantial backing". They're saying the article is dodgy because it comes from a socialist magazine, as if the fact that it's socialist is somehow enough to discredit it. If someone wrote about an article in the Financial Times, "I wouldn't really take this at face value, coming from a rather well-known capitalist magazine," would you take that dismissal seriously? Or would you expect the dismissal to be based on something a bit more substantial than that?
EDIT: Also, why does every article have to be impartial? It can be just as educational to read a biassed point of view, knowing that it is biassed, just to understand how people with different points of view than oneself think. As the old Chinese philosopher-general Sun Tzu wrote, “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.” If you want to argue against a point of view, you must first understand it.
I think part of my issue is that I kindof mentally filter out political toss-outs like "socialist", "alt right", "liberal", etc as noise. the statement they made might as well have been: and it's...
I think part of my issue is that I kindof mentally filter out political toss-outs like "socialist", "alt right", "liberal", etc as noise. the statement they made might as well have been:
I wouldn't really take this at face value, coming from a rather well known alt-right magazine. It's an editorial, not economic research.
and it's got the same meaning to me:
this publication is heavily political. read with skepticism
As illustrated by the current Sainsbury boss Mike Coupe getting a £1.1 million pay rise whilst stripping staff of employee benefits, such as paid breaks and bonus.
One area where the private sector does manage to be efficient is in reducing labour costs and shedding jobs.
If both sides assume that the operation will be run at close to the same efficiency levels by either the private or pyblic sectors, the real difference is do we want 2 (or 10) stable, well paid...
If both sides assume that the operation will be run at close to the same efficiency levels by either the private or pyblic sectors, the real difference is do we want 2 (or 10) stable, well paid "working class" jobs or 1 well paid executive busisnessman?
My personal preference would be to have several better paid working jobs though I suppose I'm a bit biased as I've mainly worked non-skilled jobs in the past.
My personal preference would be to have several better paid working jobs though I suppose I'm a bit biased as I've mainly worked non-skilled jobs in the past.
Just don't go all the way in the other direction. In France where I live, many people believe a lot of sectors of the economy should be public, and that causes a lot of issues. I think there is a reasonable middle ground to find, and that compromise has to be found on a case by case basis. Blanket statements such as "free markets 4ever" or "greedy corporations should take their hands off public service" are completely useless stances.
Private sector competition and incentives with public sector oversight and accountability seems like the ideal way to go as a general rule of thumb. Monopolies end up not really being a problem and could be more easily broken up, the lack of complete autonomy mitigates skirting around laws and regulations, and the competition and incentives encourages innovation.
Of course, this all assumes that we don't have politicians who aren't enthusiastically fellating corporate donors and allowing regulatory capture to run rampant. There would definitely be details that would need ironing out. Even then, no solution will end up being perfect because all solutions hit the limitation of the assumption that our government will respect the laws and regulations that are supposed to punish them for wrongdoings.
"Private sector competition and incentives with public sector oversight and accountability seems like the ideal way to go as a general rule of thumb." - that's what happened with rail privatization in the UK in the 1990s, with decidedly mixed results. Very often public sector oversight of a "natural monopoly" that everyone needs - like rail/road or energy infrastructure - mean that when the private company cuts corners and screws up the taxpayer has to end up paying anyway, and you have a de facto nationalized industry but where the private owners reap the profits (after paying laughable fines).
I forgot to point out something that covers that particular point: If you have something that is generally considered a public need, then it shouldn't be in the private sector at all. Infrastructure would be considered a public need, so it should be managed publicly.
How about critiquing the content of the piece, instead of trying to negate it because of where it was published.
This reply should be quoted in the FAQ for newbies about comment content.
Notice that it's in ~misc, not ~science. No one is claiming it's a peer reviewed scientific research paper.
New Internationalist describe themselves as New Internationalist is a leading independent media organization dedicated to socially conscious journalism and publishing. We are proud to be a multi-stakeholder co-operative co-owned by our workers and over 3,600 investors.
They're regarded as left leaning, but I wouldn't call them a socialist publication myself. Morning Star or Socialist Worker they are not. They're far more thoughtful than those two publications.
I never argued that though. I was trying to prompt a more considered response from @savannajeff though. I'd have enjoyed reading anything he'd provided that countered the article I posted.
I agree that knowing about whose perspective some views are coming from is important. That's why you should also have in mind that /u/Savannajeff is a neoliberal who often presents his ideology as science on reddit, though usually not in such a lazy way as in this thread.
I don’t get it either for what it’s worth. Your initial comment was innocuous. I don’t understand why people have gotten their panties in a bunch over this.
It was basically an ad hominem attack: rather than addressing any of the issues raised in the article/blog/opinion piece/whatever, SavannaJeff merely tried to discredit the source. That doesn't jibe well with a lot of people's ideals for this site as a home for high-quality discussion.
If someone posts an article from the daily mail or national enquirer I would have done the same thing. Ad hominem wouldn’t really apply under those circumstances would it? I understand the socialist aspect is still a touchy subject but was what s/he said blatantly incorrect?
Yes, it would. The defintion of ad hominem is an attack "directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining". In this case, rather than attacking the person, you'd be attacking the source but, either way, it's the same fallacious approach. As such, it's not really high-quality discussion... is it?
If there's a problem with the argument, address the argument itself. Don't dismiss it merely because it came from a website you don't like or approve of.
Or you could simply not comment at all if you think it's so bad it's not worth engaging with.
At a certain point, using a particular source says more about the person who used it than what the source said.
It’s baffling that I mentioned the national enquirer and you didn’t even flinch. “Yup that’s ad hominem!”
That’s.... yeah. I don’t even know what to say. I know you compared yourself to the Socratic method earlier. I would argue that you’re closer to the crux of the paradox of acceptance.
Again, you're making it about the person presenting the argument rather than about the argument itself.
I don't really know what the "national enquirer" is, but the principle applies to all arguments and sources. If you're discrediting the source rather than addressing the argument, you're on the wrong track.
Anyway, I think there's enough derailing here already. I've done my bit, so I'm moving on. Feel free to have the last word if you want!
You don’t know what the national enquirer is but that’s the hill you’re unironically choosing to die on. I hope block user gets instituted soon. You clearly have nothing of value to add to any discussion whatsoever.
I'm starting to feel that way about a few people on this site. Maybe the people I'm thinking of will be able to contribute more meaningfully in the future though, so I hope a "block user" feature is some way off.
In principle, I agree a "block user" function is undesirable.
Pragmatically though, if Tildes grows to say 100k+ users, there may be someone you find so odious you just don't want to have to deal with them.
the national enquirer is pretty much the single least credible publication to ever exist. almost everything they publish is inflammatory, blatantly false, and completely without substantial backing.
I disagree. while I agree on an academic level, this isn't an academic website. on a matter of pure practicality, I'm not going to argue the merits of any point of view which cites the national enquirer as its sole source because it's firmly established a pattern of behavior that makes it not worth considering.
If a viewpoint is worth considering you will definitely be able to find a better source than the national enquirer to support that viewpoint. the use of it as your sole backing is basically signaling "the only thing I could find to support my point is a bunch of known, well established liars".
In that case, it should be quite easy to demolish any arguments made by such a publication, without having to resort to the ad hominem tactic.
again, as a matter of practicality, I'm not going to bother. why should I spend hours of my life typing out a response to the national enquirer? there's literally no point.
If I brought the argument "The Kardashians are aliens because I looked through their garbage and didn't find any toilet paper rolls", is that really anything worth responding to or considering? it's just so blatantly wrong and illogical that it would be, literally, a waste of your time to respond.
edit:
like it or not, human beings are not going to be perfectly 100% objective and rational 100% of the time, and nor should they. they should learn to distrust people and publications that repeatedly and consistently lie to them.
Of course. But the person who started this comment thread didn't think it was a waste of time to respond. They did respond: by attempting to discredit the source.
If it's not worth someone's time to respond to a totally pointless article, then it's not worth their time to discredit the source, either. They can just scroll on by.
I think that what they were attempting to contribute was the information that the source was probably not credible and that it would be better to find an alternate source with more backing.
For example, I took the time to tell you why the national enquirer is regarded as less credible than toilet paper, so now you'll probably look at their articles with more scrutiny than you normally would. maybe you'll still read a couple the first few times, but you'll likely come to agree with me that you won't be reading any more from them.
people tend to just kinda believe what they read in articles if it supports what they believe in. I think that the warning that a source should be viewed with extra scrutiny is useful.
I think it might be helpful for you to double check what they actually wrote:
which is exactly what you've just agreed is reasonable; nobody should take the national enquirer at face value because they are known liars, and while I'm unfamiliar with the publication op posted, I appreciate the warning to give the article more scrutiny due to it being a heavily biased source.
See... I focussed on a different part of that comment: "coming from a rather well known socialist magazine". They're not saying the article is dodgy because it's coming from a publication known for articles that are "blatantly false, and completely without substantial backing". They're saying the article is dodgy because it comes from a socialist magazine, as if the fact that it's socialist is somehow enough to discredit it. If someone wrote about an article in the Financial Times, "I wouldn't really take this at face value, coming from a rather well-known capitalist magazine," would you take that dismissal seriously? Or would you expect the dismissal to be based on something a bit more substantial than that?
EDIT: Also, why does every article have to be impartial? It can be just as educational to read a biassed point of view, knowing that it is biassed, just to understand how people with different points of view than oneself think. As the old Chinese philosopher-general Sun Tzu wrote, “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.” If you want to argue against a point of view, you must first understand it.
I think part of my issue is that I kindof mentally filter out political toss-outs like "socialist", "alt right", "liberal", etc as noise. the statement they made might as well have been:
and it's got the same meaning to me:
Why is it a bullshit comment? It's very factual.
As illustrated by the current Sainsbury boss Mike Coupe getting a £1.1 million pay rise whilst stripping staff of employee benefits, such as paid breaks and bonus.
If both sides assume that the operation will be run at close to the same efficiency levels by either the private or pyblic sectors, the real difference is do we want 2 (or 10) stable, well paid "working class" jobs or 1 well paid executive busisnessman?
My personal preference would be to have several better paid working jobs though I suppose I'm a bit biased as I've mainly worked non-skilled jobs in the past.