Half-baked Republican Presidential Fruitcakes (and fellow confections)

silverharp

KomradeBishop wrote: »

It's not about picking winners, it's about filtering money into the economy through public spending, including wages (while doing something productive with e.g. public infrastructure, at the same time), and letting the private economy get on with investing and creating the necessary value and such - as long as the economy is growing (effectively 'creating value', though I don't really like that way of framing it), without inflation getting beyond target, government is doing it right.

With the right policies, you can keep Full Employment this way, almost all of the time - even after a huge recession hits (you just invest in huge public capital spending, such as the ports/airports/motorways you mention - among way more - until the private sector picks up again, and takes back the workers) - all while staying within inflation targets.

Once a person 'groks' this, and gets a feel for how it works, it makes the way economies are run today, look outdated by more than a century.
Indeed, this is pretty much how things were done ~85 years ago - just funded differently - and it worked fantastically; the way economies are run today, really is archaic and depressingly backwards - we're still kind of in a 'mini-dark-age' when it comes to economic thought and practice.

its not a computer game, there is always an opportunity cost in doing anything , create gov jobs by increasing taxes and private sector jobs get lost. the only possible keynesian type approach that makes sense is that the gov. builds up a war chest in good periods and does infrastructural investment during a slump. To my mind it would be better if governments weren't allowed borrow at all unless its something like bonds for a motorway that will be funded by tolls.
Moral hazard comes into play, the very act of creating a "no lose" scenario would be to build up a huge bubble and mal investment in something. Cycles are part of the market, It's not possible to have any country grow at 2% for a hundred years with full employment.

KomradeBishop

Christy42 wrote: »

It all depends on whether or not you can keep growth of the economy going at a certain rate. That will always be a game of lessening returns so you are going to hit that pretty quickly even if you invest wisely. You are also inflating the risk of not predicting a downturn as printing too much just as it hits would be the same as Germany/Zimbabwe.

I also find how convinced you are by a theory with no evidence backing it up. I can see advocating for a new way of doing things but you seem 100% convinced which is impossible.

As I said I remain open to evidence but the logic of the market makes your position seem unlikely from where I am sitting.

It doesn't depend on keeping growth going at a certain rate though, because you just stop printing when you hit inflation targets.

Yes, you hit the point of lessening returns very quickly, but that point of lessening returns is: Full employment. That's when you reign back the spending - and keeping economies at Full Employment is hugely beneficial.

People usually have the misconception, that this policy means spending endlessly - it doesn't, it means spending until you hit your inflation target (which is about the same time as you reach Full Employment).

The evidence for this already exists - it's what Germany did leading up to WWII:
https://fixingtheeconomists.wordpress.com/2013/12/11/hjalmar-schacht-mefo-bills-and-the-restoration-of-the-german-economy-1933-1939/

This was the result - look at the huge economic growth they had, while staying within decent inflation levels, when they started this in 1933:

KomradeBishop

silverharp wrote: »

its not a computer game, there is always an opportunity cost in doing anything , create gov jobs by increasing taxes and private sector jobs get lost. the only possible keynesian type approach that makes sense is that the gov. builds up a war chest in good periods and does infrastructural investment during a slump. To my mind it would be better if governments weren't allowed borrow at all unless its something like bonds for a motorway that will be funded by tolls.
Moral hazard comes into play, the very act of creating a "no lose" scenario would be to build up a huge bubble and mal investment in something. Cycles are part of the market, It's not possible to have any country grow at 2% for a hundred years with full employment.

It's pretty much exactly a case of infrastructural investment during a slump - except governments don't need to build up a 'war chest' of money when they have a fiat currency they control. Since those policies would not be funded through taxation, they don't remove any private sector jobs - and those policies only employ people the private sector has left unemployed.


The problem with discussing this (and this is something I experience with everyone I discuss this with), is that your posts are seeking a 'gotcha' reason for why the policy won't work - but every 'gotcha' point brought up, is easily shown to not apply, when it's thought-out a little more (e.g. like above, you don't need to fund something with taxes, if you're funding it with printed money).

What happens then, is that instead of the posters I reply to, actually considering the policy as a real possibility and carefully thinking through these points, it just ends up becoming a circular debate, where I refute a lot of 'gotcha' points, which have relatively easy explanations, round and round again.

In other words, it's like posters assume the policy is not a serious one, so they don't try to seriously consider how it can actually work - only spend a very short amount of time, trying to find a quick 'gotcha' argument, without seeing if it actually does refute what is said.

I understand that reluctance to consider the policy seriously, but it's worth thinking it through properly. I've spent probably approaching ~5 years going through almost every variation of argument around this topic, and learning more about it, so believe me when I say that it's extremely hard to refute (indeed, I have never seen it refuted that's why I put so much stock in it) - and needs a lot of thought put in, if trying to.

silverharp

KomradeBishop wrote: »

It's pretty much exactly a case of infrastructural investment during a slump - except governments don't need to build up a 'war chest' of money when they have a fiat currency they control. Since those policies would not be funded through taxation, they don't remove any private sector jobs - and those policies only employ people the private sector has left unemployed.


The problem with discussing this (and this is something I experience with everyone I discuss this with), is that your posts are seeking a 'gotcha' reason for why the policy won't work - but every 'gotcha' point brought up, is easily shown to not apply, when it's thought-out a little more (e.g. like above, you don't need to fund something with taxes, if you're funding it with printed money).

What happens then, is that instead of the posters I reply to, actually considering the policy as a real possibility and carefully thinking through these points, it just ends up becoming a circular debate, where I refute a lot of 'gotcha' points, which have relatively easy explanations, round and round again.

In other words, it's like posters assume the policy is not a serious one, so they don't try to seriously consider how it can actually work - only spend a very short amount of time, trying to find a quick 'gotcha' argument, without seeing if it actually does refute what is said.

I understand that reluctance to consider the policy seriously, but it's worth thinking it through properly. I've spent probably approaching ~5 years going through almost every variation of argument around this topic, and learning more about it, so believe me when I say that it's extremely hard to refute (indeed, I have never seen it refuted that's why I put so much stock in it) - and needs a lot of thought put in, if trying to.

thats just clipping money and the value of it will go down. If you look into Roman history the decline in the empire coincided with the decline in the silver content of money. I dont imagine you would have saved the empire by introducing them to your daft ideas on how to plug a hole
the idea of printing resources into existence is a nonsense

KomradeBishop

There is no such thing as clipping money, when money is based on fiat - you can only 'clip money', when your currency is based on a commodity - e.g. clipping/shaving gold coins, to create new gold coins from the shavings.

Modern currencies are fiat currencies - they are all just printed money - they do not work like commodity currencies.

What you are talking about, is a zero-sum game, where the 'economic pie' is of fixed size, so when you introduce new money, each unit of currency becomes a smaller portion of the existing 'pie'.

I already explained earlier, that when you use newly created money to 'grow the economic pie', each unit of currency becomes a new portion of the 'pie', not just a smaller portion of the existing pie - in this case, it is not a zero-sum game, the economy grows.

This is not printing resources into existence either, it is combining existing idle resources, with idle/unemployed labour, to grow the economy - when a lack of money, was preventing this from happening before.

Anyway, I can see that you are not open to debating this, only in repeating the same claims of devaluation (just put in different words each time - in the above case, as 'clipping'), even though I have already refuted that several times - so I will leave it there.

silverharp

KomradeBishop wrote: »

There is no such thing as clipping money, when money is based on fiat - you can only 'clip money', when your currency is based on a commodity - e.g. clipping/shaving gold coins, to create new gold coins from the shavings.

Modern currencies are fiat currencies - they are all just printed money - they do not work like commodity currencies.

What you are talking about, is a zero-sum game, where the 'economic pie' is of fixed size, so when you introduce new money, each unit of currency becomes a smaller portion of the existing 'pie'.

I already explained earlier, that when you use newly created money to 'grow the economic pie', each unit of currency becomes a new portion of the 'pie', not just a smaller portion of the existing pie - in this case, it is not a zero-sum game, the economy grows.

This is not printing resources into existence either, it is combining existing idle resources, with idle/unemployed labour, to grow the economy - when a lack of money, was preventing this from happening before.

Anyway, I can see that you are not open to debating this, only in repeating the same claims of devaluation (just put in different words each time - in the above case, as 'clipping'), even though I have already refuted that several times - so I will leave it there.

if every country does it at the same time its pure money inflation and bubble creating. "idle resources" is a bit non descript, its far more complicated than that there are plenty of resources that are constrained and then if you do pull them together in particular ways they have to be maintained so it creates a cost and the befits must outweigh this cost. Look at somewhere like North Korea that pours all its seed corn into military spending or building a flashy airport that no one uses. These are mal investments because there is no possible return on them yet an ongoing drain on their budgets, buy food or repair an airport that no one uses?

recedite

silverharp wrote: »

if every country does it at the same time its pure money inflation and bubble creating. "idle resources" is a bit non descript...

Its not "bubble creating" because as the comrade has been repeating ad nauseum in his/her posts, the money creation stops when inflation targets are reached.
Lets take this simplistic example of housing; A society has homeless people, and it also has unemployed people. Some of them are tradesmen, or could be trained up as tradesmen.

In the current system the ECB decides on a QE policy and makes money available to the banks. The banks lend to ordinary people, and the price of houses goes up. At this stage the hope is that developers will build more houses, but they may decide to sit on their land bank instead and just spend the extra profit on yachts and helicopters. House prices go up. People are paying interest on huge mortgages to the banks, for the loan of money which the banks got for nothing from the ECB. People stop consumer spending because they owe so much. Its a bad result all round.

In the comrade's system, the state embarks on a program of new building. Maybe build a whole new well-designed town somewhere. Maybe pay the developers to build it, just to ensure maximum efficiency. The unemployed have jobs, the homeless have houses, and there is no house price inflation.
The extra town with all these working people paying taxes means the pie is now bigger, so the currency is still worth the same even though more slices are in circulation. The banks are now left out of the loop, but maybe the bankers could be retrained as carpenters :pac:

The other point is that the state should control its own currency. In the common currency example above, the ECB only starts the QE when Germany needs a stimulus, which is not necessarily any good for Ireland. So as well as being ineffective, it is also badly timed. Unless of course you're in Germany.

KomradeBishop

Nice to see someone who 'gets' this it's rare enough.

MrPudding

oscarBravo wrote: »

And unless you've carefully buried your head under a large rock made of undisguised islamophobia, you'll know that the number of shootings in the USA carried out by Islamic fundamentalists has been dwarfed, by several orders of magnitude, by the number of shootings carried out by non-Muslims toddlers.

If think this makes the point even better.

MrP

recedite

recedite wrote: »

Its not "bubble creating" because as the comrade has been repeating ad nauseum in his/her posts, the money creation stops when inflation targets are reached...

What happens then?

Does inflation just stay at that level?

Logical to suggest that once a market in FX has seen a government switch on the taps to fund spending, which devalues their holdings in that currency, they'll undoubtedly factor this in to all decisions regarding whether or not to hold this currency in the future. If the market must factor the risk of the monetary financing continuing, that does what to the currency?

If the currency devalues due to the printing presses being on, what does that do to the cost of imports?

What does that entail for the GDP Growth aspects of the country?

Knock on effect on those inflation targets?

Knock on effect of encouraging the situation which results in the Govt having to turn the taps on again?

It's turtles all the way, but sure there's not much point explaining it ad naseum to Komrade, who was asked to stop posting the nonsense in the Economics and Politics forums and is now spreading the nonsense outwards.

etc. etc. etc.

silverharp

recedite wrote: »

Its not "bubble creating" because as the comrade has been repeating ad nauseum in his/her posts, the money creation stops when inflation targets are reached.
Lets take this simplistic example of housing; A society has homeless people, and it also has unemployed people. Some of them are tradesmen, or could be trained up as tradesmen.

In the current system the ECB decides on a QE policy and makes money available to the banks. The banks lend to ordinary people, and the price of houses goes up. At this stage the hope is that developers will build more houses, but they may decide to sit on their land bank instead and just spend the extra profit on yachts and helicopters. House prices go up. People are paying interest on huge mortgages to the banks, for the loan of money which the banks got for nothing from the ECB. People stop consumer spending because they owe so much. Its a bad result all round.

In the comrade's system, the state embarks on a program of new building. Maybe build a whole new well-designed town somewhere. Maybe pay the developers to build it, just to ensure maximum efficiency. The unemployed have jobs, the homeless have houses, and there is no house price inflation.
The extra town with all these working people paying taxes means the pie is now bigger, so the currency is still worth the same even though more slices are in circulation. The banks are now left out of the loop, but maybe the bankers could be retrained as carpenters :pac:

The other point is that the state should control its own currency. In the common currency example above, the ECB only starts the QE when Germany needs a stimulus, which is not necessarily any good for Ireland. So as well as being ineffective, it is also badly timed. Unless of course you're in Germany.

Leaving aside the Euro which is a pox, you mean like China? they have built whole cities that have never been lived in. the problem is that interest rates are fixed and infinite credit can be pulled down at that managed rate which distorts how savers and borrowers interact with each other. In a recession the private economy tends to want less credit because it cant see a profitable way of using it.
if your logic is sound then Zimbabwe would start building Metros and football stadiums and watch the money multiply around the economy. A government simply isnt in the business of selling goods and services, you cant trade civil servants or the Irish language for oil, you have to be able to trade "google jobs" for oil or food or tradable services.

KomradeBishop

Deleted User wrote: »

What happens then?

Does inflation just stay at that level?

Logical to suggest that once a market in FX has seen a government switch on the taps to fund spending, which devalues their holdings in that currency, they'll undoubtedly factor this in to all decisions regarding whether or not to hold this currency in the future. If the market must factor the risk of the monetary financing continuing, that does what to the currency?

If the currency devalues due to the printing presses being on, what does that do to the cost of imports?

What does that entail for the GDP Growth aspects of the country?

Knock on effect on those inflation targets?

Knock on effect of encouraging the situation which results in the Govt having to turn the taps on again?

It's turtles all the way, but sure there's not much point explaining it ad naseum to Komrade, who was asked to stop posting the nonsense in the Economics and Politics forums and is now spreading the nonsense outwards.

etc. etc. etc.

I'm banned from Politics (the discussion in this thread is a banned subject entirely, on Politics - despite mods protestations otherwise, they still explicitly agreed to unban if I censored this topic entirely), and it's also a banned discussion on Economics (the mod on that forum, explicitly said he wanted to restrict discussion there to mainstream economic views) - and the one politics-related forum where it was 'safe' to discuss, which used to be in my sig, is now gone.

I already explained that I'm not going to respond to your arguments further in this thread - your rush to try and personalize this, shows why I won't.

Failing to stop responding to posters in the past, who would personalize these discussions and drag the quality of debate down, is - ironically - why I got banned elsewhere, because that reduction in the quality of debate, got blamed on me, not the other posters.

People should be able to see even just by the small exchange in this thread, how this is an extremely controversial and inflammatory topic of discussion - it is the single most controversial topic in all of political/economic discussion, in my view - and that has led to it becoming an (effectively) banned topic on parts of Boards, because of the degenerate quality of discussion it can quickly lead to.

I'd appreciate you not responding to me, or dragging me into replying to you in the future - as I explicitly don't want to reply to you, given how that leads to me being locked into unproductive debate. When you misrepresent me as you have above, that forces me into replying - I don't want that.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

You have an utterly bizarre way of debating.

Steps:

• Fly a flag
• get called on it
• attack the person who is calling you to reason
• Disappear off into the night on some high horse
• Return again to another thread months later to repeat the cycle.

Perplexing stuff.

.

KingBrian2

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Nice to see someone who 'gets' this it's rare enough.

By getting this you mean confirming your own talking points. Namely ECB policy is skewed to benefit Germany which is an overstatement of the facts. it was ECB policy which had a very accommodating approach to certain European countries. The market would be far harsher on these economies than being apart of the monetary system.

Take your average non ECB economy what keeps them in such a good position is a strong work ethic in places like Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland, Britain, and Czech Republic as well as good environmental conditions. The idea that one socializes the debt and allows the ECB machinery to subsidize countries is an excuse when it is ultimately economies that have to cut back on spending and allow their own banks to lend to business and the economy at large.

recedite

Deleted User wrote: »

What happens then?
Does inflation just stay at that level?

Yes. But its constantly monitored.

Deleted User wrote: »

Logical to suggest that once a market in FX has seen a government switch on the taps to fund spending, which devalues their holdings in that currency, they'll undoubtedly factor this in to all decisions regarding whether or not to hold this currency in the future. If the market must factor the risk of the monetary financing continuing, that does what to the currency?

If the currency devalues due to the printing presses being on, what does that do to the cost of imports?

What does that entail for the GDP Growth aspects of the country?

Knock on effect on those inflation targets?

Knock on effect of encouraging the situation which results in the Govt having to turn the taps on again?

It's turtles all the way, but sure there's not much point explaining it ad naseum to Komrade, who was asked to stop posting the nonsense in the Economics and Politics forums and is now spreading the nonsense outwards.
etc. etc. etc.

Your mistake is in thinking that the state must bow to the will of currency speculators, and not the other way round. These are just the parasites of the economic system, like the bankers. They don't create it, they feed off it. Switzerland knows how to teach them a lesson.

recedite

recedite wrote: »

Yes. But its constantly monitored.

So when they switch off the presses, and the inflation continues above and beyond, what do they do now?

recedite wrote: »

Your mistake is in thinking that the state must bow to the will of currency speculators, and not the other way round. These are just the parasites of the economic system, like the bankers. They don't create it, they feed off it. Switzerland knows how to teach them a lesson.

No. Not at all actually. I'm not saying that the state must bow to anyone. I'm asking you to consider the consequences of the policy of monetary financing. Especially the knock-on effects and what it will lead to.

recedite

Deleted User wrote: »

So when they switch off the presses, and the inflation continues above and beyond, what do they do now?

It doesn't continue. There is no reason for it. There are only 2 reasons for inflation;
1. a temporary excess of money supply which can easily be rebalanced if the state is issuing the money, and
2. the existence of banks.
If you borrow €100 from a bank and pay them back at the end of the year €100 plus €4 interest, where does the €4 come from? It has to be introduced into the system as new money. The banks get it free. Its part of their profit, and it causes €4 worth of inflation in that economy.

I'm convinced that nearly all the problems in this world are caused by religion and banks.

Eugene Norman

Christy42 wrote: »

It all depends on whether or not you can keep growth of the economy going at a certain rate. That will always be a game of lessening returns so you are going to hit that pretty quickly even if you invest wisely. You are also inflating the risk of not predicting a downturn as printing too much just as it hits would be the same as Germany/Zimbabwe.

I also find how convinced you are by a theory with no evidence backing it up. I can see advocating for a new way of doing things but you seem 100% convinced which is impossible.

As I said I remain open to evidence but the logic of the market makes your position seem unlikely from where I am sitting.

The evidence is that 1945-1975 produced the best growth in the western economies ever. And wages increased dramatically.

Keynsian economics can be abused though. A surplus in the good times is a good idea.

Eugene Norman

Christy42 wrote: »

Shockingly that isn't meant to convince a Trump supporter. It is trying to figure out why we still have so many people willing to judge people based on race/gender. As it says stopping Trump is the short term solution and it wants to look at the long term solution.

As for the privilege comment no one said being uneducated was a privilege. It most certainly isn't. However all else being equal being an uneducated white male will make your life easier on average (I. E. Across the full population, individual results may vary) than being uneducated and a member of a minority.

That's empirically less true every year in the US, and not true in the UK.

recedite

MrPudding wrote: »

And unless you've carefully buried your head under a large rock made of undisguised islamophobia, you'll know that the number of shootings in the USA carried out by Islamic fundamentalists has been dwarfed, by several orders of magnitude, by the number of shootings carried out by non-Muslims toddlers.

If think this makes the point even better.
MrP

I'm visualising an episode of South Park where the real perpetrators of the 9/11 massacres are tiny ginger toddlers dressed up as arabs. They cross the tarmac walking on stilts and saying "dirka dirka dirka" to each other.
Its all part of a dastardly plan by the Trump-toddlers to frame the innocent jihadists.

KomradeBishop

KingBrian2 wrote: »

By getting this you mean confirming your own talking points. Namely ECB policy is skewed to benefit Germany which is an overstatement of the facts. it was ECB policy which had a very accommodating approach to certain European countries. The market would be far harsher on these economies than being apart of the monetary system.

Take your average non ECB economy what keeps them in such a good position is a strong work ethic in places like Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland, Britain, and Czech Republic as well as good environmental conditions. The idea that one socializes the debt and allows the ECB machinery to subsidize countries is an excuse when it is ultimately economies that have to cut back on spending and allow their own banks to lend to business and the economy at large.

'The Market' only gets to be 'harsh' with economies, because those economies issue government bonds i.e. public debt - whose interest rate markets get to influence.

If they stopped issuing public debt, while at the same time having a national currency they control, markets would have fúck all influence on these national economies - and the democracies these economies are built upon, would be far better off as a result, as they would be far less influenced by the undemocratic forces of 'the market'.


A good work ethic, and 'cut[ting] back on spending', are mutually exclusive.

It is impossible to have Full Employment all of the time (i.e. a good work ethic), unless the government of a country is willing to spend, when the private sector doesn't want all of the workers (i.e. when there is high unemployment) - and especially, when private banks are unable to lend, in sufficient quantity.

What I am talking about, is not socializing debt - it is eliminating public debt entirely, as the out-of-date anachronism that it is.

KomradeBishop

recedite wrote: »

It doesn't continue. There is no reason for it. There are only 2 reasons for inflation;
1. a temporary excess of money supply which can easily be rebalanced if the state is issuing the money, and
2. the existence of banks.
If you borrow €100 from a bank and pay them back at the end of the year €100 plus €4 interest, where does the €4 come from? It has to be introduced into the system as new money. The banks get it free. Its part of their profit, and it causes €4 worth of inflation in that economy.

I'm convinced that nearly all the problems in this world are caused by religion and banks.

Point '2' is something I believed until very recently as well, myself - I discovered though, that I was making a 'stocks vs flows' mistake with that - the economist Steve Keen explains that very well, here (though it's still somewhat complicated/head-wrecking):
http://web.archive.org/web/20160316184643/http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevekeen/2015/03/30/the-principal-and-interest-on-debt-myth-2/#59095cddfeee
(web archive, because the original site blocks ad-blockers)

Nonetheless, banks do still cause excessive inflation, when the restrictions on their loans are very lax - as we saw with the housing/construction market, pre-crisis, which was inflated way out of proportion.

oscarBravo

recedite wrote: »

I'm visualising an episode of South Park where the real perpetrators of the 9/11 massacres are tiny ginger toddlers dressed up as arabs.

That's a fascinating, albeit terrifying, glimpse into your psyche: in order to imagine someone as a killer, you have to mentally picture them as an arab.

Bizarre.

Christy42

Eugene Norman wrote: »

That's empirically less true every year in the US, and not true in the UK.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States

Really. Really.

There is also a thread opened in AH about racism people have seen. It is a sobering read (though obviously anecdotal in nature).

Pretty sure no presidential candidate has linked being white to being a rapist either.

FA Hayek

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's a fascinating, albeit terrifying, glimpse into your psyche: in order to imagine someone as a killer, you have to mentally picture them as an arab.

Bizarre.

Not really what he was saying but it is factual in any case that the 9/11 terrorists were indeed Arabs mostly from Saudi Arabia. Its kinda hard to untangle the two, like trying not to think of German Nazi's when thinking of the Holocaust.

I think some are to a fault trying to find offense and saddle up a moral high horse, which has been noted earlier is one of the reasons, among many that we now have the Donald as the GOP candidate for the White House. Do we have to be so serious all the time?

recedite

KomradeBishop wrote: »

discovered though, that I was making a 'stocks vs flows' mistake with that - the economist Steve Keen explains that very well, here..

Here's a link that works better. TBH I don't fully understand what he is on about, but it seems to be a bit of "creative accounting" which seeks to show that the firms involved are capable of paying back the interest plus the capital to the banks. It is not concerned with where the money for the interest is coming from, or where it is created. It may not be created as part of that particular loan transaction, but it has to be created somewhere else in the system. Therefore it contributes to inflation. And the more profit the banks make, the more inflation they create.
I'd agree with the second comment/response to the blog in the link above, as made by mickeyc.

recedite

FA Hayek wrote: »

.. but it is factual in any case that the 9/11 terrorists were indeed Arabs mostly from Saudi Arabia. ..

Of course that is true, but some around here would have us believe that ordinary American toddlers have caused more murder and mayhem than Islamic jihadists. And if you don't accept that, you are labelled as a racist, just like Trump.
Well, I'm fine with that accusation. Its dirty water off a ducks back

timmyntc

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's a fascinating, albeit terrifying, glimpse into your psyche: in order to imagine someone as a killer, you have to mentally picture them as an arab.

Bizarre.

I think it's blatantly obvious here that he's suggesting babies dressed as arabs were the perpetrators, instead of actual arabs - because of the earlier remark about toddlers killing more US citizens than Arabs have. That suggestion shows no prejudice, nor does it show that in order to imagine someone as a killer he has to picture them as an arab. You're just completely wrong on this one I'm afraid, however your post does lend a fascinating insight into your psyche - you seem very quick to play psychologist and make assumptions about others and how they think, but only when it suits your arguing stance of course

orubiru

oscarBravo wrote: »

And unless you've carefully buried your head under a large rock made of undisguised islamophobia, you'll know that the number of shootings in the USA carried out by Islamic fundamentalists has been dwarfed, by several orders of magnitude, by the number of shootings carried out by non-Muslims.

I don't want to jump on the Islamophobia bandwagon here but wouldn't the motivation behind the shootings be more important than those who carry them out?

Another poster has mentioned that toddlers are responsible for more shootings and it seems like a very valid point.

Most of the shootings by toddlers would be accidental though.

Should we figure out a way to separate the religiously motivated shootings from the gang related shootings and the accidental shootings etc? Or is it enough to just say "well more non-Muslims carry out shootings" and leave it at that?

Should we just point out that those people would have died someday anyway, shrug our shoulders, and move on? Or is it important to understand exactly why the shooter decided to do the shooting?

Is the ideology itself dangerous?
Since this is the Atheism and Agnosticism forum, how can Atheists expect to be treated is Islamic nations?

If a Muslim shoots some Atheists, or attacks some homosexual men with a machete, because he was radicalised by religious teachings can we really equate that to a toddler getting their hands on a gun and firing it off, killing someone nearby?

Is it InsertReligionHere-ophobia to suggest that killings that are explicitly motivated by religion should be treated differently than accidental killings or drug related killings?

We can say that some of Trumps rhetoric is dangerous. We can unpack it and say that some of this stuff is pretty bad and anyone who believes in it is probably not a very nice person.

How can Muslims expect to be treated by Trump supporters? Not very well, I'd imagine.

Just trying to get it straight in my head. A Trump supporter is automatically a suspected racist/sexist/homophobe/whatever because the guy they are voting for has some controversial views BUT we shouldn't judge people when they follow a religion that teaches some highly controversial views?

Isn't there a contradiction in all of that?

As an Atheist, I'd have to say that I'd rather take my chances with a group of extremist Trump voters than I would with a group of extremist Muslims. Just saying. If I were a Muslim though then I'd rather deal with militant Atheists than militant Trump supporters.

So, a large number of Trump supporters think they should build a wall and deport immigrants. I'm allowed to criticise them, no problem. Trump is racist, his supporters are racists. I can say it loud and proud, Republicans have some of the most backwards, sexist, racist, homophobic, idiotic ideas out there. Mostly inspired by their made up, nonsense, Christian religion.

A little voice says "Not all Trump supporters..." and we tell that voice to shut the damn hell up.

A large number of Muslims think that Homosexuality should be illegal.

"Not all Muslims..." Ah, OK then.

I have this unsettling feeling that if Trumps rhetoric was against Men, or White Men, or Straight White Men, or Straight White Christian Men then the very same people who are calling out Racism, Islamophobia, Sexism etc would be silent.

I wonder if that feeling of paranoia/anxiety is justified. Are we living in a culture where the mob mentality is justified and encouraged as long as you fully believe you are on the side of justice, whatever that is?

When our sense of justice becomes another's definition of injustice, how do we proceed?

Of course Trump is wrong on so many things. Of course his rhetoric is divisive and potentially even dangerous. He likes to identify and label enemies. He likes to whip people up into a frenzy.

But the anti-Trump side are doing the exact same thing. Though, maybe they are not quite as experienced yet.

It's basically what the thread has become, right? Trying to catch people out so we can slap on the labels? Racist. Islamophobic. Right Wing.

I agree that "ban them all" is a terrible, terrible, idea.

The problem is that Trump is simply playing for one side in a game where both sides are using the same tactics. Trump says "Muslims are dangerous", anti-Trump says "Trump supporters are dangerous". Both sides believe they are in the right. They are both wrong.

I wonder though, how much distance there is between "ban them all: no Muslims allowed" and "we need a safe space: no White Males allowed"?

orubiru

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's a fascinating, albeit terrifying, glimpse into your psyche: in order to imagine someone as a killer, you have to mentally picture them as an arab.

Bizarre.

Wasn't it just supposed to be a joke?