Controlled Opposition
Note my apathy
Russophobia.
Hi -- New here.
- Thread starter Oneuli
- Start date
Russophobia.
If you understood it perfectly, then why did you follow up with sentence that so clearly misstates my position? You either didn't understand, or you're deliberately misstating it. Only you know which of those is the case.
On the off chance you're genuinely still failing to understand it, perhaps you could think of it in terms of the Buddhist parable of the blind men and the elephant:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant
In the parable, the blind men actually have a worse understanding through their own first-hand experience, because it's limited to just one part, than someone would have just having the whole described to her.
When I wrote that, I said to myself "you know what response you'll get -- he won't be able to tackle the idea, so instead will try to assert superiority through a 'well, actually' comment." Conservative men tend to lapse into this all the time. My favorite example is when talking about something like gun control, when conservative men who find themselves at a loss to respond to the sense of an argument will instead fixate on some irrelevant technical detail ("ooh, she called a 'magazine' a 'clip'") and imagine somehow that disputes the argument.
I'm reluctant to get into this, because it's completely irrelevant to my argument whether a tour in Vietnam was six months, a year, or a decade. The point is the same regardless. But, since you brought it up, the point of the timeline I specified was that it straddled the period of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, so that the hypothetical person in question could have been at the tail end of a longer military commitment when he was sent to Vietnam, and thus may have had fairly little time in country (keeping in mind the policy of six-month rotations for officers in command positions). The fact that his experience of Vietnam was ATYPICAL was the whole point of the hypothetical -- it's meant to illustrate the point that what a given person experienced could be far different from what most experienced. So you've inadvertently underscored my point by arguing that nearly everyone was in country for longer than that.
If you reread, you'll see that you're attacking a straw man. I never said a thing about VC tactics. I simply posited a hypothetical MP who didn't get within sound of gunshots. I understand you're drawn strongly to the "well, actually" comment, but resist it and address the real argument, rather than the straw man. Regardless of VC tactics (guerrilla, not gorilla), the point is that a person's experience of the war would have been very different depending on whether he was a REMF or an enlisted man on the front lines.
I assumed as much. So, answer honestly: do you think everybody who served in Vietnam in any capacity at any point in the 1960s, from the mechanic in the engine room of a hospital ship to an armor crewman on the front lines, experienced pretty much the same thing you did? Presumably not. Each had a very different experience. That's the point. And it will be hard for any to think of the war as a whole without disproportionately weighting his own experience into it.
Last edited:
ThatOwlWoman
Leftist Vermin
Another evening well-spent, watching the conturd boys neatly schooled. Oneuli, I hope that you'll start a climate change thread soon.
Hi Oneuli, hate to barge in, it looks like you have your hands full here. It's difficult to jump from one topic to another, you can put my question on the back burner if you like.
The first point above "Genetics matter ... " misses what I was saying, so I'll skip that.
The second point above ... I will re-write, and you can give me your view. (Just one small change)
"That's my point, though. A typical American will have an educational foundation and native skill set (fluency in English and in American culture) that should make it possible to develop much higher-order skills than just being a 'financial analyst girl in an office'.. If an American is being out-competed on wage by someone who lacks those things, it's a lot of squandered potential. We should be focused not on protecting the American from having his under-utilizing job taken from him by an immigrant competitor, but rather by helping him acquire the additional skills to fill a job that would more fully tap what he can bring to the show"
You support importing low wage unskilled/semi-skilled Labor.
I support importing low wage professional/highly educated Labor. (especially those over-paid 'financial analyst' types)
You see how the two arguments are similar? We are both advocating 'importing Labor', but just not the Labor that affects our economic position.
Now, that's NOT my position, but just using that as an example to make my point. If there were 10 'Financial Analysts' for every job, YOU would be OUT COMPETED by the immigrant that would GLADLY work for LESS. Instead of working 9 months out of the year, you might be working 3 months out of the year. Then (let's say I'm on the roof banging nails) you walk by with briefcase and Resume in hand ... and I yell down "You need to step up your game, Sister!".
Now (being as sarcastic as I can) me too.
Why should these 'Financial Analyst' types fear competition from abroad? It's like they think being born here, being educated here, being American, automatically should give them a 'first-in-line' privilege or something.
A special thank you for that.
Eagle_Eye
Well-known member
Your whole premise is that those who experience an event will tend to focus on the personal side where as one who hasn't can see and understand the "big" picture. We used Vietnam as an example and you showed you didn't understand the war as you seemed to think Saigon was safe in 1964 the year you chose as your example. And people stationed there never understood combat like the rifleman in the field. You clearly don't understand that the VC used gorilla tactics so everyone in country was subject to some form of attack/combat. Now you can try to spin my answer any way you wish but the fact remains that people who live through an event understand the event and it's cause and aftermath better than those who didn't.
BTW We had troops in Vietnam starting in 1950 and in 1963 JFK increased our presence. LBJ used the Gulf of Tonkin incident as an excuse to increase our troop strength starting in 1965.
Now we get to the real gist of your long drawn out BS. You are one of those liberals that believe you are superior and only you can be correct! You then project a mental image that conservatives are less intelligent, drive around in pickup trucks with rifle racks flying the confederate flag.
You my dear will fit in with the other Leftwing nut burgers here. Your arrogance is laughable. And I find no reason to continue to debate someone who clearly will not accept an opposing point of view. 안녕
Do you see how nonsensical the sentence becomes when reworked that way? There's a reason that unskilled laborers don't cross the border and work as financial analysts. Even beginning to acquire that skill set requires already having acquired a certain comfort not just in English but in the specialized English vocabulary of the business world. And then there are years of training in math and economics and accounting principles, quirks of US business law, etc. To get there, people have to invest heavily in their future and defer gratification, while typically taking on a heavy student loan burden.
Towards what end? I've explained how my policy preference would play out: how it would create upward pressure on the career ladder for citizens, even while it improved the quality of life of citizens by making the outsourcing of menial tasks affordable for more people, and also making good on our national value of providing opportunities for the "wretched refuse" of foreign teaming shores. Who, specifically, benefits from your approach? Certainly not poor people from other countries, who you are stranding in situations of desperation when they could instead come here and meet a demand for low-end work. Certainly not those Americans who find their incomes depressed by having higher-end workers imported and slotted above them. Certainly not the foreign countries that invested in the educations of those higher-end workers only to have them poached. There would be three groups benefited. First, the ruling class, which could exert top-down pressure on wages and gut the upper-middle-class, shoring up their power. Second, higher-end foreign workers themselves -- though I'd argue that's more than offset by the harm done to the lower-end foreign workers who are in much greater need of opportunity. And third are a particular subset of Americans who want to succeed but aren't willing to put in the effort to enhance their skills.
As discussed above, I see how they are critically different. The solution I am proposing would leave open to American citizens a path for advancement -- if you're getting pressured from below, take a step up and the way is clear. The solution you propose would put road blocks, in the form of lower-cost foreign workers, ahead of citizens along any path for advancement that appears. For example, what happens under my solution if your job is flipping burgers and an immigrant comes in who can do the same thing just as well and cheaper? Well, the idea is that the government would help with retraining to meet a higher-skill demand (e.g., become a nurse). In the long run, you should be better off (especially when considering how vulnerable most low-skill jobs are to automation, even when protected from foreign competition). But what happens under your solution if your job is as a financial analyst and an immigrant comes in who can do the same thing just as well and cheaper? Well, in theory you could be helped to retrain for some other higher-skill position, but then you can be crowded out of that by immigrants as well, and meanwhile the training you already did for the financial analyst work is effectively a wasted investment. It's inefficient churning, rather than constructive upward pressure.
Yet the point is I already did. I borrowed a lot of money to pay for the education needed to fill a particular role that was in demand. I competed to get into a good university and grad program. I deferred gratification for years, living like a pauper while the roofer got a start to his life. In the process, I made myself highly productive, so the society should want to encourage such behavior. But if the end result is to have that investment wasted, when immigration policy pulls the rug out from under the game-plan, then why would anyone bother?
I thought I'd explained that. In the US, we have the most wildly expensive system of higher education of any nation. Those Americans who get the degrees needed to do that work are typically burdened heavily with debt taken on to invest in that future. When you pull that future out from under them, you're hurting them far worse than if someone had a very-low-investment job doing unskilled labor, and can simply pivot to another equally low-investment job doing other unskilled labor.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
ThatOwlWoman
Leftist Vermin
Thread disclaimer:
For the sake of this intro thread and the delightful posts by our newcomer Oneuli, I took Angry Bird off ignore -- but only for this thread, so don't get your hopes up, Stumps.
Once again in your post above, you completely ignore the point that Oneuli is making in order to focus on a tiny detail. You can't seem to move past that and look at the overall point of what she is saying. She proved several points, but this one most of all: "you then project a mental image that conservatives are less intelligent...." Maybe not all of them, but definitely this describes you. BTW, find a better on-line translator. Your last words don't say what you think they do. lolololol
For the sake of this intro thread and the delightful posts by our newcomer Oneuli, I took Angry Bird off ignore -- but only for this thread, so don't get your hopes up, Stumps.
Once again in your post above, you completely ignore the point that Oneuli is making in order to focus on a tiny detail. You can't seem to move past that and look at the overall point of what she is saying. She proved several points, but this one most of all: "you then project a mental image that conservatives are less intelligent...." Maybe not all of them, but definitely this describes you. BTW, find a better on-line translator. Your last words don't say what you think they do. lolololol
Oh good, you're here.
Oneuli: "Do you see how nonsensical the sentence becomes when reworked that way? There's a reason that unskilled laborers don't cross the border and work as financial analysts. Even beginning to acquire that skill set requires already having acquired a certain comfort not just in English but in the specialized English vocabulary of the business world. And then there are years of training in math and economics and accounting principles, quirks of US business law, etc. To get there, people have to invest heavily in their future and defer gratification, while typically taking on a heavy student loan burden."
Jack: Uh, ... no. Me, Pookie, and the Mexican guy, after we finish work at noon and get off that hot roof, we sit around eating our bologna sandwiches discussing our stock portfolios and why our returns seem to be dragging. We've all agreed that the active manager should get what he gets, but what about the other office drones, ... like the 'Financial Analysts', how hard is it to analyze financial stuff? Now, not one of us has suggested a $7.25/Hr. (minimum wage) is the solution but $10 seemed reasonable to me, Pookie suggested $12.50 (that's a solid $500/wk), the Mexican guy said $11 (in his little Mexican "eleven" voice). So, in this day and age, why should we settle for some single-digit return when a double-digit is so close?
We need to IMPORT more Professionals into this country to create more COMPETITION. That way, we could drive down these ridiculous Labor Costs and get a better financial Return on our Investments.
>>>I can't believe YOU can't see that?<<<
Oneuli: "Do you see how nonsensical the sentence becomes when reworked that way? There's a reason that unskilled laborers don't cross the border and work as financial analysts. Even beginning to acquire that skill set requires already having acquired a certain comfort not just in English but in the specialized English vocabulary of the business world. And then there are years of training in math and economics and accounting principles, quirks of US business law, etc. To get there, people have to invest heavily in their future and defer gratification, while typically taking on a heavy student loan burden."
Jack: Uh, ... no. Me, Pookie, and the Mexican guy, after we finish work at noon and get off that hot roof, we sit around eating our bologna sandwiches discussing our stock portfolios and why our returns seem to be dragging. We've all agreed that the active manager should get what he gets, but what about the other office drones, ... like the 'Financial Analysts', how hard is it to analyze financial stuff? Now, not one of us has suggested a $7.25/Hr. (minimum wage) is the solution but $10 seemed reasonable to me, Pookie suggested $12.50 (that's a solid $500/wk), the Mexican guy said $11 (in his little Mexican "eleven" voice). So, in this day and age, why should we settle for some single-digit return when a double-digit is so close?
We need to IMPORT more Professionals into this country to create more COMPETITION. That way, we could drive down these ridiculous Labor Costs and get a better financial Return on our Investments.
>>>I can't believe YOU can't see that?<<<
Close. It's not that those who experience an event are unable to focus on the big picture, nor that those who didn't experience it automatically do so. It's more about the ease with which each perspective can be taken. Human nature is such that it's very hard to see past the quirks of our personal experience, so someone who experienced a part of something is going to be very tempted to see the whole in those terms. Through a lot of self-awareness and humility, he can get past that. Most, however, do not. Such people tend to identify themselves, in forums like this, by their insistence on "pulling rank," when it comes to discussing the thing. Their insistence on an a posteriori and personal tackling of the issue, even in the face of competing hard evidence, underlines their inability to see beyond the keyhole of their own view of the topic.
As you'll recall, I never said anything to suggest I thought Saigon was safe in 1964. Rather, I posited the hypothetical of a particular person in a particular role in that time and place who wasn't exposed to the fighting. You were uncomfortable dealing with the idea of that hypothetical, so you went with your "well, actually" argument. Surely, if you look back, you'll see I made no claim, one way or the other, about how safe or unsafe Saigon was in 1964.
Again, it's guerrilla, not gorilla. Anyway, everyone knows that the VC used guerrilla tactics. Every weaker opponent since the Spanish Ulcer has used guerrilla tactics against stronger forces in their midst. As surely you can see, nothing in what I wrote suggested I didn't know that.
Yes, as is everyone on the planet, always. But the point of my argument is that not everyone is subject to the same experiences.... that different people would have had very different experiences of Vietnam based on their time, place, role, and luck, and yet, human nature being what it is, it would be very hard for someone who experienced it not to give disproportionate weight to his own personal experiences of it, even if they were atypical.
Yes, that's kind of "Vietnam War History 101" material.
I've said nothing at all to suggest that. Yet, what I said is true: as soon as I wrote about the Vietnam War, I knew what was coming. I'd seen enough of these debates that I knew you wouldn't respond to the idea in question (that each person's experience of the war would be atypical in important ways, and that it would be hard not to give out-sized weight to those eccentricities) and that instead you'd fixate on one or more attempts at playing technical gotcha to derail that discussion.
Agreed. Nader definitely was responsible for Bush being close enough in Florida to allow the Supreme Court consevatives to steal the election for him.
Give it a shot and find out. If you find you have a talent for it, it can be vastly lucrative.
If the goal is to make life as comfortable as possible for the unambitious and impatient, then your approach is probably a good one. If, however, we want to create incentives for people to invest in their own education, including being willing to defer gratification, then making a habit of pulling the rug out from under those who do is not the way to go. Why would anyone put off earning money for four to eight years, to get a higher education, if the result will just be to earn too little to make that investment worthwhile? If you create that mindset, you'll wind up with a future where America is a third-class economy and American citizens are increasingly passed by, in terms of education, by other leading nations. I'd rather go the other way and create both incentives and assistance for people to up-skill themselves.
Eagle_Eye
Well-known member
Oh excuse me I misspelled a word that makes my whole post wrong.
Typical liberal sidestep You didn't directly say it you implied it.
As to technical details when I went to school we were expected to know the "technical" details of the subject we were discussing. I guess in liberal land "technical" details are meaningless. If you want to debate a subject I suggest you know the "technical" details of the subject.
Oneuli: "Yet the point is I already did. I borrowed a lot of money to pay for the education needed to fill a particular role that was in demand. I competed to get into a good university and grad program. I deferred gratification for years, living like a pauper while the roofer got a start to his life. In the process, I made myself highly productive, so the society should want to encourage such behavior. But if the end result is to have that investment wasted, when immigration policy pulls the rug out from under the game-plan, then why would anyone bother?"
Jack: God, I wish I had the time to go back and find your post about the Government coddling people. I'm just going to make this brief, Investors like me, Pookie, and the Mexican guy, are interested in RESULTS not EXCUSES. Reducing the cost factor in producing something is a major part of our Strategy for increasing Profits, if people find they are being 'out competed' by foreigners, then they need to 'step up' their gam.
Look at it this way, Oneuli, 'There would be three groups benefited. First, the ruling class, which could exert top-down pressure on wages and gut the upper-middle-class, shoring up their power. Second, higher-end foreign workers themselves, and third are a particular subset of Americans who want to succeed but aren't willing to put in the effort to enhance their skills.'
Jack: God, I wish I had the time to go back and find your post about the Government coddling people. I'm just going to make this brief, Investors like me, Pookie, and the Mexican guy, are interested in RESULTS not EXCUSES. Reducing the cost factor in producing something is a major part of our Strategy for increasing Profits, if people find they are being 'out competed' by foreigners, then they need to 'step up' their gam.
Look at it this way, Oneuli, 'There would be three groups benefited. First, the ruling class, which could exert top-down pressure on wages and gut the upper-middle-class, shoring up their power. Second, higher-end foreign workers themselves, and third are a particular subset of Americans who want to succeed but aren't willing to put in the effort to enhance their skills.'
ThatOwlWoman
Leftist Vermin
Exactly. Here is a personal example that perfectly illustrates your point. My husband graduated in the mid-70s with a BS in engineering. He moved to St. Louis, away from family and friends, for the job opportunities, and lived in a crappy little apartment while he worked FT and continued on to get a masters in finance/economics. He then continued to further educate himself (sometimes with the help of his employer's tuition assistance programs) to become an IT specialist (software engineer/systems architect). He worked for the same company for 31 years. In 2013 he was informed by the employer (a large national health insurance company) that he and others in his team were being laid-off and replaced with H1B visa workers from India. The only team members spared were those with associates degrees; everyone else was let go. They did get a generous severance package, as long as they signed an agreement not to pursue legal action against the corporation. Fortunately he had another position lined up to step into when his notice period (90 days) was up, but several of the others were not as fortunate. This is legal, apparently.
Now why would a young person pondering her future career want to invest all that time, work, effort into becoming an IT specialist, when this sort of thing could happen?