Maher Obama interview

[Red]

[*]Deontology is philosophically illegitimate, "fair"and "justice" do not necessarily have any clear meaning or carry innate moral weight outside that dogma. Consequentialism is the only appropriate way to approach ethics.

Question; What is deontology? Is it that we must always find ways that make everything better and mare fair?

[*]Safe spaces and trigger warnings hurt the people they're trying to protect and harmfully impinge on free speech without cause, they create echo chambers and lead to the current SJW scourge which is damaging academics and played a large hand in getting Trump elected (as a reaction against it) among young independents.

So what you're saying is, the group that seems very anti-Trump somehow helped him get into office?

[*]Terrorism is a threat like lightning and sharks. It's scary, but people need to put things into perspective. Yes it has to do with fundamentalist Islam, but no pointing the finger and legitimizing their perspectives probably won't help.

Of course the chances are small. I've never worried about being in a terrorist attack, or any family member or friend being a victim of one. My uncle however, worked in one of the Twin Towers, and ran a bit late on 9/11. So, y'know, close calls.

[*]Welfare needs to take into account social attitudes and focus on the ultimate cause of social problems, which is poor money management, poor education/lack of self investment, and a weak sense of cause and effect which are environmental and acquired in childhood. We need practical educational reform and job programs. Raising the minimum wage is one of the worst things we could do, but we do need universal healthcare, and possibly even childcare and other social programs which help.

I'm not a fan of welfare some welfare programs, as I have already stated somewhere else that I can't remember. There are welfare programs that can be of use though.

[*]Nuclear power is good, lower carbon, and less dangerous than solar and wind. Resources will last indefinitely, and spent fuel is not a serious problem because it is fuel itself for breeders. Meltdowns are not a substantial public health and safety risk even when they do occur.

Nuclear power is renewable, huh? I've heard it's not as good as geothermal, and some bloke said something about "internalizing the cost of the damages to the environment".

[*]Current GMO crops are not dangerous, and contribute disease resistance which results in more reliable high yields, and in general they reduce land use and other inputs. Beyond that, genetic engineering technology has world saving potential, like low methane rice, or milk made by yeast without cows.

I think you've already said that.
And dude, I'm not saying you're lying or anything, I'm 99% sure that you're right and/or you're not trying to con anybody, but do you have any sources for these claims, like a book, website, or documentary? Or did you study it formally?

Does that cover pretty much everything?

I guess. I still have to look more into the arguments against anarchism, I have a hard time understanding both sides of the issue. I've heard Anarchists say that Anarcho-Capitalism doesn't make sense, since capital always relied on a state or something along those lines. I've yet to see evidence of that, but do you think that's true?

And do you think that we should be finding newer and better systems, or always try to find ways to improve the best systems we have (capitalism, democracy), and try our best to correct their flaws?

Speaking of both Anarchism and Democracy, I've heard some Anarchists are in favor of a Democracy. Does that make sense?

[EquALLity]

Well, I don't agree with the "money in politics" thing being a problem, I think it's a bogeyman, and that real corruption is very rare.

I'm more concerned about money in media, because the news is reluctant to report negative stories about (for example) meat, fast food, etc. when they're being sponsored by these companies who will pull their commercials if they run stories like that.
Unlike in politics, this is 100% legal (these are transparent deals "hey stop that or we'll pull our ads"), and it's also better studied and demonstrated. AND possibly even more importantly, the news is incentivized to maximize ratings with fear mongering and sensationalism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias

Wait, what?

So:
1) You don't think politicians receiving millions of dollars from special interest groups would influence them, because how could they put money over their values?
2) You believe the media avoids doing journalism about certain topics because they receive money from certain groups via advertising, and they are putting money over what they believe is right.

What?

You can't have it both ways.

If that's what you believe about the media and advertising, well, channels like CNN run ads for political campaigns, and those ads are often funded by groups like the oil lobby. So do you think the media is influenced not to report about climate change because of that? That's only consistent with the other things you said about the media.
So:
1) Politicians receive money from the oil industry, but it doesn't influence them because they are human beings and would never put greed and power over morality (...). So, when these very well-educated people say climate change is a hoax, it has nothing to do with receiving millions of dollars from groups that benefit economically from fossil fuels. These people actually believe what they're saying.
2) The media, AKA people who report the news, receive money from the oil industry, and it influences them because they put their money over morality. So, when 'journalists' don't ask any questions about climate change during a Presidential debate, a large part of that is because they benefit economically through corporations that are in the fossil fuel industry.

That's completely inconsistent.

I want to go after the things that have solid evidence behind them, and that there's not a complex set of drawbacks and benefits to navigate.
E.g. I think political contribution stabilizes politics and benefits more centrist politicians, and socially liberal ideas, overall converging on promoting positive-sum games. Eliminating that could destabilize the political system, particularly if we don't take on media bias first and eliminate inaccurate reporting and fear mongering based politics.

There is solid evidence behind this corruption, as I've pointed out in other posts.

1) Does it stabilize politics, though (what does that mean exactly)? And even if it does, is that necessarily a good thing?
Do you mean that it prevents crazy fundamentalists from getting into office?
What about George Bush? He was President for eight years, and he managed to destabilize an entire region of the world AND the global economy. He was also a religious fundamentalist.
What stability? o_O

I do see a point to be made in that corporate influence creates stability in the sense that we don't get a lot of real change. I don't see that as a good thing at all. 'Stability' is why our progress is so slow.

What is the center? How does it benefit centrist politicians? And is that a good thing?
Centrists, as I see them, are why we don't ever get any real change.
In addition, on the local level, corporate money goes primarily to republicans, and most republican politicians in America have very radical ideas. That's not centrism by any legitimate definition.

[brimstoneSalad]

1) You don't think politicians receiving millions of dollars from special interest groups would influence them, because how could they put money over their values?

If you're using the word "corruption" or "bribe", then no, that's an accusation of a particular kind of influence.
If you use the word "bias", I think that's far more plausible, and it's a reasonable hypothesis, but I don't think it's necessary to postulate politicians changing their views because of such a bias since politics is a process of selection from a large pool.

2) You believe the media avoids doing journalism about certain topics because they receive money from certain groups via advertising, and they are putting money over what they believe is right.

Their bosses or producers nix stories, or give them less time, or move the time slots, etc. It's a profit game. Not only does trivial and sensationalist news win, but important stories can be shelved.
Journalists don't like this. This is not why most of them got into journalism.

Are the media executives who do this psychopaths? Maybe. It could be a job that selects for that personality.

Journalist and politicians both are morally driven and empathetic; they relate to people, and their values drive them. One of them has executives, the other has campaign managers. However, the hiring and firing power for those relationships are reversed from politics to journalism.

If the journalists could fire and hire new producers, we'd live in a very different world.

The most important thing for me is examining the consequences and the weight of the evidence.
There are many studies on journalistic bias because these things are so much more transparent (it's all available to examine and find causal links).

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~ericz/ads.pdf

https://archive.ama.org/archive/AboutAM ... _bias.aspx
(in the second case it may be a hiring bias, which is a similar issue)

The important thing to understand is that none of this can really be called corruption or bribery.
The people in charge of the papers, TV stations, etc. just know what makes money, and they act on that legally. None of that has to do with journalists compromising their integrity.

You can't have it both ways.

They're very different, and one has more evidence, and I'm not accusing people of compromising their values or being corrupt.
At worst I'm talking about a few execs with loose morals, not the field of journalism or politics as a whole.

The smaller the number of people who have to be "evil", the more likely.

If that's what you believe about the media and advertising, well, channels like CNN run ads for political campaigns, and those ads are often funded by groups like the oil lobby. So do you think the media is influenced not to report about climate change because of that? That's only consistent with the other things you said about the media.

Fox would be. You'd have to find one with a conservative bent, accepting more money from conservative candidates.

So:
1) Politicians receive money from the oil industry, but it doesn't influence them because they are human beings and would never put greed and power over morality (...). So, when these very well-educated people say climate change is a hoax, it has nothing to do with receiving millions of dollars from groups that benefit economically from fossil fuels. These people actually believe what they're saying.

They are crazy people who were always crazy, but were selected by the industry to give money to (making them politically viable) because they were crazy.
This is a selection/promotion bias. It doesn't come from internal corruption in the politicians themselves, it comes from a small number of industry lobbyists who choose who to give money to. That very small handful of people are arguably evil (I don't believe they are fundamentalists or are actually skeptical of global warming).

2) The media, AKA people who report the news, receive money from the oil industry, and it influences them because they put their money over morality. So, when 'journalists' don't ask any questions about climate change during a Presidential debate, a large part of that is because they benefit economically through corporations that are in the fossil fuel industry.

No. They're fired if they go off script too much. Unlike politicians, they just aren't allowed to; they have bosses.
Sometimes they legitimately don't believe in climate change or whatever, and may be hired because of that. Hiring biases happen too.

There is solid evidence behind this corruption, as I've pointed out in other posts.

No there isn't, as I have pointed out in other posts. If there was, these people would be in jail.
If you would start calling it "bias" instead of "corruption" maybe we could look at it systematically.

1) Does it stabilize politics, though (what does that mean exactly)? And even if it does, is that necessarily a good thing?

We don't know, which is my point. We shouldn't be poking around in things that are so uncertain.
We should spend time on things that are more certain than this.
When you go acting blindly by "taking money out of politics" without knowing the effect, you could cause harm.

Do you mean that it prevents crazy fundamentalists from getting into office?

If they're too crazy, yes. There's a margin of acceptable craziness. If they get too nutty or overtly hate filled, it could be harmful to fund them.
Unfortunately, politicians who keep their crazy kind of quiet get a pass, because journalists aren't blowing this stuff up.

What about George Bush? He was President for eight years, and he managed to destabilize an entire region of the world AND the global economy. He was also a religious fundamentalist.
What stability? o_O

He was a moderate crazy.

There's so so much worse out there.

I do see a point to be made in that corporate influence creates stability in the sense that we don't get a lot of real change. I don't see that as a good thing at all. 'Stability' is why our progress is so slow.

Change can go two ways. You want politicians treading a bit of water. If they could swim very fast, a nut like Trump could actually do something in office. Unfortunately, that means handicapping the good ones along with the bad.

What is the center? How does it benefit centrist politicians? And is that a good thing?
Centrists, as I see them, are why we don't ever get any real change.

If we didn't have so many centrists, we'd be in real trouble now, because Trump would be able to do whatever he wanted.
Again, you have to look at it from both sides.

In addition, on the local level, corporate money goes primarily to republicans, and most republican politicians in America have very radical ideas. That's not centrism by any legitimate definition.

Most Republicans are center leaning, from the U.S. demographic perspective. Same with democrats.
When you see how much republican opposition Trump is facing, you may have more respect for the moderates.

If we want to see real change, we need to move center leftward. That means changing the media, and that means abolishing the electoral college.
It's not clear if or how much taking money out of politics would mean.

If you're saying that money in politics influences the media to be more conservative through conservative advertisement, I could believe that, but that's just one influence which has to be weighed against others, and ultimately it's still a media issue: fix that, and the other loses its power to influence the media so that 'money in politics' doesn't matter so much anymore.

The bottom line is understanding the limits of our knowledge and predictive power, and acting for causes with more certainty.

[brimstoneSalad]

Question; What is deontology? Is it that we must always find ways that make everything better and mare fair?

Not better, just more fair, sort of. You can start a thread on it.

So what you're saying is, the group that seems very anti-Trump somehow helped him get into office?

Correct. A small number of people being assholes motivated a larger number of people to support Trump as a protest against them, in part.

Nuclear power is renewable, huh? I've heard it's not as good as geothermal, and some bloke said something about "internalizing the cost of the damages to the environment".

And it's not as good as a giant waterfall either. But geothermal power and hydro power are not available everywhere. Availability is very strictly limited.

That's like saying "buying Avocados for a dollar each isn't as good as picking them off a tree in your back yard". Sure, but not everybody has free avocados growing in an Avocado forest behind their houses.

I think you've already said that.
And dude, I'm not saying you're lying or anything, I'm 99% sure that you're right and/or you're not trying to con anybody, but do you have any sources for these claims, like a book, website, or documentary? Or did you study it formally?

Check vegan GMO.
http://www.vegangmo.com/

I've heard Anarchists say that Anarcho-Capitalism doesn't make sense, since capital always relied on a state or something along those lines. I've yet to see evidence of that, but do you think that's true?

Anarcho-capitalists rely on a state for one function: protect private property (through police and court systems).

Anarchists rely on a state to suppress the natural formation of governments and other social hierarchies.

Nothing is government free. In order to ensure you have no government, you need a government to outlaw government.
It's like saying, "the only rule is there are no rules!".

And do you think that we should be finding newer and better systems, or always try to find ways to improve the best systems we have (capitalism, democracy), and try our best to correct their flaws?

I think we shouldn't be doing things that are untested or with inadequate evidence or theory.
Testing Anarchy is like testing Homeopathy, it doesn't make any sense so it's a waste of time.

Speaking of both Anarchism and Democracy, I've heard some Anarchists are in favor of a Democracy. Does that make sense?

No, nothing in Anarchism makes sense.

[EquALLity]

^Deontology doesn't necessarily have anything to do with fairness, from my understanding. That is a concept some deontologists may base their beliefs on, but it is by no means a necessity.

Don't we already have a topic about it? Albeit it's really old.

[brimstoneSalad]

^Deontology doesn't necessarily have anything to do with fairness, from my understanding. That is a concept some deontologists may base their beliefs on, but it is by no means a necessity.

One of the most famous quotes that summarizes deontology is:

"Let justice be done, though the world perish"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_iustitia,_et_pereat_mundus

Synonyms for justice
noun lawfulness, fairness

Synonyms for fairness
noun justice

(at the very top)
http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/justice
http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/fairness

They're one word definitions of each other.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/justice

jus·tice (jŭs′tĭs)
n.
1. The quality of being just; fairness: In the interest of justice, we should treat everyone the same.
2.
a. The principle of moral rightness; decency.
b. Conformity to moral rightness in action or attitude; righteousness: argued for the justice of his cause.
3.
a. The attainment of what is just, especially that which is fair, moral, right, merited, or in accordance with law: My client has not received justice in this hearing.
b. Law The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law: We seek justice in this matter from the court.
c. The administration, system, methods, or procedures of law: a conspiracy to obstruct justice; a miscarriage of justice.

Going into it in more depth, they're complex philosophical and political arguments.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rawls/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_as_Fairness
Justice as fairness
https://theroadtoconcord.com/574-2/justice-vs-fairness/
Here's some kind of libertarian argument saying the opposite

Maybe you can start a thread on it.