The Gaming Den

Occluded Sun wrote:Man oh man, you're missing the point. If the idiomatic phrase were "you're beating a horse", it would be a silly idiom, because people beat horses productively all the time. The phrase includes the word 'dead' because it's incorrect, otherwise. Leaving it out would be stupid and wrong.

"Yelling 'fire!' in a crowded theater" is a bad idiom. And as used, quite incorrect, because actually yelling 'fire' in a crowd ISN'T a crime and is quite appropriate in many circumstances. It's popular, and it's completely wrong. And stupid.

My head is over my heels the majority of my waking life, not just when I first fall in love. Similarly, I've many times had a cake and then eaten it, too. It doesn't change the meaning of the associated idiomatic expressions.

The only time I've known it to be a problem is when translating into another language or when a non native speaker hears it.

Game On,
fbmf

Apparently in some language that I don't remember, something that is Over Powered is called "stolen" instead of "broken." I thought that was pretty funny.

fbmf wrote:Similarly, I've many times had a cake and then eaten it, too.

"You can't have your cake and eat it too" isn't a sequential thing, it's referring very literally to the inability to simultaneously both possess and have eaten the same cake - because once you've eaten it, it's gone. People have been switching the order around and adding "both" and "still" and "too" in various places for seriously hundreds of years to try and make that one clearer, but for whatever reason the version that's stuck is the one that is the most confusing. But it actually means something closer to "you can't eat your cake and still have it."

fbmf wrote:My head is over my heels the majority of my waking life, not just when I first fall in love. Similarly, I've many times had a cake and then eaten it, too. It doesn't change the meaning of the associated idiomatic expressions.

And, if the subject came up, I'd argue those are also poor idioms. The former more than the latter.

The only time I've known it to be a problem is when translating into another language or when a non native speaker hears it.

Ah, but here we have a case where the idiomatic expression has a literal meaning in the context, AND it's an incorrect meaning.

And the incorrect meaning is, in my experience, often confused with the reality.

DSMatticus wrote:

fbmf wrote:Similarly, I've many times had a cake and then eaten it, too.

"You can't have your cake and eat it too" isn't a sequential thing, it's referring very literally to the inability to simultaneously both possess and have eaten the same cake - because once you've eaten it, it's gone. People have been switching the order around and adding "both" and "still" and "too" in various places for seriously hundreds of years to try and make that one clearer, but for whatever reason the version that's stuck is the one that is the most confusing. But it actually means something closer to "you can't eat your cake and still have it."

Pretty sure Zen says you totally can.

DSMatticus wrote:

fbmf wrote:Similarly, I've many times had a cake and then eaten it, too.

"You can't have your cake and eat it too" isn't a sequential thing, it's referring very literally to the inability to simultaneously both possess and have eaten the same cake - because once you've eaten it, it's gone. People have been switching the order around and adding "both" and "still" and "too" in various places for seriously hundreds of years to try and make that one clearer, but for whatever reason the version that's stuck is the one that is the most confusing. But it actually means something closer to "you can't eat your cake and still have it."

I know what it means, but the phrasing is ambiguous enough that I included it as an example.

Game on,
fbmf

Returning once again to the OP:

The question isn't actually "is this a right?", but "is there sufficient reason for this NOT to be a right?" And I really don't think anyone can make a solid argument against political donations being so.

That's even without considering the practical implications of the reality that many of the people proposing these sorts of restrictions are truly doing it because they think it will benefit their favorite causes, not to mention the obvious truth that people will find or create loopholes in the restrictions and keep them relatively inaccessible, meaning that those without the pull to access and exploit those loopholes will be even more deprived of power than before.

Occluded Sun wrote:The question isn't actually "is this a right?", but "is there sufficient reason for this NOT to be a right?" And I really don't think anyone can make a solid argument against political donations being so.

No, the question is "What is the appropriate amount of regulations for political donations?" Which doesn't declare the default to be whatever I think. But even aside, the actual default is not a right, because for something to be a right, you need to go really far beyond just answering the first question with "no regulation" instead you have to ask yourself "Is no regulation of political donations so clearly and obviously the best choice that we can't even let Congress make this decision, or change it's mind based on people we elect?"

And phrased that way, the answer is pretty obviously no. Regulation has clear and obvious benefits when we see that money buys elections and Wyoming Senators basically don't represent anyone from Wyoming.

Kaelik wrote:No, the question is "What is the appropriate amount of regulations for political donations?"

The null position here is always 'none'. That's the starting point. Arguments move us away from that point; in the absence of worthwhile arguments, we remain there by default.

Occluded Sun wrote:

Kaelik wrote:No, the question is "What is the appropriate amount of regulations for political donations?"

The null position here is always 'none'. That's the starting point. Arguments move us away from that point; in the absence of worthwhile arguments, we remain there by default.

And as I literally just explained in the post you quoted, the null position is "not a right" because being a right means that on top of the decision to not regulate, you are agreeing that no one ever could ever viably decide that more regulations is a good thing. Note how that is not a null position on any issue ever.

Kaelik wrote:Apparently in some language that I don't remember, something that is Over Powered is called "stolen" instead of "broken." I thought that was pretty funny.

Spoilered because it's an aside to the discussion.

Brazilian Portuguese is somewhat like this. The native words for OP are "roubado" and "apelão". The former translates literally to English as "robbed", but in popular speech the difference between robbery and theft has eroded here, so people say "roubo" when they wanted to say "furto".

The later means "one who resorts to dirty tricks". Both imply that if you came with an obviously superior option in a game, then you must be cheating. I don't even want to imagine what this means in the light of the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis.

So, Occluded Sun's first shot at this goal ("let the insanely wealthy buy all the politicians they want!") was a weird false dichotomy in which the only choices were to allow the unlimited influence of wealth or block all influence of anything ever. That's insane and stupid, but it was attempt #1.

Attempt #2 is:

Occluded Sun wrote:That's even without considering the practical implications of the reality that many of the people proposing these sorts of restrictions are truly doing it because they think it will benefit their favorite causes, not to mention the obvious truth that people will find or create loopholes in the restrictions and keep them relatively inaccessible, meaning that those without the pull to access and exploit those loopholes will be even more deprived of power than before.

To paraphrase: "There exists someone who will benefit from the implementation of fairer elections, and that's evil! Also if you try to make elections fairer, it will blow up in your face somehow and the little people will get fucked even harder than if you had no regulations at all." Now, the second of those is literally just substanceless fearmongering. Seriously. "Hey, that thing you're trying to do? Be scared of it! Because reasons!" There's nothing there.

But the first of those tells you everything you need to know about Occluded Sun: yes, he is correct that a certain group benefits from the implementation of fair elections. That group is known as the people of the United States, who are empowered by fair elections to elect their own representatives and hold their government accountable for its failures and fuck-ups. That is the notion that has Occluded Sun so incensed that he would try to paint it as part of some sinister agenda. Of course, the reality is that the absence of fair elections benefits Occluded Sun's pet causes, and the only sinister agenda here is the one he represents - the obstruction of fair elections on behalf of plutocratic interests.

It's kind of like the Republican disenfranchisement of African Americans. It's obviously evil, but the internal perspective of the Democratic movement to block that disenfranchisement is that it's equally bad - because after all, Democrats benefit disproportionately from black voters, so it's just part of their "sinister agenda to win elections." Now, there's a lot wrong with that, but the biggest issue is: there is nothing sinister about winning elections because you have a mandate from the people! That is how elections are supposed to work, and that is in fact the only non-sinister way to win elections. If you find yourself winning an election in spite of the will of the people, you're the bad guy! Full stop.

The Fairness Doctrine. The Equal-time Rule. These sorts of ideas have been tried before, and abandoned - because they don't accomplish what their advocates claim to want them to accomplish, mostly.

Any attempt to restrict the exercise of political influence through money will result in ordinary people having obstacles put in their way while the rich and powerful use loopholes to do as they please.

Occluded Sun wrote:The Fairness Doctrine. The Equal-time Rule. These sorts of ideas have been tried before, and abandoned - because they don't accomplish what their advocates claim to want them to accomplish, mostly.

They weren't abandoned because they didn't work. They were purposefully destroyed by Reaganites because they did work. Ronald Reagan did not want things to be remotely fair.

-Username17

Occluded Sun wrote:The Fairness Doctrine. The Equal-time Rule. These sorts of ideas have been tried before, and abandoned - because they don't accomplish what their advocates claim to want them to accomplish, mostly.

Any attempt to restrict the exercise of political influence through money will result in ordinary people having obstacles put in their way while the rich and powerful use loopholes to do as they please.

You know what hasn't been abandoned for failing? Mandatory X Dollars to spend for each campaign. You know what else hasn't been abandoned for failing? Equal Time, or just banning commercials for the election at all. Or mandating that each party gets equal time, and they only get to run one commercial.

I mean, even aside from the fact that there are a bunch of other countries effectively using all these different campaign finance regulations right now, THE US STILL USES THE EQUAL TIME RULE YOU IGNORANT PIECE OF SHIT.

Your claim that "Any attempt to limit the ability of rich people to buy elections will inevitably result in the rich people being somehow better at buying elections, so the only correct move is to not try" is:

1) A Patent Nirvana fallacy.
2) More importantly, Empirically falsified by the fact that where people actually implement stringent campaign finance rules rich people find it harder to buy elections.

For fuck sakes, Citizen's United was swamped with Amicus Curiae briefs from rich assholes arguing about how their speech was being violated. Do you think they would have hired lawyers to write that shit if the regulations weren't preventing them from fucking buying elections as well as they can without the regulations?

Of course, obviously I write none of this for you, because you are shitty liar who is intentionally advocating for your stupid political point of view with no evidence precisely because advocating for it is more important to you than intellectual honesty or being factually correct.

Kaelik wrote:I mean, even aside from the fact that there are a bunch of other countries effectively using all these different campaign finance regulations right now, THE US STILL USES THE EQUAL TIME RULE YOU IGNORANT PIECE OF SHIT.

That rule was superseded. In 1934.

Occluded Sun wrote:

Kaelik wrote:I mean, even aside from the fact that there are a bunch of other countries effectively using all these different campaign finance regulations right now, THE US STILL USES THE EQUAL TIME RULE YOU IGNORANT PIECE OF SHIT.

That rule was superseded. In 1934.

That is some curious magic, since it was fucking passed in 1934 and amended in 1959.

You fucking idiot. The FCC Equal Time regulation was "superseded" (a word you clearly don't understand) by it being canonized in the Communications Act in 1934. After 1934 the FCC can't take away Equal Time because it is a law passed through both houses of Congress. A law that is still in effect today. Right now.

CNN has to abide by the Equal Time rule right this fucking second.

You fucking idiot. Who doesn't know jack shit about anything.

Occluded Sun wrote:

Kaelik wrote:I mean, even aside from the fact that there are a bunch of other countries effectively using all these different campaign finance regulations right now, THE US STILL USES THE EQUAL TIME RULE YOU IGNORANT PIECE OF SHIT.

That rule was superseded. In 1934.

I love it when people fuck up in a way that can be easily traced back to a wikipedia article. Don't get me wrong, I fucking love wikipedia - just a quick wiki binge and suddenly you too can pretend to be an expert about any topic anyone cares about. But god damn does nothing murder your credibility like being caught trying to argue off a wikipedia page.

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule wrote:Wikipedia[/url]]This rule originated in §18 of the Radio Act of 1927; it was later superseded by the Communications Act of 1934. A related provision, in §315(b), requires that broadcasters offer time to candidates at the same rate as their "most favored advertiser".

See, Occluded Sun read that and thought that it meant the equal time rule had been superseded by the Communications Act of 1934, and therefore was no longer in effect. But it actually means that the Radio Act of 1927 was superseded by the Communications Act of 1934, both of which contain versions of the equal time rule and the latter of which is still very much in effect. The mistake itself is understandable (the phrasing is mildly ambiguous), but also really easy to trace back to the wikipedia article that caused it. Oops, that's embarrassing.

The moral of the story is that before making bold claims on topics you barely understand, you should probably do more than skim a single wikipedia article. For example, I started off this post knowing only that the equal time rule was absolutely still in effect and wondering why you thought it hadn't been for eighty years, but then I went on a wiki binge and came back with a handful of useful information about the origins of the equal time rule that I previously had no fucking idea about. And since I did not fuck up, the only reason you can prove this is that I'm admitting it.

More seriously, your confirmation bias is showing. This is not a mistake someone who was arguing in good faith would have made - if you'd paid even slightly more attention or investigated even slightly more thoroughly, you'd have found red flags that told you you were about to say something that was not true. But you didn't do those things, because you went to wikipedia looking for confirmation, not information. Exactly like you did when we were arguing about shouting fire in a crowded theater, and you attempted to provide as evidence in your favor a wikipedia article whose very first sentence shut your entire argument down. That seems like it would be a difficult thing to miss, and yet you did - how? Because you're only interested in the parts of the articles that you think agree with you. Everything else just gets filtered away as inconsequential. Shame on you.

Don't you think your maniacal declarations of how grotesquely wrong the people you're arguing against would be a little more effective if they were, like, slightly connected with reality? I mean, at least wait until a situation where they're wrong and you're right before you make outrageous claims.

Original Topic, AGAIN:

Restricting how much money individuals can give to political causes doesn't change the underlying problem (that the amount spent on campaigning usually determines the outcome) and ignores the very real truth that rich and powerful interests can either find loopholes in restrictions or arrange to have them added, and they can exploit tricks that common people don't have the resources to use. So any restriction that supposedly applies to everyone ends up binding everyday folks but not actually impeding the powerful - which worsens the disparity that the law was supposedly intended to even out in the first place!

Which is why these sorts of suggestions end up getting support. The people in power know perfectly well what the results will be, and they love every moment of it.

I don't think occluded sun has thought his argument all the way through. Saying that "no amount of laws can restrain the plutocracy so why try" isn't an argument for libertarianism, it's an argument for breaking out the guillotine.

Those poor everyday folks, who used to be able to buy senators like rich people, but can't any more because of campaign contribution limits! Ah, for the good old days when any factory worker could have a senator of his own. It's awful that there are laws that prevent that now.

Occluded Sun wrote:Don't you think your maniacal declarations of how grotesquely wrong the people you're arguing against would be a little more effective if they were, like, slightly connected with reality? I mean, at least wait until a situation where they're wrong and you're right before you make outrageous claims.

47 U.S. Code § 315 - Candidates for public office wrote:If any licensee shall permit any person who is a legally qualified candidate for any public office to use a broadcasting station, he shall afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office in the use of such broadcasting station

It's in the fucking "sources" section of that Wikipedia article.

Occluded Sun wrote:Don't you think your maniacal declarations of how grotesquely wrong the people you're arguing against would be a little more effective if they were, like, slightly connected with reality? I mean, at least wait until a situation where they're wrong and you're right before you make outrageous claims.

Were you or were you not wrong about whether or not the equal time rule was still in effect?

If you admit that you were wrong, then feel free to apologize for the above whiny (and suddenly incoherent) bitchfit about how I totally can't call you wrong because you're not wrong so nyah.

If you still insist that you were not wrong, you are everything I accused you of being and more. The facts here are very clearly not on your side, and to admit you are capable of and willing to filter them enough that that doesn't give you pause is to admit you are exactly the sort of shitbag I called you out for being.

More seriously, your confirmation bias is showing. This is not a mistake someone who was arguing in good faith would have made - if you'd paid even slightly more attention or investigated even slightly more thoroughly, you'd have found red flags that told you you were about to say something that was not true. But you didn't do those things, because you went to wikipedia looking for confirmation, not information. Exactly like you did when we were arguing about shouting fire in a crowded theater, and you attempted to provide as evidence in your favor a wikipedia article whose very first sentence shut your entire argument down. That seems like it would be a difficult thing to miss, and yet you did - how? Because you're only interested in the parts of the articles that you think agree with you. Everything else just gets filtered away as inconsequential. Shame on you.

Everyone on the Internet needs to be required to read this once a day before they argue with anyone online about anything.

I'm highjacking this thread to ask a money question:

I keep reading about the imminent American collapse caused by other countries abandoning the petrodollar. The main problem with this idea is that most places saying it also try to sell you gold or bitcoins, so I'm somewhat very skeptical of it.

What's the real deal about the petrodollar? If say, Russia and/or Iran start buying and selling petrol and gas with Euros, Yens or Yuans, what exactly would happen?

EDIT: For future reference, this was answered here.