Whatever happened to free market capitalism?

Author: Double_R

Posts

Total: 131
#61
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Double_R
You missed the part where I explained that my issue regarding corporate donations to political campaigns has nothing to do with the company, my issue is with the system that allows it. Do you believe, as a matter of law, that publicly traded companies should be allowed to make these donations?
Nope. It should 100% be banned. And I think that people and corporations should be held to a higher standard than just what's strictly legal (which is why I'm not infringing on their free speech rights by saying they SHOULDNT do something btw.)

Regarding the second part, I never said it was moral for a CEO to lose his company money over a political stand. I argued that (A) these decisions are not as political as you make them sound, and (B) to the extent that they cost the company money we already have a system of accountability (shareholder elections) to deal with that.
If the decisions aren't political, where are the leftist books that Amazon is refusing to sell? But I'm glad that we reached the point I was trying to make, that based on your previous statements it would be immoral for a CEO to lose a company money by taking a political stance.

Do you regard the rhetoric that lead to the attack on the US Capitol as “advocating a political position”?
Do you regard the rhetoric that led to nationwide riots, 19 dead, and billions in damage as "advocating a political position" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_protests) My answer is yes to both, FWIW.

I mean do you really think that nobody should ever be allowed to discuss voter fraud just because it likely didn't occur in this election? What if it DOES occur in a future election? Banning speech is an incredibly slippery slope because historically a lot of ideas that were originally universally lambasted turned out to be true.

That’s just your assessment. These issues are complicated, and reasonable minds can see it either way. So on what basis do you deem this decision entirely political? It’s one thing to disagree with the calculation Amazon is making, it’s an entirely different thing to claim it’s not a calculation at all but rather based on purely political motives. How do you distinguish between the two?
My assessment is that very few people were going to boycott Amazon if they didn't purge conservative books, so these books just represented marginal revenue, that Amazons leadership felt was less important than preventing wrongthink. do you have any reason to disagree?

With that question aside... on what basis can anyone reasonably claim that removing a book many people see as offensive to be an aggressively liberal stance? Is this what conservatism is now? How dare you try to avoid offending people?
Removing things that are offensive, simply because they are offensive, is a bad idea. Lots of things are offensive but still need to be said, in certain contexts. For example, while it is offensive to go around parading the fact that black people have a higher crime rate, it's nonetheless a necessary fact to bring up in discussions of disproportionate incarceration rates. Lots of evangelical Christians back in the day thought that Harry Potter was offensive and should be banned and I would say that a company caving to these demands definitely would've been taking an aggressively conservative stance by bowing to the top 1% most extreme activists 

Mental disorders are a human construct. It’s a condition where the brain doesn’t work as it’s supposed to. Who are you to tell someone else that their chosen lifestyle (which hurts no one else) is grounds for them to be considered in need of medical treatment?
If it's all a subjective human construct what's it to you what others think about it, anyway? Their chosen lifestyle hurts themselves. While technically it's no skin off my back, I'm not a sociopath and it hurts me to see clearly damaged people like Bruce Jenner or Ellen Page who need help instead mutilating themselves, and it disgusts me to see society enable this. Moreover this ideology is being pushed on children, to the point that prepubescent "trans" children are being placed on untested hormone blockers. I don't have any children right now, but I plan to very soon, and even if I don't I still have a vested interest in the health of the next generation. This video is a good starting point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUPHqTkL5Nw

I'm a free person capable of absorbing evidence and coming to my own conclusions. The people running Amazon don't want people to be able to come to their own conclusions, they only want to sell books that conform with the leftist narrative on transgenderism (and no doubt they will begin removing conservative books on other issues very soon.) I strongly dislike all forms of political censorship, but I especially hate it when the ideas being censored are likely true.
Topic's author
#62
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,279
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@thett3
If the decisions aren't political, where are the leftist books that Amazon is refusing to sell?
This is an argument from ignorance. You are the one charging Amazon with making strictly political decisions. The fact that the book you point to happens to be considered a right wing book is not evidence that they made a decision to go after right wing books, and I’ve already given you a perfectly reasonable explanation for why they would have singled this book out.

But I'm glad that we reached the point I was trying to make, that based on your previous statements it would be immoral for a CEO to lose a company money by taking a political stance.
I never implied otherwise. I don’t know why you keep bringing up morality, this thread is about free market capitalism and whether the political right actually believes in it.

I mean do you really think that nobody should ever be allowed to discuss voter fraud just because it likely didn't occur in this election? What if it DOES occur in a future election?
What? No one ever said voter fraud cannot be discussed. The left has been fighting back against misinformation being peddled by public figures who clearly know better (or at least should) and the damage it has caused. How do you suggest we do that?

Banning speech is an incredibly slippery slope because historically a lot of ideas that were originally universally lambasted turned out to be true.
No one is talking about banning speech. We’re talking about the free market. How did we get here?

My assessment is that very few people were going to boycott Amazon if they didn't purge conservative books, so these books just represented marginal revenue, that Amazons leadership felt was less important than preventing wrongthink. do you have any reason to disagree?
I think you have no reason at all to presume that preventing wrongthink was ultimately Amazon’s goal, yet your entire ire here seems to be based on it.

Your assessment completely disregards the concept of branding. It’s not about people boycotting, the decisions we make as to where we spend our money are based on all kinds of factors. The company I work for turns down money all the time because it doesn’t fit our brand. I don’t get why you seem to think companies don’t take this into account.

Removing things that are offensive, simply because they are offensive, is a bad idea. Lots of things are offensive but still need to be said, in certain contexts.
It’s not Amazon’s concern what does or does not need to be said in the public sphere. There are plenty of other platforms out there, the only thing Amazon needs to worry about is its own bottom line.

In the wake of the George Floyd protests Netflix added a black movies category. Do you think this was a purely political decision? Why or why not?

If it's all a subjective human construct what's it to you what others think about it, anyway?
It’s nothing, I don’t care. I’m not advocating a position on it, only against those who think they know better when it comes to the well being of the people who are actually going through this. I don’t know what it’s like to believe I was born into the wrong body, but I know it would take a hell of a lot for me to think that the best thing for me was to chop my own penis off, and I can’t imagine it would help the situation for books to be sold on Amazon telling people that my difficult choices are the result of a mental disorder.
#63
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,038
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@thett3
Nope. It should 100% be banned. 
You can't ban the laundering of money to crony politicians. Take Hunter Biden as a glaring example of how easy it is to launder money amidst all the "bans"

There will always be an easy way around a ban.

The ONLY solution is to go back to an originalist constitution when the government was constrained from handing out unlimited favors in the forms of subsidies and exemptions.


#64
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Double_R

This is an argument from ignorance. You are the one charging Amazon with making strictly political decisions. The fact that the book you point to happens to be considered a right wing book is not evidence that they made a decision to go after right wing books, and I’ve already given you a perfectly reasonable explanation for why they would have singled this book out.
IDK what to tell you man. You haven't given me a single non-political reason for why they would be pulling conservative books, and only conservative books...we know that the leadership and employee base of the company is incredibly liberal, and we know that American politics have gotten ridiculously polarized in the past five years or so. It isn't hard to put two and two together


What? No one ever said voter fraud cannot be discussed. The left has been fighting back against misinformation being peddled by public figures who clearly know better (or at least should) and the damage it has caused. How do you suggest we do that?

The solution to bad speech is good speech. The implications of allowing speech to be shut down on the basis of "misinformation" are scary to me since one mans opinion is another mans disinformation. In particular, this shut down only goes one way. For example, I don't see the Washington Post getting deplatformed for straight up making up quotes from Trump (https://twitter.com/DavidShafer/status/1371531429427970055) nor do I see leftists deplatformed for wild and baseless claims about Trump being a Russian asset since 1987, misinterpreting or making up crime and policing statistics, baselessly claiming that the United States is a white supremacist country, completely misrepresenting historical events etc. Both sides have some issues they are objectively wrong about /:

When it comes to the left, they really do get away with a lot by threatening people who disagree and doing their best to preemptively prevent anyone from making strong arguments against them. Most of their identity politics narrative in particular quickly falls apart when close scrutiny is applied, but people know that if they publicly argue against it, leftists will try to get them fired from their jobs

Your assessment completely disregards the concept of branding. It’s not about people boycotting, the decisions we make as to where we spend our money are based on all kinds of factors. The company I work for turns down money all the time because it doesn’t fit our brand. I don’t get why you seem to think companies don’t take this into account.
Right, so Amazon is branding themselves as a company that takes a stand against conservatives/conservative thought

In the wake of the George Floyd protests Netflix added a black movies category. Do you think this was a purely political decision? Why or why not?
Of course it was. Why else would they do it?

It’s nothing, I don’t care. I’m not advocating a position on it, only against those who think they know better when it comes to the well being of the people who are actually going through this. I don’t know what it’s like to believe I was born into the wrong body, but I know it would take a hell of a lot for me to think that the best thing for me was to chop my own penis off, and I can’t imagine it would help the situation for books to be sold on Amazon telling people that my difficult choices are the result of a mental disorder.
That's the point--only a mentally ill person would do this. And yet, the rate of children identifying as "trans" has been skyrocketing and many of these children are getting untested drugs. It actually is really important that we dispute the concept that this is simply a lifestyle choice, that it's even possible to change your sex, that there aren't incredibly adverse side effects to all of these things, that it is ethical for doctors to remove organs and appendages from otherwise healthy human beings. We are leading people down a wrong and irreversible path full of nothing but suffering and Amazon is trying to prevent people from reading books on the subject because it might hurt some feelings /:
#65
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@Vader
I'm sure YYW would agree with me on that statement as well at #24
I hold Pritzker in the utmost level of contempt. 
#66
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@Unpopular
Lockdowns were meant to slow the spread, not contain the spread, which they did.
There is no evidence that any policy-based NPIs substantially reduced COVID's spread, from what it would have been absent the NPI.  Lockdowns are one type of NPI, and the type of evidence you'd need to have in order to support the claim that lockdowns slowed COVID spread would be, at least, evidence that isolated its assessment of causality to only the impact that lockdowns had.  

So the obvious problem is how you deal with exogenous factors, like population density.  It turns out that, in the final analysis, the only actual predictor of how fast COVID spread was population density.  I sent thett a link to some publications talking about these, although I don't think he's cited them here.  

Obviously the rate of transmission for an airborne virus is mitigated by limited interactions with people and spaces.
That's a very vague statement, but generally reflective of the level of most people's understanding of this stuff.   Limiting interaction and lockdowns do not mean the same thing, and not all limited interaction matters equally in terms of slowing community spread.  

It's common sense that more people would have died without lockdowns, and all the data seems to confirm that. But even if we don't accept that and believe only the same amount of people would have died regardless, we know 535,000 have perished in the US with draconian lockdowns and mask mandates in place. So without those things, the same amount of people or more would have died at a faster rate. This would have very likely put strain on hospitals and other industries like morgues and emergency services. It's easy to say that would all be "worth it" in hindsight without having to go through it. Los Angeles and some other places got a glimpse of what that could have been like and it was not pretty. The value we place on lives vs. money is never consistent among civilians or politicians. All bias. 
Essentially every claim that you made in this post is wrong.  No evidence exists to support the proposition that lockdowns saved a single life.  What the data actually say is that outcomes are all over the place no matter what the state did.  There aren't even credible correlation studies that pass minimal scrutiny that support the claim that lockdowns saved lives, although there are several that try.  They typically cite state-by-state comparisons, relying on manipulated data-sets that support their claims and ignore entirely those that disprove.  

But, from a common sense perspective, consider the difference between upstate/rural New York and Manhattan.   Would you expect the level of human interaction in rural upstate NY to be the same as that of Midtown?  No.  The reason is because of differences in population density.  In the less densely populated areas of upstate NY, COVID spread at about the same rate in upstate NY as it did in states that never "locked down," whereas in NYC it spread rapidly.  Exceptions to this really only exist where one of three things happened:

1. Hospital admissions policies resulted in higher COVID exposure during the pandemic's earliest stages, which is very similar to what took place in Italy (and the reason why Italy had such egregious outcomes despite its NPIs);
2. Cuomo's policy of sending virus-shedding COVID patients to certain nursing homes in NY state; and 
3. Volunteers who went to NYC at the height of everything, who contracted COVID, and thereafter brought it back to less populated areas upon their return home.  

Moreover, even if we were going to make sweeping and unsupported claims about COVID deaths, your analysis cannot be limited to only the amount of COVID fatalities you think that lockdowns saved (assuming you could make such an estimation).  You would need, at least, to also consider the number of deaths that might result from lockdowns themselves, such as preventable deaths due to the lack of receipt of routine health care (e.g., heart attacks, cancer, etc.).   It doesn't seem like you thought about that. 













#67
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,038
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@coal
No evidence exists to support the proposition that lockdowns saved a single life.
There are multiple studies outside of USA that show marginal to no benefit from NPI policies. At least regarding Covid.


Topic's author
#68
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,279
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
You haven't given me a single non-political reason for why they would be pulling conservative books, and only conservative books...
No, you will not consider a single non political reason for it. The leadership at the company is liberal and these are conservatives books so that’s all you need and any suggestion otherwise is ridiculous.

 Tell you what, show me the equivalent left wing book that Amazon should be banning.

Of course it was. Why else would they do it?
As a way to reach out to a particular viewership, as a way of saying we see your pain... now watch our movies. Or if you’re white and want to learn more about the plight of black people... here we have some great selections for you. What is so difficult to believe about that? Do you really believe every white person you see on Instagram rocking a Black Lives Matter t-shirt is doing it to advance their politics and correct wrongthink? Obviously not. Many are doing it because they’ve made a calculation that their personal goals are better served being seen as sympathetic towards black people. What is so difficult about this?

The implications of allowing speech to be shut down on the basis of "misinformation" are scary to me since one mans opinion is another mans disinformation.
Getting back to the topic of this thread... what do you mean “allowing speech to be shut down”? What exactly is your solution here? Do you feel the free market should be free? Or rather to what extent?

Right, so Amazon is branding themselves as a company that takes a stand against conservatives/conservative thought
No, conservatives are branding Amazon that way. Amazon isn’t banning books on tax cuts and the second amendment. The content of the book is what matters, not whether it happens to be left wing or right wing.

You seem to accept the narrative that conservatives are being censored everywhere. If that’s the case, if no one is willing to publish the work of or work with individuals who subscribe to certain ideas, perhaps you’d be better served thinking about what that says about your ideas rather than always playing the victim.

But this trend is not surprising. In 2012 the Republican Party performed an autopsy on their defeat and came away with the conclusion that they lost largely because of their stances on immigration. So what did they do with this information? They elected the most anti immigrant president we’ve ever seen. In 2020 after losing the election they didn’t even bother to ask themselves what went wrong, they just claimed it was stolen. Self reflection isn’t prevalent on the right.
#69
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,038
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
they just claimed it was stolen. Self reflection isn’t prevalent on the...
Worked for Democrats. 4 years of it worked very well. Seems like the right is adjusting to the new brave world of finger-pointing.

Not a single politician involved in undermining the authority of the presidency lost their job over the last 4 years. The message is VERY clear. If you want to keep your job in Washington DC, stop trying to fix problems and start pointing fingers.

I guarantee if I was a Washington DC politician and I wanted your vote, I would be pointing my finger exactly where your focus group told me to.
#70
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,038
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
I used to think Hillary was a madman for her finger-pointing and blame-game over the past 4 years. 

I have to give the old girl some credit, she knew EXACTLY how the game is played out in Washington DC.

It wasn't some aimless narcissistic 4-year hissyfit.
#71
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Double_R
Tell you what, show me the equivalent left wing book that Amazon should be banning.
I don't think any books should be banned, but a leftist equivalent in terms of "offensiveness" would probably be something like White Fragility. Is your contention seriously that you can't imagine a leftist book that people would find offensive?

Getting back to the topic of this thread... what do you mean “allowing speech to be shut down”? What exactly is your solution here? Do you feel the free market should be free? Or rather to what extent?
You tell me. I'm not proposing laws preventing Amazon from removing books (although given its near monopoly status I would consider it--breaking it apart first would be the better option, though.) All I'm saying is that corporations shouldn't be trying their best to decide what I'm able to read. I'm advocating for what was the status quo up until 2020...just be a neutral platform.

You're the one saying that the left is fighting "misinformation" and the right just wants to complain about being their leaders being banned from social media, negative stories about their opponents being censored, and books advocating their ideas being prohibited...what should be done to combat "misinformation"? Speech codes? I noticed you didn't dispute that misinformation also comes from the left, which does you credit, because of course it comes from both sides. But I only see one side being punished for it. What should happen, in your view?

Amazon isn’t banning books on tax cuts and the second amendment.
Yet. Remember this conversation. We will see what happens over the next two to three years.

You seem to accept the narrative that conservatives are being censored everywhere. If that’s the case, if no one is willing to publish the work of or work with individuals who subscribe to certain ideas, perhaps you’d be better served thinking about what that says about your ideas rather than always playing the victim.
I'll take this as an admission that you do want conservatives to be censored and punished for their views. Some people just disagree, I don't know what to tell you. Do you think I deserve to be banned from this site or suffer some personal repercussion for arguing that gender dysphoria is a mental illness?

But this trend is not surprising. In 2012 the Republican Party performed an autopsy on their defeat and came away with the conclusion that they lost largely because of their stances on immigration. So what did they do with this information? They elected the most anti immigrant president we’ve ever seen. In 2020 after losing the election they didn’t even bother to ask themselves what went wrong, they just claimed it was stolen. Self reflection isn’t prevalent on the right.
That same President was almost re-elected thanks to increasing minority support, and only lost because he couldn't hold onto a lot of the boring NPR listening white voters in the suburbs who love tax cuts and Mitt Romney. Trump obviously had a lot of flaws as a man, and was certainly among the most flawed politicians in generations (he absolutely refused to pluck the most low hanging fruit.) The fact that he won once and almost won again is a testament to the popularity of the policies he supported and implemented, which contradicted the autopsy 
#72
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Greyparrot
I used to think Hillary was a madman for her finger-pointing and blame-game over the past 4 years. 

I have to give the old girl some credit, she knew EXACTLY how the game is played out in Washington DC.
After all, it's Trump's signature move.
#73
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,038
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
After all, it's Trump's signature move.
Learned from the best obviously. Not bad for a newcomer to Washington DC fuckery.
Topic's author
#74
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,279
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@thett3
I don't think any books should be banned, but a leftist equivalent in terms of "offensiveness" would probably be something like White Fragility. Is your contention seriously that you can't imagine a leftist book that people would find offensive?
My contention is that if you are making the argument that Amazon’s choice was purely political, you should be able to show me an equivalent example that Amazon won’t ban.

White fragility is a book explaining to white people that conversations about race are not about them personally. There is nothing remotely equal here.

All I'm saying is that corporations shouldn't be trying their best to decide what I'm able to read. I'm advocating for what was the status quo up until 2020...just be a neutral platform.
And what if companies decide that it’s not in their best interest to be a neutral platform?

But this right here is the problem... you seem to think this is all about you. No one is trying to decide what you can read or control what you think. If you want this anti-transgender book you can get it somewhere else, and if no one else will carry it that’s not Amazon’s problem. It’s still a free market. That means anyone can decide to sell it, not that someone must.

You're the one saying that the left is fighting "misinformation" and the right just wants to complain about being their leaders being banned from social media, negative stories about their opponents being censored, and books advocating their ideas being prohibited...what should be done to combat "misinformation"?
I think this really is the problem of our era, and I don’t have an answer other than a concerted effort by our society to drown out misinformation with reality. I will say, I think it will slowly improve over the coming years now that the biggest purveyor of misinformation on earth no longer has the biggest microphone.

I'll take this as an admission that you do want conservatives to be censored and punished for their views.
It’s not about punishment, it’s about accountability. Trump’s Facebook and Twitter account played a massive and possibly decisive role in the Capitol attack. He should be banned from those sites, I think it would have been immoral for those companies not to.

But here’s the crazy thing... that has nothing to do with him being a conservative. Alleging that the election was stolen by some nationwide cabal of democrats conspiring to rig the election isn’t conservatism. Neither is claiming that all transgender people have a mental disorder. People aren’t being “censored” for their political leanings. They’re being censored because they are pushing toxic ideas that no one wants to be associated with.

I noticed you didn't dispute that misinformation also comes from the left, which does you credit, because of course it comes from both sides.
That it does. No one side ever has a monopoly on misinformation, but that doesn’t mean both sides are equal.

Do you think I deserve to be banned from this site or suffer some personal repercussion for arguing that gender dysphoria is a mental illness?
No. But this isn’t about what you deserve, it’s about what these companies decide is best for them. This is a debate site, the purpose is to be a platform for all kinds of ideas so they can be debated. If you were a teacher on the other hand, your views being put out in the open might be a problem. It all depends on what the institutions goals are and whether you or your ideas threaten them.

That same President was almost re-elected thanks to increasing minority support, and only lost because he couldn't hold onto a lot of the boring NPR listening white voters in the suburbs who love tax cuts and Mitt Romney. Trump obviously had a lot of flaws as a man, and was certainly among the most flawed politicians in generations (he absolutely refused to pluck the most low hanging fruit.) The fact that he won once and almost won again is a testament to the popularity of the policies he supported and implemented, which contradicted the autopsy
Thank you for proving my point. Zero self reflection.

And BTW, he didn’t come as close as he did because of his policies. Most voters and especially Trump voters don’t even know what policies their candidate supports and in this case, Trump was notorious for being especially vapid in that area. Trump only came as close as he did because the electoral college is skewed towards republicans, as it was in 2016. He lost by 7 million votes.

Let’s see how republicans do when Trump is not on the ballot, like in 2018. Maybe then, we’ll see some self reflection. Maybe.




#75
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Double_R
White fragility is a book explaining to white people that conversations about race are not about them personally. There is nothing remotely equal here.
That's the point though, right? I do find the book offensive and so do millions of others. Just because you don't have a problem with it doesn't mean that others don't--I have no problem with books describing gender dysphoria as a mental illness. And yet notice how books offensive to your sensibilities get banned, but ones offensive to my sensibilities don't. You are saying "no, there isn't a bias, show me something offensive from the left that is allowed" "Here's something from the left that offends me that is allowed." "That isn't offensive!!" 

Who gets to decide???

And I'm not calling for banning its sale. I'm a fallible human being who is wrong about a lot of stuff, I am not so confident that I'm right about everything that everything I oppose should be banned

But this right here is the problem... you seem to think this is all about you. No one is trying to decide what you can read or control what you think. If you want this anti-transgender book you can get it somewhere else, and if no one else will carry it that’s not Amazon’s problem. It’s still a free market. That means anyone can decide to sell it, not that someone must.
Amazon has a near monopoly on online book sales, so it banning sales of books advocating certain viewpoints has a huge chilling effect on books that are yet to be written, and ensures that lots of people will never stumble upon the book. This IS the point. 

But yeah I don't see it as a "free market" if mega-corporations unite to excise the opinions of half the country. It's not okay if publishers don't sell books not because there isn't a demand, but because they fear retribution from activists, or because the people running the corporations are activists themselves. If we don't agree on this, we've reached our fundamental disagreement

 If you were a teacher on the other hand, your views being put out in the open might be a problem. It all depends on what the institutions goals are and whether you or your ideas threaten them.
Would a teacher saying something like all white people are racist threaten the institution?

I agree teachers should be nonpolitical, fwiw. Because everyone has different worldview we should tread lightly...I just wish this was more respected in todays America. It seems like everyone has been radicalized 

Most voters and especially Trump voters don’t even know what policies their candidate supports and in this case, Trump was notorious for being especially vapid in that area. Trump only came as close as he did because the electoral college is skewed towards republicans, as it was in 2016. He lost by 7 million votes.
Ehh, I mean true most people can't recite their favored parties entire platform but he definitely represented a big change in Republican orthodoxy on issues like trade and foreign policy...there's a reason he and Romney had pretty different coalitions. Trump flipped Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania at least partially because he ran against outsourcing and NAFTA, things Romney was in favor of. The huge economic boom pre-COVID helped him a lot with lower income voters too, as their incomes started to rise for the first time in decades. I think without the virus he would've won re election despite being an extremely terrible politician  
#76
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,084
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Greyparrot
Madman, Old Girl.

You are definitely gender confused Mr Parrot.


And power corrupts....Always. 
#77
Unpopular
Unpopular's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 98
0
1
3
Unpopular's avatar
Unpopular
0
1
3
-->
@coal
Essentially every claim that you made in this post is wrong.  No evidence exists to support the proposition that lockdowns saved a single life.  What the data actually say is that outcomes are all over the place no matter what the state did.  There aren't even credible correlation studies that pass minimal scrutiny that support the claim that lockdowns saved lives, although there are several that try.  They typically cite state-by-state comparisons, relying on manipulated data-sets that support their claims and ignore entirely those that disprove.  

Essentially every claim that you made in your post is wrong, except for the ones where you repeated what I said and framed it as if you are saying something different.  There is evidence  to support the proposition that lockdowns saved lives, and no evidence claiming that lockdowns did not save any lives. The data does say that outcomes are all over the place with different state responses. That is the point I made to thett, disproving the idea that lockdowns had "no effect"  by his using FLs numbers compared to NYs. Citing state by state comparisons alone without context is useless, with population density being a huge factor, so you are confirming my point. 

When I said the rate of transmission for an airborne virus is mitigated by limited interactions with people and spaces, you said that's a very vague statement, and generally reflective of the level of most people's understanding of this stuff. What is your level of understanding of this stuff? Are you a virologist? If you are just pulling things off google and sending them to your doctor friends to interpret for you like the rest of us, I doubt your level of understanding is very superior to mine. For starters you claim to not understand how limiting interactions with people and spaces reduces the rate of transmission. If a virus is airborne and you are home, you are not contracting the virus from other people or places. I am not sure how this could be any more clear.


But, from a common sense perspective, consider the difference between upstate/rural New York and Manhattan.   Would you expect the level of human interaction in rural upstate NY to be the same as that of Midtown?  No.  The reason is because of differences in population density.  In the less densely populated areas of upstate NY, COVID spread at about the same rate in upstate NY as it did in states that never "locked down," whereas in NYC it spread rapidly.  
Yes, and it would have spread even more rapidly in New York City, which does have different policies than upstate New York, if people were crowding in bars and restaurants instead of being at home. Cities have more human interaction because they are more densely populated, as you noted. Therefore the rate of transmission is faster. The denser the city, the more easily disease can spread. I do not think less dense places needed to lockdown. I am not sure if rural places like upstate New York did lock down for very long. States did so early in the pandemic when much was still unknown about the virus, and that includes Florida. All we saw was devastation in Italy and China going above and beyond to contain the spread in Wuhan, so of course there was fear. More rural places were initially concerned about their lack of medical infrastructure, but it should not have been too surprising that densely populated cities posed the greatest risk. Again this is reason not to look at FLs numbers vs NYs alone and think that proves anything, so you are again confirming my point. 


 Exceptions to this really only exist where one of three things happened:

1. Hospital admissions policies resulted in higher COVID exposure during the pandemic's earliest stages, which is very similar to what took place in Italy (and the reason why Italy had such egregious outcomes despite its NPIs);
2. Cuomo's policy of sending virus-shedding COVID patients to certain nursing homes in NY state; and 
3. Volunteers who went to NYC at the height of everything, who contracted COVID, and thereafter brought it back to less populated areas upon their return home.  
This all validates my point even further.  Cuomo's nursing home policy accounts for a significant amount of NYs death toll, so thett using NYs total death numbers and saying that is indicative of the effectiveness of lockdown policy is useless. You have to account for the other variables. 

Hospitals admitting and mixing covid patients early in the pandemic, and volunteers bringing covid back home, explains how exposure to more people and places increases the likelihood of transmission. That is why lockdowns slow the rate: because if you are sitting home working or playing video games, and not traveling to other states, your exposure is inherently lower than if you were out and about. That is common sense. 


Moreover, even if we were going to make sweeping and unsupported claims about COVID deaths,

I'm not 


your analysis cannot be limited to only the amount of COVID fatalities you think that lockdowns saved (assuming you could make such an estimation).  You would need, at least, to also consider the number of deaths that might result from lockdowns themselves, such as preventable deaths due to the lack of receipt of routine health care (e.g., heart attacks, cancer, etc.).   It doesn't seem like you thought about that. 

I have thought about it. Multiple times I have referenced the net negatives of lockdowns. Multiple times I have said I do not agree with lockdowns. 55% of people have avoided medical care because of covid. That doesn't allow us to quantify the number of lives lost as a result, so we cannot venture a guess as to how it compares to the utility of lockdowns in lives saved. But people choosing to stay home and not seek medical care out of fear can't be blamed on lockdowns, and neither can hospital overcrowding. Without lockdowns, more people were at risk of exposure, and therefore hospitalization, which could have also increased the death toll. By how much can only be a rough estimate. What I would say to the people making this point about lockdowns, who tend to be Republican, is that more than 26,000 Americans die every year due to lack of health insurance. Why suddenly care about lack of access to medical care now. 

In hindsight, it looks like only a portion of the population was at significant risk of covid, which we did not know early on. States have responded according to what the scientists have been telling them, which is what they should be doing. That's why we have scientists. Just like we have lawyers to provide legal guidance (and they are sometimes wrong). Just like we have doctors to provide medical guidance (and they are sometimes wrong). We know better now, but the idea that lockdowns had NO effect, as in did not save any lives, is not true. That is the only thing I responded to when I said it was "subjective" whether lockdowns were effective. You might not agree, but all the people with comorbidities who were allowed to work from home might disagree with you. That's what subjective means. 
#78
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@Unpopular
So, I take by your last post you didn't actually read what I provided you? 

Or, maybe you didn't understand it? 
#79
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@Unpopular
Actually, I just read over my post and I didn't link what mattered.  Apologies. Here's what the data actually say, when correctly understood.  The picture is complicated because there's a lot of junk-science and p-hacked garbage out there.  


  1. If the CDC had have implemented a national mandate for face masks in March 2020 would have probably saved 47,000 lives (although maintaining that policy is likely to produce diminishing returns);
  2. Policy-based NPIs (i.e., lockdowns) had no impact on observed rates of community spread, as compared to alternative worlds in which there were no lockdowns; (read: the virus would have ran its course in essentially the same way at nearly the same rate, regardless of whether the lockdowns were imposed or not);
  3. No data support that closing schools made any difference in community spread whatsoever, and there is no way to even misinterpret the data to support any argument otherwise in a way that passes basic scrutiny; and
  4. Models (e.g., Imperial's) vastly over-estimated the number of cases and deaths.

  1. Neither policy-based NPIs nor ratesof voluntary social distancing explain a meaningful share of geographic variation in virus transmission (i.e., no evidence that lockdowns made a difference); and 
  2. Rather than policy-based NPIs (i.e., lockdowns), the mostimportant predictors of which cities were hardest hit by the pandemic are exogenous characteristics such as population and density.  
That Stanford article has some methodological issues, and seems to have included some stuff in there that is inconsistent with other findings, but the analysis/conclusions on population density are correct. 


#80
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@Unpopular
Further:

What is your level of understanding of this stuff? Are you a virologist?
That's a funny question, because virology is the scientific discipline concerned with the study of the biology of viruses and viral diseases, including the distribution, biochemistry, physiology, molecular biology, ecology, evolution and clinical aspects of viruses. That's a bit different than the skillset required to understand statistical modeling, particularly regression analysis, which involves a set of statistical processes for estimating the relationships between a dependent variable (often called the 'outcome variable') and one or more independent variables (often called 'predictors', 'covariates', or 'features').

You can assume for the purpose of our discussion that modeling is something I've had some experience in.

That is why lockdowns slow the rate: because if you are sitting home working or playing video games, and not traveling to other states, your exposure is inherently lower than if you were out and about. That is common sense. 
You should also assume for the purpose of our discussion that data more reliably indicate what reality is, rather than "common sense" (though neither support your argument, in the final analysis).

Topic's author
#81
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,279
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@thett3
That's the point though, right? I do find the book offensive and so do millions of others. Just because you don't have a problem with it doesn't mean that others don't...

Who gets to decide???
Those of us who believe in reasoned deliberation. Being offended because someone called your wife a hoar is not the same thing as being offended because someone put ketchup on their steak. We are always going to have differing opinions on what is offensive. The solution is not to go nuclear and pretend there is no such thing as being legitimately offended.

There is a reason we can nearly all agree that swasticas are offensive. All it takes is empathy and some level of concern for your neighbor. If you don’t care about the people you offend then no one else has any obligation to care about your objections to stopping it, and that’s exactly what is happening on a national level.

Amazon has a near monopoly on online book sales, so it banning sales of books advocating certain viewpoints has a huge chilling effect on books that are yet to be written, and ensures that lots of people will never stumble upon the book. This IS the point.
And yet you haven’t been making it. I said earlier in our conversation that the size of these companies is a legitimate concern but that I also see likely to no evidence that this really is the point for the right wing. If it were we would have been spent the past few days talking about monopolies and what should be done about them, not about whether Amazon should be making political decisions.

But yeah I don't see it as a "free market" if mega-corporations unite to excise the opinions of half the country.
Once again, these are private companies acting in their own best interests. This isn’t some nationwide conspiracy to silence conservatives. To the extent that any of it is true they may have came together to stop promoting the rhetoric that the election was stolen which ultimately culminated in the attack on our US Capitol. That, aside from that being the right thing, is not nearly the same unless you are seriously equating that with conservatism.

I think without the virus he would've won re election despite being an extremely terrible politician  
I think so too, but this is another example of the lack of self reflection. The problem wasn’t the virus. It’s still killing thousands of Americans by the day and millions are still out of work, yet Biden’s approval ratings are higher than Trump’s ever were. If Trump had just put on a mask and gotten out of the way of the actual experts he would have been fine. But instead he politicized not only the virus but the science itself. Look around at the rest of the world. Any world leader who did the basics coasted to reelection. It turns out that denying reality can only take you so far.

But instead of learning that lesson we’re passing over 250 new laws to stop people from voting, so here we are...

#82
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@Double_R
But instead of learning that lesson we’re passing over 250 new laws to stop people from voting, so here we are...
Not just passing laws.  Gaming the system at every level to undermine democracy, including by:

1. Gerrymandering districts along overtly partisan lines, that over-represent the party in power and under-represent  the party out of power;
2. Changing the locations, times, policies and procedures for polling places within districts from election to election;
3. Placing polling locations in districts that represent the party out of power in non-central, inconvenient and/or inaccessible locations; 
4. Restricting early-access voting without cause or explanation; and
5. Limiting the time for voting to working-hours during a work week. 

Most of this takes place at the state level, which is why it evades scrutiny.  Also, these tactics tend to be too nuanced and sneaky for (mostly stupid) journalists to understand. 
#83
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Double_R
Those of us who believe in reasoned deliberation. Being offended because someone called your wife a hoar is not the same thing as being offended because someone put ketchup on their steak. We are always going to have differing opinions on what is offensive. The solution is not to go nuclear and pretend there is no such thing as being legitimately offended.

There is a reason we can nearly all agree that swasticas are offensive. All it takes is empathy and some level of concern for your neighbor. If you don’t care about the people you offend then no one else has any obligation to care about your objections to stopping it, and that’s exactly what is happening on a national level.
What you are saying in other words is that people who agree with you get to decide. 

Who gets to decide what is offensive? Who believes in "reasoned deliberation", and thus gets a say and how is that decided? Why should something be banned simply because it is offensive? Why not just take the honest approach and admit that you do want your political opponents censored, so we can talk about that. I'm much more interested in that conversation because the left has won. They control, and have weaponized, every key institution in this country. Talking frankly with average leftists will give me an idea of what to expect in the future 

 If it were we would have been spent the past few days talking about monopolies and what should be done about them, not about whether Amazon should be making political decisions.
I would encourage you to pay more attention to what your political opponents are saying. Republicans have been talking about the tech monopolies for some time now, and the Trump administration filed anti-trust lawsuits against some of them. 

Once again, these are private companies acting in their own best interests. This isn’t some nationwide conspiracy to silence conservatives.
Prove that it's in their best interests. I'm all ears. How much revenue did Amazon stand to lose if they didn't ban the sale of books that generated them revenue? The safer assumption is absolutely that it was a political decision. But tbh even if it was in their best interests (which I absolutely do not admit) that just circles back to my point that leftists have been using intimidation tactics and economic coercion to shut down their opposition. A thing you endorsed, stating that we should reflect on what it means if people refuse to work with us


#84
Unpopular
Unpopular's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 98
0
1
3
Unpopular's avatar
Unpopular
0
1
3
-->
@coal
It turns out that, in the final analysis, the only actual predictor of how fast COVID spread was population density.

All you're doing is repeating and confirming my point repeatedly.  Why does population density matter when it comes to viral spread?  Because when you are exposed to more people, the likelihood of transmission is higher. If you are sitting at home and not exposing yourself to anyone, the opportunity for transmission is lower. That is a fact. Your source confirms this fact for you even though it is very obvious. It says  "not implementing stay-at-home orders would have increased cases by 6 to 63% by the end of May." So  there would have definitively been more cases without lockdowns per the link you provided. Statistically speaking, some of the people that would have contracted covid would have comorbidities that increase their risk of dying. That is probably why your link says "without business closures, cases and deaths would be about 40% higher at the end of May."

All findings I have read suggest that stay-at-home orders combined with testing, tracing, and travel restrictions, likely played a key role in significantly reducing the covid growth rate.  https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/222/10/1601/5879762

So far you have provided no evidence indicating that lockdowns did not slow the spread. 

Did you send the wrong link by accident, or did you not realize that your source proves my points? 


#85
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@Unpopular
Do you want me to explain to you why the source I linked supports what I said, and does not support what you are claiming despite the fact that the quote you identify appears in the article? 


#86
Unpopular
Unpopular's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 98
0
1
3
Unpopular's avatar
Unpopular
0
1
3
-->
@coal
I am claiming that lockdowns slow the spread of a virus, because if you are sitting at home and not exposed to other people, the opportunity for transmission is little to nothing. That is a fact. You have acknowledged  population density as the biggest factor in covid transmission, meaning more people proximation = higher rate of transmission. This confirms my point that limited exposure to people (lockdowns) slows the spread even if that has many other negative repercussions. 

You have also repeatedly confirmed my point to thett that looking at overall numbers alone (FL vs NY) proves nothing. So if you would like to explain why the direct quote lifted from your source is wrong, you can, but you have already proven me to be correct multiple times,  and I am satisfied with that being the end of the discussion. 
#87
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@Unpopular
I am claiming that lockdowns slow the spread of a virus, because if you are sitting at home and not exposed to other people, the opportunity for transmission is little to nothing. That is a fact. You have acknowledged  population density as the biggest factor in covid transmission, meaning more people proximation = higher rate of transmission. This confirms my point that limited exposure to people (lockdowns) slows the spread even if that has many other negative repercussions. 

You have also repeatedly confirmed my point to thett that looking at overall numbers alone (FL vs NY) proves nothing. So if you would like to explain why the direct quote lifted from your source is wrong, you can, but you have already proven me to be correct multiple times,  and I am satisfied with that being the end of the discussion. 
This is one of those situations where you think you know something that you don't.  And you didn't understand what I send you, if this is still your opinion.  


#88
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@Unpopular
 So if you would like to explain why the direct quote lifted from your source is wrong
And being "wrong" isn't the issue.  My Econometrics article is correct.  It's the least wrong analysis as to causation for various policy-based NPIs, but it doesn't mean what you think it means, which is the issue in play here.

You clearly have some opinions on these issues, but those opinions are not informed by either the science or the underlying data behind the science.  I provided you two articles with some pretty sophisticated analysis, that you don't seem to understand.  Further, you don't seem to understand the context of that analysis; or why it matters for the lockdown-debate.  

But, laying the foundation for what is going on here is going to take a significant amount of time on my part and I'm not seeing the benefit here because evidence-based discussion as to the causal connections (or lack of them) between certain policy choices and their outcomes does not seem to be what you're interested in.  

What you're doing is repeating some pretty shallow claims you heard in the media, that at once misrepresent the underlying data and exaggerate the claims that even those who got it wrong (e.g., Ferguson) made in the first instance.  Which is why I'm seeing a problem, here.  Which is why I asked whether you even want me to explain this stuff to you, because you don't seem to even be interested in understanding these issues. 
Topic's author
#89
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,279
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@thett3
What you are saying in other words is that people who agree with you get to decide. 
If by people who “agree with me” you are referring to people who believe that the way to sort through our differing viewpoints is via the use of reason... then yes that’s what I’m saying. If you’re in a group assigned to figure out an extremely complex math problem and one of your colleagues doesn’t accept that 2+2=4, I’m pretty sure you’re not going to give that person a seat at the table either.

Why not just take the honest approach and admit that you do want your political opponents censored, so we can talk about that.
I believe I made myself clear in my last comment. I do like seeing people I strongly disagree with “silenced”... when it’s in the context of the free market. I have no doubt you do as well, because that’s not nearly the same thing as it happening via the government. There’s no central authority in the free market. There’s no referee making the decisions for everyone. If no one wants to hear what you have to say I’m pretty sure you’re the problem.

With that said, can you explain to me who exactly is being silenced? The right lost his mind when Trump was banned by all the big tech companies but I could have sworn that was him on my TV screen at Cpac and then being talked about by all the news channels afterward, and I’m pretty sure that was him on Fox News talking to Maria Bartiromo the other night. Crazy how loud his platform is for a silenced person.

I would encourage you to pay more attention to what your political opponents are saying. Republicans have been talking about the tech monopolies for some time now, and the Trump administration filed anti-trust lawsuits against some of them.
I have been paying attention. The tech companies are only invoked and monopolies only talked about when they do something conservatives don’t like. And we all know Trump’s gripe is entirely based on the way he personally was treated by them. He doesn’t care about public policy, he just wants revenge.

Prove that it's in their best interests. I'm all ears. How much revenue did Amazon stand to lose if they didn't ban the sale of books that generated them revenue?
It’s not my job, nor is it Amazon’s. That’s why it’s called the free market.

But tbh even if it was in their best interests (which I absolutely do not admit) that just circles back to my point that leftists have been using intimidation tactics and economic coercion to shut down their opposition.
Intimidation tactics? I believe you mean people on the left have been using their freedom of speech. 
#90
Unpopular
Unpopular's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 98
0
1
3
Unpopular's avatar
Unpopular
0
1
3
-->
@coal
What you're doing is repeating some pretty shallow claims you heard in the media,

Premise 1, You admit that population density is the foremost issue in covid spread.
Premise 2, Population density is the foremost issue in covid spread, because of people's closeness and proximity to others who spread germs.
Premise 3, When people are restricted to being at home, they cannot spread or receive germs from others.
Logical Conclusion, People being at home inherently slows the spread, because they are not in proximity to others, and cannot spread or receive germs. 

You cannot falsify any of these premises, and you cannot falsify the logical conclusion. 

Because you cannot falsify the premises or its logical conclusion, you are wrong, and I am right. 

The link you provided contradicts everything you have said. I cited it verbatim, and you said I did not understand it even though I quoted it word for word. And then, you asked if I would like for you to explain why the verbatim text I cited, which explicitly contradicts your points throughout the entire thing (so I am not sure you read it, to be frank) is somehow wrong or my understanding is wrong. So I am wondering why none of what you said in your last post to me referenced the information contained in the link. You did not cite any of its contents let alone explain in any way, how I "do not understand it." It clearly says businesses being shut down saves lives. Saying I am I am wrong wrong wrong, and do not understand, does not prove anything. You are trying to prove your point with a link  that quite literally says the exact opposite of what you are trying to say, and what I have logically proven with the premises above.