The Democrats are the party of the rich (the Bloombourgeoisie)

[Antonio the Sixth]

Words fail me as to what an HP Jaichind is. One gets the impression he loves money so much he'd open an overseas teen brothel if it was highly profitable and he wouldn't get sued or lose social status over it.

Not kidding.

Thank you for your feedback.  I guess I have several response to this

1) Yes, I would absolutely be willing to invest in the adult entertainment industry if I thought the ROI was better than other industries.  In fact several years ago I looked into a fund which explicitly invested in brothel in Australia.  I did not put any time looking into it further on the basic reasoning that the demand for brothel services must be long term trend decline  the hook up cultural we live in while the liberalization of third world economies would increase supply.  That fund did not go anywhere folded anyway.  In fact I think I read a few economic papers after that which pretty much said the same thing.  The relative drop in the relative compensation of an escort from a hundred years ago is actually quite dramatic.  A friend of my at work did have a chance two decades ago to get into internet porn distribution industry but choose not to and has kicked himself ever since as he missed out on a bundle of money.  Now that was an investment worth getting into a couple of decades ago and perhaps even now.
 
2) The best I would do is to invest in such an enterprise as a passive investor and not try to run it.  While I am fairly successful as a middle/upper management type I would actually be a pretty horrible entrepreneur as I am pretty poor at thinking outside the box.  So even if I would try to make money out of this industry I would not "open" any brothel or related entities but invest in or loan money said  enterprise.

...

[DC Al Fine]

I'm torn between snark about Jaichind's immorality and snark about how this is the inevitable result of the social liberalism most progressives favour.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'm torn between snark about Jaichind's immorality and snark about how this is the inevitable result of the social liberalism most progressives favour.

You sound a lot like TNF. Everything wrong with the world is the "inevitable result" of the ideology you oppose.

[DC Al Fine]

I'm torn between snark about Jaichind's immorality and snark about how this is the inevitable result of the social liberalism most progressives favour.

You sound a lot like TNF. Everything wrong with the world is the "inevitable result" of the ideology you oppose.

Nonsense. I'm blaming an attitude about sex for negatively impacting...sexual issues. That's hardly a stretch. It's not like I'm blaming Gloria Steinem for CO2 levels

If 'consenting adults' is one's sexual ethic,  investing in the sex trade isn't materially different from investing in a factory.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'm torn between snark about Jaichind's immorality and snark about how this is the inevitable result of the social liberalism most progressives favour.

You sound a lot like TNF. Everything wrong with the world is the "inevitable result" of the ideology you oppose.

Nonsense. I'm blaming an attitude about sex for negatively impacting...sexual issues. That's hardly a stretch. It's not like I'm blaming Gloria Steinem for CO2 levels

If 'consenting adults' is one's sexual ethic,  investing in the sex trade isn't materially different from investing in a factory.

For one thing, "most progressives" don't actually take this view of sexual ethic. They might espouse some of the attitudes associated with it, but when challenged to think about it, most of them concede at least one of two things: that "consent" can't be understood as the mere absence of direct physical coercion, or that there are other relevant criteria to take into account than just consent. Whatever the state of moral discourse might be on the forum, it's not exactly a good reflection of society as a whole, or even of the modern left.

But regardless, even if you characterization was truthful, you still haven't provided any rationale causally connecting Jaichind's attitude specifically to progressive sexual ethics. All you're saying here is that, under (a particular brand of) (self-described) progressivism, there would be no moral argument against Jaichind's attitude. That doesn't prove that (that particular brand of) (self-described) progressivism is the cause of Jaichind's attitude - let alone that such causal process was "inevitable".

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

TRIGGER WARNING FOR JAICHIND: WOMAN IN THE SEX TRADE WHO'S NOT MAXIMIZING HER ROI

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Murica!]

Words fail me as to what an HP Jaichind is. One gets the impression he loves money so much he'd open an overseas teen brothel if it was highly profitable and he wouldn't get sued or lose social status over it.

Not kidding.

Thank you for your feedback.  I guess I have several response to this

1) Yes, I would absolutely be willing to invest in the adult entertainment industry if I thought the ROI was better than other industries.  In fact several years ago I looked into a fund which explicitly invested in brothel in Australia.  I did not put any time looking into it further on the basic reasoning that the demand for brothel services must be long term trend decline  the hook up cultural we live in while the liberalization of third world economies would increase supply.  That fund did not go anywhere folded anyway.  In fact I think I read a few economic papers after that which pretty much said the same thing.  The relative drop in the relative compensation of an escort from a hundred years ago is actually quite dramatic.  A friend of my at work did have a chance two decades ago to get into internet porn distribution industry but choose not to and has kicked himself ever since as he missed out on a bundle of money.  Now that was an investment worth getting into a couple of decades ago and perhaps even now.
 
2) The best I would do is to invest in such an enterprise as a passive investor and not try to run it.  While I am fairly successful as a middle/upper management type I would actually be a pretty horrible entrepreneur as I am pretty poor at thinking outside the box.  So even if I would try to make money out of this industry I would not "open" any brothel or related entities but invest in or loan money said  enterprise.

That's pretty spooky there mate.

I broke a finger so no long posts from me for a while, so just expect me to just call things spooky(aka sh**tposts as per usual.)

[Badger]

I'm torn between snark about Jaichind's immorality and snark about how this is the inevitable result of the social liberalism most progressives favour.

The clear evil here, Al, isn't social liberalism, but lassiz-faire capitalism where anything--or anyone in distressed enough a situation--can be bought or sold no matter how unjust or immoral the result.

The worldwide impact of market uber alles philosophies created such horrid situations, not being able to see tits on the interwebs.

And btw, there wasn't much if any "snark" about my comment. It was a direct assessment, and as Jaichind's response proved it was 110% spot on.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Still looking forward to an answer from DC, ftr.

You know, as a leftist who actually feels inclined to be at least somewhat sympathetic toward the non-hateful wing of the religious right, it annoys me to no end to see one of their best representative on the forum resort to this kind of ridiculous scaremongering about how sexual permissiveness is somehow the root of all evil in the world.

I think it would annoy me a lot less if I were a NYMillennial-style postmodern liberal.

[DC Al Fine]

Still looking forward to an answer from DC, ftr.

Whoops, sorry. I'd been meaning to reply to you, but I forgot. This is what I get when I don't leave tabs open I guess

It's Canadian Thanksgiving weekend and I'm just about to leave to visit relatives with no internet. I might be in a coffee shop tomorrow or something, but it will probably be a few days before I can sit down and write a proper post. Rest assured, you are on my list.

You know, as a leftist who actually feels inclined to be at least somewhat sympathetic toward the non-hateful wing of the religious right, it annoys me to no end to see one of their best representative on the forum resort to this kind of ridiculous scaremongering about how sexual permissiveness is somehow the root of all evil in the world.

Tl;dr for my not-yet-written post.

1) I overstated my case.
2) Consent-only as a basis for sexual morality is is more popular than you give it credit for
3) 'DC blames everything on social liberalism' is a straw man.

[Antonio the Sixth]

No, problem. I know it's tough to keep track of everything going on here when you're busy. In fact, I seem to remember that I promised you to elaborate on a point regarding racism in the US and never got around to it, but I don't remember what the exact question was or what thread it was from. If you remember it and are still interested, I can take care of that now.

I'll note that your three-point preview still doesn't seem to address the issue of how all this is relevant specifically to Jaichind's attitude. I am well aware of the seriously problematic variants of sexual permissiveness that are popular these days, but I don't think that even those are relevant to him. Blame homo oeconomicus instead.

And it wasn't intended as a strawman - more like a deliberate hyperbole aimed at pointing out the problem in your claim. Though admittedly the difference between the two is a bit subjective.

[DC Al Fine]

Ok, I have a bit of time, so here we go

But regardless, even if you characterization was truthful, you still haven't provided any rationale causally connecting Jaichind's attitude specifically to progressive sexual ethics. All you're saying here is that, under (a particular brand of) (self-described) progressivism, there would be no moral argument against Jaichind's attitude. That doesn't prove that (that particular brand of) (self-described) progressivism is the cause of Jaichind's attitude - let alone that such causal process was "inevitable".

My argument was incorrect in two ways:

1) Conflating 'consent only' sexual ethics with social liberalism at large.
2) Arguing for causation, when people are perfectly capable of making unprincipled exceptions.

So yes, what you outlined above is correct; a large percentage of social liberals have no rational reason to oppose Jaichind's attitude towards the sex trade. If consent is the only basis for sexual morality, then investing in sex isn't materially different from investing in automobile manufacturing, but it doesn't imply causation. Whether due to the West's post-Christian 'hangover', or not thinking things through, or unprincipled exceptions, most people as you said, do not make the leap from 'consent only' to being pro sexual capitalism.

For one thing, "most progressives" don't actually take this view of sexual ethic. They might espouse some of the attitudes associated with it, but when challenged to think about it, most of them concede at least one of two things: that "consent" can't be understood as the mere absence of direct physical coercion, or that there are other relevant criteria to take into account than just consent.

You say people that understand that consent "can't be understood as the mere absence of direct physical coercion." Are you describing the criticism that Badger posted; that consent is impossible in the face of poverty? If so, I'm well aware of that view and include it in my criticism of consent ethics.

The problem with this argument is that its economic, not sexual. You mentioned homo economicus as though its a neoliberal thing, but it can easily be applied to large swathes of the left today. Badger's criticism is a good example of this since it is primarily an economic argument. To use my automobile example, if prostitutes at SexInc unionized like Detroit autoworkers, and had a northern European welfare state, Badger's criticism wouldn't apply and investing in Ford wouldn't be different from investing in SexInc.

You argue that most progressives don't hold to consent only, but that premise is questionable once you update the definition of consent. A lot of people on the social left hold to the updated version of 'consent-only' and they don't really have a rational reason to oppose investing in SexInc. Now that doesn't mean that they'll be gung ho for SexInc tomorrow, but I'd argue that as time goes on and new generations come on the scene, accepting the logical implications of this view will become more common and we'll be all the worse for it.

Whatever the state of moral discourse might be on the forum, it's not exactly a good reflection of society as a whole, or even of the modern left.

My experience has been that 'consent-only' is more popular on the forum than off. On the forum, a lot of posters take their politics very seriously, and walk through the implications of arguments, which is not very common off a politics forum. Since 'consent-only' ethics is a facile view, it makes sense that I run into it more often offline.

[DC Al Fine]

And it wasn't intended as a strawman - more like a deliberate hyperbole aimed at pointing out the problem in your claim. Though admittedly the difference between the two is a bit subjective.

Strawman or hyperbole, it's a silly line to use when the topic at hand is in part, Jaichind's sexual ethics.

[Antonio the Sixth]

My argument was incorrect in two ways:

1) Conflating 'consent only' sexual ethics with social liberalism at large.
2) Arguing for causation, when people are perfectly capable of making unprincipled exceptions.

So yes, what you outlined above is correct; a large percentage of social liberals have no rational reason to oppose Jaichind's attitude towards the sex trade. If consent is the only basis for sexual morality, then investing in sex isn't materially different from investing in automobile manufacturing, but it doesn't imply causation. Whether due to the West's post-Christian 'hangover', or not thinking things through, or unprincipled exceptions, most people as you said, do not make the leap from 'consent only' to being pro sexual capitalism.

Under this specific, narrow definition of consent, yes, you're right. I maintain that this is not an appropriate definition, however.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Indeed. I'd contend that an overwhelming majority of progressives, when challenged to think about these situations seriously, will agree that a woman who resorts to prostitution in order to feed herself and/or her children, has not truly given her consent. I'll grant you that those that would not reach this conclusion belong in our own basket of deplorables.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh come on. Surely you don't believe that concern for extreme poverty and deprivation is mainly an economic issue? It's an eminently moral issue to me, and it should be to any decent person. I happen to believe than every human being is entitled to food, shelter, health care, education, etc. Those shouldn't be dependent on one's economic status - they should be human rights. Indeed, your claim that those are economic issues is, in and of itself, a product of the neoliberal logic. By contrast, the idea of "decommodification" - taking a market good out of the market's reach - is one of the pillars of social democracy.

You are correct that, if these fundamental human rights were fulfilled, then it would be impossible to argue against prostitution from a consent-only sexual ethic. But this is clearly not the case in the concrete example that sparked off this discussion.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not following you here. If you're conceding that most progressives subscribe to the "updated definition of consent" (as opposed to the narrow one), then surely this means that most progressives would condemn Jaichind's actions, no?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, not sure what you're saying here. I'm also arguing "that 'consent-only' is more popular on the forum than off".

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Democrats have been the party of the rich ever since 1992, when Pat Buchanan declared a culture war at the RNC and scared away moderates for good.  Nothing new to see here, folks.

[RINO Tom]

Democrats have been the party of the rich ever since 1992, when Pat Buchanan declared a culture war at the RNC and scared away moderates for good.  Nothing new to see here, folks.

The richest income bracket has voted Republican in nearly every single national exit poll (that's 12, Oldiesfreak) since 1992.  You are not very bright.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Democrats have been the party of the rich ever since 1992, when Pat Buchanan declared a culture war at the RNC and scared away moderates for good.  Nothing new to see here, folks.

The richest income bracket has voted Republican in nearly every single national exit poll (that's 12, Oldiesfreak) since 1992.  You are not very bright.

First, most exit polls stop at $100K or $200K or something like that.  Voters making $100K, $250K, etc. a year are of course going to vote heavily Republican.  But if you get into the REALLY big money ($5M, $10M, etc.) I would imagine that you would see a similar margin for Democrats.  But since there are so few of those voters, it's hard to get a good sample of them for an exit poll.  So because of that, the numbers for the richest voters skew toward the GOP in most exit polls--there are more of them at the lower end than at the higher end.

Second, I believe Obama won the wealthiest income bracket in CNN's 2008 exit poll.  Third, the largest and wealthiest campaign donors have consistently given over 90% of their money to Democrats over the last 10-20 years, and are more socially liberal than the nation as a whole.  Even if the counties they live in lean R, Dems have made tremendous gains there since 1992 (primarily because of these social issues), and it's the reason why states like Illinois, Connecticut, California, etc. have leaned Democrat at the presidential level ever since.