Your view furthest outside the Overton window?

[DavidB.]

If rightists would just argue that anthropogenic climate change is for whatever reason not the kind of problem that anything should be done about, rather than sextupling down on insisting against all evidence that it doesn't exist, that would be one thing, and I'd have some respect for the intellectual and moral honesty that presumably would go into those arguments. But that's not where the battle-lines on this issue are.

It's the other way around. How can you argue it does exist and it is a huge problem but still we shouldn't do zilch about it? I get this argument from a 'small country' point of view ('even if it's real, whatever we do doesn't matter and isn't worth the economic sacrifice', which I also agree with in my own country) but purely intellectually, not arguing from the POV of someone from a small country like mine but purely philosophically and detached from location, it's a really bad line of reasoning, right? It seems like you genuinely think people are just being insincere in arguing it doesn't exist. But that's not at all the case here.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

If rightists would just argue that anthropogenic climate change is for whatever reason not the kind of problem that anything should be done about, rather than sextupling down on insisting against all evidence that it doesn't exist, that would be one thing, and I'd have some respect for the intellectual and moral honesty that presumably would go into those arguments. But that's not where the battle-lines on this issue are.

It's the other way around. How can you argue it does exist and it is a huge problem but still we shouldn't do zilch about it? I get this argument from a 'small country' point of view ('even if it's real, whatever we do doesn't matter and isn't worth the economic sacrifice', which I also agree with in my own country) but purely intellectually, not arguing from the POV of someone from a small country like mine but purely philosophically and detached from location, it's a really bad line of reasoning, right? It seems like you genuinely think people are just being insincere in arguing it doesn't exist. But that's not at all the case here.

The "small country" line of thinking only applies to taking drastic unilateral action, not things like the Paris Agreement.

[DavidB.]

If rightists would just argue that anthropogenic climate change is for whatever reason not the kind of problem that anything should be done about, rather than sextupling down on insisting against all evidence that it doesn't exist, that would be one thing, and I'd have some respect for the intellectual and moral honesty that presumably would go into those arguments. But that's not where the battle-lines on this issue are.

It's the other way around. How can you argue it does exist and it is a huge problem but still we shouldn't do zilch about it? I get this argument from a 'small country' point of view ('even if it's real, whatever we do doesn't matter and isn't worth the economic sacrifice', which I also agree with in my own country) but purely intellectually, not arguing from the POV of someone from a small country like mine but purely philosophically and detached from location, it's a really bad line of reasoning, right? It seems like you genuinely think people are just being insincere in arguing it doesn't exist. But that's not at all the case here.

The "small country" line of thinking only applies to taking drastic unilateral action, not things like the Paris Agreement.

Yeah it does. In the Netherlands, we would have to spend hundreds of billions of euros to achieve at most 0.00007 degree less climate change worldwide - according to their climate models. (If you don't trust me, trust the "all liberal, all thet time" NRC.) Sorry, but that's a no for me and also a no for most people.

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

It seems like you genuinely think people are just being insincere in arguing it doesn't exist. But that's not at all the case here.

I certainly think the "thought leaders" who create and operate the right-wing media vortex are being insincere, and that's the level of argument that my post was intended to address. I don't consider you to be such a person.

Anyway, last summer New England abruptly got torrential rain almost every day for about six weeks for the first time in recorded memory, and I'm more prepared to accept the current scientific consensus as to why that might be than to resign myself to the implication (emanating almost exclusively from the political right and present mostly in rich and powerful countries) that the atmosphere Just Did That for reasons that We Just Don't Know.

[Senator Incitatus]

[looks directly into camera]

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

If rightists would just argue that anthropogenic climate change is for whatever reason not the kind of problem that anything should be done about, rather than sextupling down on insisting against all evidence that it doesn't exist, that would be one thing, and I'd have some respect for the intellectual and moral honesty that presumably would go into those arguments. But that's not where the battle-lines on this issue are.

People often consciously recognize the existence of a problem only when they feel like there might be a good solution to it.  That's just a tendency of the human mind.

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

If rightists would just argue that anthropogenic climate change is for whatever reason not the kind of problem that anything should be done about, rather than sextupling down on insisting against all evidence that it doesn't exist, that would be one thing, and I'd have some respect for the intellectual and moral honesty that presumably would go into those arguments. But that's not where the battle-lines on this issue are.

People often consciously recognize the existence of a problem only when they feel like there might be a good solution to it.  That's just a tendency of the human mind.

Very good point.

[parochial boy]

I dunno, the most likely, probably inevitable at this point, consequence of continued climate change in the short to medium term is going to be massive population movements that absolutely dwarf the one Europe experienced in 2015.

In that respect, the climate denial of the far right is hillariously short sighted because it so clearly and obviously is going to come back to bite them. And it's going to be their own fault.

If this doom scenario happens (which I don't believe in at all as I think climate change is a manmade theology that is in demand now that God is dead to most of us and people need a different purpose) it will be on mainstream politicians anyway, not the 'hard right' or whatever. Even if you think what do as humans affects the climate, the 'hard right' hasn't been in power or even in an influential position in most industrialized countries for the overwhelming majority of time in the last decades. If this happens, it's on all of us.

I don't necessarily disagree - obviously there is a huge hypocrisy of (normally centre-right) establishment politicians who talk the talk about climate change and then refuse to introduce anything more than piecemeal reforms like "taxing plane tickets" or Macronesque taxing gas. These are both completely marginal in outcome, and have the effect of passing the responsibility for climate change onto normal people, when it is big businesses and the investment decisions of the rich and powerful that are the real drivers.

But, as you yourself admit, it doesn't take being in power to enforce change. The radical right has already succeeded in changing the discourse on immigration without necessarily being in power, so why shouldn't they be able to introduce climate change denial into the mainstream? (and, do we really need to be importing more American culture wars? we're Europeans goddamnit, we should have our own issues rather than just copying the Americans )

As for the bit about the Netherlands contribution - that is broadly the same issue as any collective action problem. Why should I pay 40% of my income in taxes when that money isn't going to pay for any public service by themselves and I live in a country literally chock full of people who pay no taxes at all?

[junior chįmp]

College is a scam. Most jobs could just be taught without a college degree. College degrees are a way for wealthy liberals to keep poor and middle class people out of certain industries they hold a monopoly in.

I agree with most of what you said, but not this. It's true that most jobs can be done without a college degree (and requiring a college degree to apply is usually pointless), but what about education for the intrinsic value of knowledge? People WANT to learn about history and biology, even if most of them won't end up with a job related to that. There's got to be more to life than just working for a wage until you retire, and education provides that. (that's why college needs to be tuition free, or at least affordable for everyone)

Nothing wrong with that but keep in mind that facts have a half-life. Most of what you will learn in college will turn out to be wrong and disproven in the future.

Although I agree with you. Nobody should have to pay for knowledge that is temporarily correct/relevant or a piece of paper so they can work a job that has nothing to do with their major because HR departments are too lazy to evaluate people on a case by case basis.

College (and education) isn't just about knowledge. It's about learning critical thinking, reasoning, complex problem solving, and how to evaluate arguments. That and generally refining skills like writing, presentation, several practical skills, etc. The knowledge and base of facts is just the marble that the really difficult is made of.

Yeah but most people are just there for the piece of paper so they can get a decent job...not because they care to learn deeply.

If most jobs removed the necessity for a college degree (which I support)...the amount of people attending college would plummet and even then those attending would still only be there for job/money related reasons.

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

Here's a view that I have that isn't necessarily an outside-the-box "issues" view but that I still feel pretty alone in a lot of the time: Economic "innovation" is not necessarily a good thing and should certainly not be the top priority for economic policy. Innovation is a good thing if what's being innovated away from was worse than what is being innovated towards, a bad thing if what's being innovated away from was better than what is being innovated towards, and neither a good thing nor a bad thing if what's being innovated away from was neither better nor worse than what is being innovated towards. For example, it's increasingly difficult to argue that social media has been a net gain for our society, and much "innovation" (often referred to with the downright sinister term "disruption") in the service sector is nothing more than a cover for the ongoing parttimeization and leanstaffingization of America.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Here's a view that I have that isn't necessarily an outside-the-box "issues" view but that I still feel pretty alone in a lot of the time: Economic "innovation" is not necessarily a good thing and should certainly not be the top priority for economic policy. Innovation is a good thing if what's being innovated away from was worse than what is being innovated towards, a bad thing if what's being innovated away from was better than what is being innovated towards, and neither a good thing nor a bad thing if what's being innovated away from was neither better nor worse than what is being innovated towards. For example, it's increasingly difficult to argue that social media has been a net gain for our society, and much "innovation" (often referred to with the downright sinister term "disruption") in the service sector is nothing more than a cover for the ongoing parttimeization and leanstaffingization of America.

You're not alone and I say that as a (mostly) lifelong resident of Sili-Con Valley

[courts]

repeal the hyde amendment

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

repeal the hyde amendment

that is very much within the Overton window these days, unfortunately.

[GoTfan]

Here's one:

We should stop taxing individual income person by person, and instead tax income by households.

[DC Al Fine]

Here's one:

We should stop taxing individual income person by person, and instead tax income by households.

They do that in the States sort of.

[DavidB.]

I certainly think the "thought leaders" who create and operate the right-wing media vortex are being insincere, and that's the level of argument that my post was intended to address. I don't consider you to be such a person.

Okay, that's good to hear. Let's just say that I have a different impression based on my connections within the most climate change skeptical party in the Netherlands and to journalists for one of the best-read Dutch right-wing media outlets. They either think it's not a problem at all or it's a problem we can't solve and therefore we shouldn't be spending (a lot of) money on it.

But, as you yourself admit, it doesn't take being in power to enforce change. The radical right has already succeeded in changing the discourse on immigration without necessarily being in power, so why shouldn't they be able to introduce climate change denial into the mainstream? (and, do we really need to be importing more American culture wars? we're Europeans goddamnit, we should have our own issues rather than just copying the Americans )

But this isn't just a culture war issue. It's something we'll be spending billions of euros on.

As for the bit about the Netherlands contribution - that is broadly the same issue as any collective action problem. Why should I pay 40% of my income in taxes when that money isn't going to pay for any public service by themselves and I live in a country literally chock full of people who pay no taxes at all?

Sure, but here comes our national sovereignty disagreement again. The collective action problem can be overcome if there's a minimum of solidarity among the actors required to overcome it, and this solidarity can only be there if the inequalities between these actors aren't too big and if actors are reasonably similar - it goes for differences within countries as well as for differences among countries. People are more willing to pay more in taxes for someone similar to them than for someone less similar to them (which is why multiculturalism causes the erosion of social safety nets). Inequalities and differences between countries across the world are enormous, and I rather spend my money more efficiently by increasing the height of our dikes (which will probably cost us significantly less) than by spending it less efficiently, even if it does mean the latter option would cause the earth will warm up marginally less. The former would simply be the more rational choice and in our national interest.

[Person Man]

If rightists would just argue that anthropogenic climate change is for whatever reason not the kind of problem that anything should be done about, rather than sextupling down on insisting against all evidence that it doesn't exist, that would be one thing, and I'd have some respect for the intellectual and moral honesty that presumably would go into those arguments. But that's not where the battle-lines on this issue are.

People often consciously recognize the existence of a problem only when they feel like there might be a good solution to it.  That's just a tendency of the human mind.

Very good point.

Or at least forces them to accept a reality in which they can't see a scenario where both that fact exists and their interests are not diminished in some way.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Encouraging spaying and neutering of pets is problematic both for dysgenic and animal rights reasons.

[Kingpoleon]

Anyway, for me: lawyers should always work for and be provided by the government. There's no reason why a richer person should be able to afford a better lawyer and therefore have an easier time staying out of legal trouble.

Oh, I agree with that big time. Add lawyers to the list of industries to nationalize.

So you think it’s a good idea to give the government full control of the judicial system, recognizing that there’s no way for this to possibly be abused. Interesting view...

Next I propose we begin a Commission of Energy Regulations, with twenty members representing the biggest energy companies, primarily oil, natural gas, coal, and solar, and five members representing the biggest utility companies with full authority over all energy-related regulations, and it being chaired by Exxon’s CEO. Any objections?

You guys live in a country operated and partially founded upon the ideas of checks and balances and don’t understand the role the market, and, indeed, citizens in general play in checking and balancing governmental power?

[Person Man]

1) I don't know what the big deal about human cloning is

2) I would never be in a committed relationship with multiple partners but I think those sort of people should be left alone. Maybe not legalizing polygamay (yet) but maybe not go after those who game the system to gain the benefits of civil marriage for such relationships (adult adoptions and the like). Preferably, there would be no civil recognition of religious institutions when possible.
 
3) A lot of the FDA regulations are slowing down progress on harder to treat conditions. Until a better regulatory framework becomes enabled and enacted, I am a strong supporter of Right to Try.

4) There should be more regulations and reform regarding the collateral consequences of past adverse government action on citizens. Tort reform on wrongful hiring, adding collateral consequences to sentences when possible and dealing with negligent hiring scenarios the way workers' compensation or discrimination claims are dealt with today.

5) Sex between consenting compus mentus adults should be legal. No exceptions. Prostitution should only be illegal if it is coerced.

6) 1% GDP on human space development paid partially by a millionaire's tax

7) Much more nuclear power and a much more aggressive stance against global warming

1% GDP more on life sciences funding

9)  40% tax rate at 500k, 50% at 2M , 60% at 10M

10) If at least a NATO consensus can be achieved regarding regime change, I could be for it.

[Some of My Best Friends Are Gay]

Encouraging spaying and neutering of pets is problematic both for dysgenic and animal rights reasons.

I strongly disagree. there's already far too many unwanted and uncared for dogs and cats roaming our streets or living in animal shelters.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Encouraging spaying and neutering of pets is problematic both for dysgenic and animal rights reasons.

I strongly disagree. there's already far too many unwanted and uncared for dogs and cats roaming our streets or living in animal shelters.

That doesn't automatically override everything else and make other concerns not worth thinking about.

[Former President tack50]

5) Sex between consenting compus mentus adults should be legal. No exceptions. Prostitution should only be illegal if it is coerced.

My problem with this one is, is it really consenting if you are paying someone to consent? I would argue that is closer to bribery than freely given consent.

[Fight for Trump]

5) Sex between consenting compus mentus adults should be legal. No exceptions. Prostitution should only be illegal if it is coerced.

My problem with this one is, is it really consenting if you are paying someone to consent? I would argue that is closer to bribery than freely given consent.

Your employer pays you to work. That is consensual, no? There is no meaningful difference here in principle, it's just that the job in question is dirty and there are lots of unsavory characters around it.

[HisGrace]

I think most of my views are in the mainstream outside of foreign policy.

I'd say my most "radical" or "edgy" opinion is the fact that I actively am rooting for Iran to get the bomb. I think it'd balance things out in the Middle East, all things considered.

You are so dumb.

You really buy into the whole "teh Mullahs are gonnuh nuke teh Israelis on day one!" argument? The Pakistanis have nukes. The Israelis have hundreds of them. I'm sure the Saudis have a few loose warheads hidden somewhere that they've bought. It only makes sense that Iran should have their own nuclear deterrent.

The whole idea of MAD was built around a small number of countries on opposing sides having nukes and keeping each other from using them as a deterrent. The more countries have them, the greater the odds someone will use them. If Iran gets nukes everyone in the middle east is going to want them. That part of the world doesn't fit neatly into bipolar Cold War politics. The chance of nuclear war will be at an all time high with a nuclear middle east.

Add to that that these are not stable governments and it is within the realm of possibility that Taliban/ISIS tier religious fanatics could take over somewhere and then have access to nuclear weapons if the country has them.