Conversation

Replying to
Both. And I don’t see the deindustrialization of America as a problem. Outsourcing to China was the best thing for both countries at the time. Post-Covid the US is going to reindustrialize, but in a high-automation software-eaten robots-and-AI way that won’t help Red much.
2
Replying to and
Profits are good. China developing rapidly in 20 years while supplying far cheaper goods to the US than it could to itself was good. Attaching Kissinger’s name to a broad historical trend is a kind of meaningless smear. Chimerica was an inevitable thing for its time.
2
Replying to and
At some level that’s shared humanity. You recognize the value of good things happening for others. If it means you sometimes have to scramble to reposition, so be it. But if “profit” and “green” are suspect terms for you, you’ll ofc see blue as irredeemably corrupted.
1
Replying to
I am sorry, but profits gained from reviving slavery and free-range industrial pollution are neither "good", "green" nor "shared humanity". And yes I am very suspicious of those who would call net higher emissions "green" and profits from slave labor "good".
Replying to
Your conundrum that you are apparently trying to “use twitter to deradicalize well-intentioned people” to quote your twitter profile. That suggests a certain radical confidence in your own unradical reasonableness. I think such a posture is both impossible and doomed today.
1
Replying to
That's a common sentiment among the radicalized; they believe themselves in a moment of crises in which the tenants of civil society need to be abandoned (&can be abandoned w/o personal consequence). They then inevitably attempt to coerce others into their absolutist morality.
1
Replying to
Nope. Not at all what I meant. Based on our conversation, seems to me you’re much more of a radical than I am. Your posture feels largely like projection. I wouldn’t be so sure you’re not the one in need of deradicalization. Luckily for you I don’t see it as my job.
1
Replying to and
The presumption that you’re the magisterially correct and non-radical judge of who is “well intentioned,” whose own intentions and non-radicalness are self-evidently obvious... needs modulation with some doubt.
Replying to
The basis of my disagreement with you is that your solution to the economic disparity is to make the red express an understanding of shared humanity in terms you can recognize; further, you think an un-radical posture is impossible and doomed "today"; wasn't going to go there but
Replying to and
Those assertions are decidedly illiberal, you have to agree! It's not my job but my vocation to use Twitter as a tool of de-radicalization; further, I don't judge intentions, but it is the syncretic preachers who profit from radicalization who show dramatic aversion to my effort
1
Replying to
Agreed; you're reduced to arguing from personal correspondence and mis-reading arrogance into my bio; I fear you're not arguing with logic but instead tribalist caricatures, however I have found some value this conversation and thank you for it.