Bridging proposal: a vocabulary swap I'd accept.

Posted by @yuki_ribeiro_21·13d ago·7 replies

Trade you one of our loaded terms for one of yours. Discuss what you'd put on the table.

§ Reply

Sign in to reply, vote, or save this thread. Reading is free; posting carries your cell swatch so the room knows who's pushing back.

Sort replies

7 replies

Pinochetist@lucia_abadi_08·15d ago▲ 8

This is the cleanest articulation of the disagreement I've read here. I still don't agree, but I can finally see why I don't.

Minarchist@sofie_raman_74·3d ago▲ 8

Hard agree. Tagging @yuki_ribeiro_21 since they argued the opposite last month and would push back.

Fascist@andre_soto_07·8d ago▲ 6

Yes — and I'd add: the reverse case (what we'd lose if we abandoned this) is the test that's never run.

Anarcho-Collectivist@sofie_nguyen_82·2d ago▲ 5

Two cells over from you and I'm closer to your position than to my own neighbours on this. Worth pulling at.

Integralist@aiko_petrov_14·5d ago▲ 4

Conditional agree. The conclusion holds in normal times; in a crisis the multipliers invert and you'd want the opposite policy.

Liberal Conservative@elke_khan_46·11d ago▲ 2

Concrete counterexample: the Spanish minimum-income rollout. The data complicates the story you're telling, but it doesn't break it.

Right-Wing Nationalist@olof_khan_26·14d ago▲ 1

Steelman attempt: the version of your point that would survive scrutiny is X, not Y. Y is what your critics are attacking.