I said US elections are corrupt because of money, and recommended that you look up Lessig, whose views you have misrepresented here.
And I did look him up: he describes the problem as special interest money, and would prefer public funding. How on Earth is, "He says they are corrupt due to special interests, most specifically corporate interests," at all a misrepresentation of what Lessig said? Don't just declare and fume and hope against hope that acting all upset will sway third parties, actually explain yourself. Go on, do it.
And then tell me, if special interests are also present in Hugo voting, how they are non-corrupting. I'm totally open to the possibility that they are, because, for example, no matter what special interest wins, it's still an SF writer or book winning. But that doesn't say much about the quality of the Hugos, does it?
So money, not special interests, corrupts US politics. As I said before and you now confirm (although you again distort his views). Lessig's opinions in the article you link do not support the naive wail about political processes that you perpetually try to pin on me for your rhetorical convenience. (If they did, I'd disavow Lessig.)
As usual, you are dishonest in the service of your dishonesty.
So money, not special interests, corrupts US politics.
Wow, you really do have a substantial reading comprehension problem. "Money" as a freestanding concept or social phenomenon or plain ol' physcial object corrupts US politics? Gosh, don't you think it would be difficult to publicly fund political campaigns (Lessig's solution) without money of any sort? Maybe you really think money itself is the problem—which would be strange, since money has been involved since Day 1, while special interests haven't—but clearly Lessig does not. More likely if you acknowledged what Lessig actually says, you'd then have to explain why Hugo special interests aren't corrupting, and you don't want to do that.
The link makes it pretty clear that Lessig thinks special interests, specifically corporate interests (as opposed to say, labor unions, I presume) are the problem. Money is the tool they use to "capture" the government. But no, boiling down the problem to money is itself a mischaracterization of both Lessig and of reality.
And you really want to claim, "So money, not special interests, corrupts US politics" when Lessig is explicit that special interests are the problem...because they have money and the ability to spend it, of course! What gibberish. So we're back to where we are the beginning of the day: you can't read. That's not an ad hominem, not an attack, just a plain and simple conclusion.
I'm not misrepresenting Lessig. You are. Whether stupidly or willfully hardly matters—but that's what you're doing, and what you've been doing all day. The links are here for anyone to read.
"So money, not special interests, corrupts US politics." What a joke.
"Wow, you really do have a substantial reading comprehension problem."
The internet is full of people who think no one else can read. It makes them happy and does no one else harm, so I suppose it doesn't matter.
As for me: I object to money as a corrupting influence in politics, and suggest you look at Lessig. Lessig objects to money in politics, but also stuff I don't object to. Lessig is not some secular pope who issues encyclicals I'm obliged to stand by. I agree with him to the extent I agree with him and no more. And in the church of special interests, I am definitely an atheist. Everyone has interests. Every political system has to deal with them or avoid dealing with them. It's money that's corrupting the US political system. I've said so repeatedly--and so does Lessig. That's what I agree with him about.
Your assertions regarding what I believe regarding the Hugos and US politics are false. You have occasion to know this, despite your constant assertions to the contrary. Anyway, you had no business trying to put words in my mouth: it's for me to say what I believe, not tamely assent to the script you've pre-written. You are dishonest in the service of your dishonesty, as always.
Then you come back with, well, you don't actually agree with Lessig when he talks about special interests. So what? My objection was to your lie—that I was mischaracterizing his views. I did no such thing. You lied repeatedly that I did, without even attempting to provide reasoning for such, of course.
If you believe that money somehow corrupts independently of political actors using money, well, you're just a moron. But I knew that already. But I did not distort Lessig's views by summarizing them as "[US politics are] corrupt due to special interests." You just said I did until I produced enough links that even your bestest buddies in the world would start to look at you funny.
So you think special interests, if they don't use money, isn't corrupting. Sadly, however, special interests among Hugo voting factions do use money.
You are again arguing that the Hugo Award process is corrupt-- not according to your own definition, but one you again insist against the evidence is mine. So, according to you, someone not only does but must believe that the Hugo process is corrupt. Therefore CM wasn't lying.
Any seven-year-old can see that the comment you are responding to is primarily about your lie that I mischarcterized Lessig by daring to say that he is against the influence of special interests in US elections.
That you utterly avoided even addressing that I'll take as an acknowledgment that you were just trying to bluster and bullshit you way through it.
This schoolyardy taunty style of rhetoric is never persuasive, or even entertaining, but it does say something about the user.
Lessig is, in fact, principally concerned with the influence of money on politics. ("Lobbying" is another way to say "money" in this context, by the way.) I think he's good on that, and said so. I decline to accept the strawman argument you would assign to me. No one of any age should be surprised by that. It would be convenient for you if that were somehow dishonest of me, but that's just another of the convenient untruths that help you fill out a comment.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
james_davis_nicoll) wrote2011-09-01 03:54 pm
Re: QED
I said US elections are corrupt because of money, and recommended that you look up Lessig, whose views you have misrepresented here.
And I did look him up: he describes the problem as special interest money, and would prefer public funding. How on Earth is, "He says they are corrupt due to special interests, most specifically corporate interests," at all a misrepresentation of what Lessig said? Don't just declare and fume and hope against hope that acting all upset will sway third parties, actually explain yourself. Go on, do it.
And then tell me, if special interests are also present in Hugo voting, how they are non-corrupting. I'm totally open to the possibility that they are, because, for example, no matter what special interest wins, it's still an SF writer or book winning. But that doesn't say much about the quality of the Hugos, does it?
Re: QED
As usual, you are dishonest in the service of your dishonesty.
Speaking of QED
Wow, you really do have a substantial reading comprehension problem. "Money" as a freestanding concept or social phenomenon or plain ol' physcial object corrupts US politics? Gosh, don't you think it would be difficult to publicly fund political campaigns (Lessig's solution) without money of any sort? Maybe you really think money itself is the problem—which would be strange, since money has been involved since Day 1, while special interests haven't—but clearly Lessig does not. More likely if you acknowledged what Lessig actually says, you'd then have to explain why Hugo special interests aren't corrupting, and you don't want to do that.
The link makes it pretty clear that Lessig thinks special interests, specifically corporate interests (as opposed to say, labor unions, I presume) are the problem. Money is the tool they use to "capture" the government. But no, boiling down the problem to money is itself a mischaracterization of both Lessig and of reality.
Btw, here's another Lessig link, the content of which he wrote himself. The headline? Special Interests Prepare to Derail Obama Agenda
And another, from the "about" page of a group he founded: But with special interests funneling millions of dollars into our elections—and a new Supreme Court ruling giving corporations and unions even more power to control our government—we can never have that confidence. (Whoops, I guess I don't even have to summarize Lessig as being wary of only corporate interests—unions are a problem too!)
An LA Times commentary by Lessig, which includes what he wishes President Obama would have said at his inauguration: "America has spoken. It has demanded fundamental change. I commit to work with Congress to produce it. But if we fail, or more precisely, if Congress allows the special interests that control it to block change, then it will be time to remake Congress. Not by throwing out the Democrats or the Republicans, but by throwing out both. If this Congress fails to deliver change, then we will change Congress." In the same piece, Lessig recommends a seven-year ban on "lobbying" as well as public funding.
And you really want to claim, "So money, not special interests, corrupts US politics" when Lessig is explicit that special interests are the problem...because they have money and the ability to spend it, of course! What gibberish. So we're back to where we are the beginning of the day: you can't read. That's not an ad hominem, not an attack, just a plain and simple conclusion.
I'm not misrepresenting Lessig. You are. Whether stupidly or willfully hardly matters—but that's what you're doing, and what you've been doing all day. The links are here for anyone to read.
"So money, not special interests, corrupts US politics." What a joke.
Re: Speaking of QED
The internet is full of people who think no one else can read. It makes them happy and does no one else harm, so I suppose it doesn't matter.
As for me: I object to money as a corrupting influence in politics, and suggest you look at Lessig. Lessig objects to money in politics, but also stuff I don't object to. Lessig is not some secular pope who issues encyclicals I'm obliged to stand by. I agree with him to the extent I agree with him and no more. And in the church of special interests, I am definitely an atheist. Everyone has interests. Every political system has to deal with them or avoid dealing with them. It's money that's corrupting the US political system. I've said so repeatedly--and so does Lessig. That's what I agree with him about.
Your assertions regarding what I believe regarding the Hugos and US politics are false. You have occasion to know this, despite your constant assertions to the contrary. Anyway, you had no business trying to put words in my mouth: it's for me to say what I believe, not tamely assent to the script you've pre-written. You are dishonest in the service of your dishonesty, as always.
Re: Speaking of QED
An especially sad attempt at a dodge.
I summarized Lessig's view on US politics/elections thusly: He says they are corrupt due to special interests, most specifically corporate interests.
You respond, about my summary by saying that you recommended that you look up Lessig, whose views you have misrepresented here
I provide a link reinforcing my summary that Lessig sees special interests as the problem.
You insist
So money, not special interests, corrupts US politics. As I said before and you now confirm (although you again distort his views).
I point out several more links demonstrating that my summary of Lessig's views are correct—he is against special interests, and would not agree with your claim: "So money, not special interests, corrupts US politics".
Then you come back with, well, you don't actually agree with Lessig when he talks about special interests. So what? My objection was to your lie—that I was mischaracterizing his views. I did no such thing. You lied repeatedly that I did, without even attempting to provide reasoning for such, of course.
If you believe that money somehow corrupts independently of political actors using money, well, you're just a moron. But I knew that already. But I did not distort Lessig's views by summarizing them as "[US politics are] corrupt due to special interests." You just said I did until I produced enough links that even your bestest buddies in the world would start to look at you funny.
So you think special interests, if they don't use money, isn't corrupting. Sadly, however, special interests among Hugo voting factions do use money.
QED (again)
Re: QED (again)
That you utterly avoided even addressing that I'll take as an acknowledgment that you were just trying to bluster and bullshit you way through it.
Re: QED (again)
This schoolyardy taunty style of rhetoric is never persuasive, or even entertaining, but it does say something about the user.
Lessig is, in fact, principally concerned with the influence of money on politics. ("Lobbying" is another way to say "money" in this context, by the way.) I think he's good on that, and said so. I decline to accept the strawman argument you would assign to me. No one of any age should be surprised by that. It would be convenient for you if that were somehow dishonest of me, but that's just another of the convenient untruths that help you fill out a comment.