Some #basicincome advocates falsely pretend it's "beyond left &right": left version is for equality, right version dismantles civil society.
— Dale Carrico (@dalecarrico) February 18, 2015@dalecarrico That's not necessarily true and both demonizes and stereotypes an entire group of people. There is common ground to be found.
— Scott Santens (@2noame) February 18, 2015@2noame I'm interested in that "not necessarily true" part. Do you deny right-wing usually couples basic income to welfare dismantlement?
— Dale Carrico (@dalecarrico) February 19, 2015@2noame If you concede that truth and the t=fact that left versions do not, do you deny that this is a difference that makes a difference?
— Dale Carrico (@dalecarrico) February 19, 2015@2noame Is it "demonizing" to face facts? Is it finding "common ground" to indulge in false equivalence?
— Dale Carrico (@dalecarrico) February 19, 2015Funny how often those who claim to be "beyond left and right" end up shilling for deregulation and privatization.
— Dale Carrico (@dalecarrico) February 19, 2015False equivalence actually isn't common ground. #moderatenotmoderate
— Dale Carrico (@dalecarrico) February 19, 2015@2noame There can be common ground on specific legislative/reformist campaigns but these align into larger change according to visions.
— Dale Carrico (@dalecarrico) February 19, 2015@2noame These visions demand clarity -- those who disdain or muddy them enable those who are clearer or inertially conduce to incumbency.
— Dale Carrico (@dalecarrico) February 19, 2015@dalecarrico We can just as easily claim that some on the left don't want to eliminate ANY programs, but where's the value in that?
— Scott Santens (@2noame) February 19, 2015@2noame Name one.
— Dale Carrico (@dalecarrico) February 19, 2015@dalecarrico I've read it before. There are a lot of ways people want to see basic income implemented. Does no good to villify them.
— Scott Santens (@2noame) February 19, 2015@2noame Still awaiting examples of such positions. I don't necessarily doubt you've read such a thing; I'd just be interested in seeing it.
— Dale Carrico (@dalecarrico) February 19, 2015@2noame The most influential right-wing cases for basic income couple it with welfare dismantlement. It isn't villification to face facts.
— Dale Carrico (@dalecarrico) February 19, 2015@dalecarrico Coalition building doesn't begin with alienation. It begins with common purpose & that is replacing existing welfare with cash.
— Scott Santens (@2noame) February 19, 2015@2noame Replacement (not supplement) of existing welfare with cash is shared by all basic income advocates? Not just false but obviously so.
— Dale Carrico (@dalecarrico) February 19, 2015@2noame Ideologically diverse coalitions can support specific outcomes but you can't wish away difference between democracy & plutocracy.
— Dale Carrico (@dalecarrico) February 19, 2015@dalecarrico Just not 100% of ALL programs. The details are negotiable and entirely up to democracy to decide.
— Scott Santens (@2noame) February 19, 2015@2noame Of course this is true but those will shape and benefit most from such negotiations who are clear about where they are trying to go.
— Dale Carrico (@dalecarrico) February 19, 2015@2noame What is gained by denying differences in Milton Friedman's & Erik Olin Wright's basic income advocacy are real & legibly right/left?
— Dale Carrico (@dalecarrico) February 19, 2015@2noame Perhaps you would argue those examples are extremes, but they sure seem argumentatively/discursively representative to me.
— Dale Carrico (@dalecarrico) February 19, 2015Read @dalecarrico TL as he tries to argue a fuzzy-headed liberal out of Basic Income magical coalition-building thinking. No third way!
— lauren g (@lginiger) February 19, 2015@lginiger @dalecarrico "Fuzzy-headed liberal?" I'm not liberal OR conservative. This is a problem with tribal thinking - false dichotomies.
— Scott Santens (@2noame) February 19, 2015@2noame If someone spent their basic income and needed immediate health care or legal support they could not afford: is it a right or not?
— Dale Carrico (@dalecarrico) February 19, 2015@2noame @lginiger To declare left&right a false dichotomy requires either deception or confusion. The "tribalism" charge isn't encouraging.
— Dale Carrico (@dalecarrico) February 19, 2015Tribalism and false dichotomies are political jibber jabber. They mean nothing. @2noame @dalecarrico
— lauren g (@lginiger) February 19, 2015@lginiger @2noame Mostly agree but I am interested in figuring out if he's indulging in marketing deception or simply confused and educable.
— Dale Carrico (@dalecarrico) February 19, 2015
No comments:
Post a Comment