We share good ideas and conversation here.   Login, Join Us, or Take a Tour!
kleinbl00's comments
kleinbl00  ·  4 hours ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Piketty’s Crumbs

Don't overthink it.

Consequentialism: "the ends justify the means."

Deontology: "It's the principle of the thing."

Consequentially: it's okay that "today's crumbs are yesterday's loaf" because a loaf is a loaf.

Deontologically: It's not okay that "today's crumbs are yesterday's loaf" because crumbs are crumbs.

bfv  ·  3 hours ago  ·  link  ·  

    Don't overthink it.

Or oversimply. Deontology is about rules. You've got your 10 commandments or your categorical imperative or your wiccan rede or... and if you do what your rules say to do you're doing the right thing. This can get silly. Consequentialism is about results, but isn't quite the same as utilitarianism; the Libertarian what's-good-for-me-is-good school of ethics is consequentialist as well. This gets silly too, but I'm not linking to trolly problems or Ayn Rand because I like you guys.

kleinbl00  ·  7 hours ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Piketty’s Crumbs

I won't patronize if you make a good-faith effort to address the question at hand rather than deflecting. The quote:

    In short, convenience in entertainment and leisure do not necessarily mean widespread economic security.

Your arguments:

    How about the air conditioning, that helps us sleep well and be alert at work?

Set aside for the moment the fact that air conditioning primarily changed the lifestyles of the south and southwest such that they were habitable and people could work. Air conditioning doesn't keep a roof over your head, nor does it put food on your family.

    The penicillin and ambulance services, which reduce the consequences of health problems?

Set aside for the moment the fact that penicillin and ambulances don't keep a roof over your head nor put food on your family. Neither of these are available to you if you're poor. You think they are, but what happens is you get sick, you go to the hospital, you get treatment, you can't pay, and they garnish your wages. Assuming you have wages. There is a powerful financial disincentive against the consumption of healthcare that the middle class and upper class do not experience. Not only that, but you miss a couple days at Dunder Mifflin, you take it out of sick leave. You miss a couple days at the gas'n'sip, you ain't gettin' paid and you might be on your ass.

    The poor spend money on entertainment and leisure as well.

Set aside for a moment...

A movie ticket in 1913 was seven cents. That's the equivalent of a $1.72 today. Meanwhile, movies cost between $8 and $15 depending on where you live. In 1929, you could see the Yankees play for a dollar, or the equivalent of $14. The average now is $34. On the other hand, first class on the Titanic was $4350, or the equivalent of $107k. And although Cunard is sold out of first class transatlantic voyages this year, midships is under a grand. So although your argument isn't quite "let them eat cake" it shares some traits.

But none of this gets to the matter at hand: does static wealth inequality matter? Piketty, at least, addresses the issue as a reason to not address the issue. The article you linked essentially says "never mind all that, the poor have refrigerators now." rd95 is arguing that having a refrigerator does not guarantee your ass won't be sleeping on a park bench a month from now and you said "how about air conditioning?"

HERE is a libertarian argument:

- If the poor today have experienced an equivalent boost to quality of life over yesterday's poor that the rich today have experienced over yesterday's rich, then the fact that today's poor are just as poor as yesterday's poor doesn't matter.

But you didn't make that argument, Piketty didn't make that argument and the author didn't make that argument. You want to focus on thirteen immigrants living in a chicken coop. If you're going to do that, we could drag stuff like this out:

...and I'll point out that the 3 bedroom house next to my old apartment that had fifteen illegal Chinese immigrants in it.

The question is not "are the poor materially better off now than before." That's an obvious yes. The question is "are the poor comparatively better off now than they were before" and Commentary magazine don't give a fuck. rd95 does.

kleinbl00  ·  12 hours ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Piketty’s Crumbs
kleinbl00  ·  12 hours ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Piketty’s Crumbs

You should read Piketty.

He wasn't measuring welfare by any stretch of the imagination - he was measuring capital flows and the function of owned capital in wealth generation. Fact of the matter is, he basically points to the massive redistribution of wealth during WWII as the engine driving the post-war economic expansion without once saying the words "jew" "holocaust" "crystallnacht" or "ghetto"; I'm guessing because it would have opened up exactly this sort of bullshit argument.

More than that, "extreme poverty" isn't even vaguely a focus of the work. It's entirely about the top two deciles and how they compare to the middle six deciles historically and why. He even burns a few pages about how historically, the poor aren't even counted so it's difficult to find any metrics about them. He focuses on the middle class and the wealthy because that's where the data is.

Yet in your linked article, it forms the justification for some dude in a suit to go "look - it's not so bad as it was during the dust bowl." NO SHIT. How offensive is that? "Could be worse, you could have cholera." Fuckin' A - if we're taking "a reasonable expectation that the advances of modern science will raise the quality of life for all participants in society" off the table I'ma start gettin' strident.

kleinbl00  ·  12 hours ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Piketty’s Crumbs

This is a straw-man argument well beneath your rhetorical skills. Maybe it isn't your fault - the article you link deliberately mischaracterizes an argument in order to launch on its own wild flight of strawmannery - but there's a world of difference between "economic security" and "well-being."

The poor who worked in Upton Sinclair's The Jungle had, by Piketty's estimation, about the same level of "economic security" as the poor who worked in Molly Ivin's Foster Farms investigation. However, Ivins' crew mostly worked hard at a shitty job. They didn't face imminent mutilation like Sinclair's did. Piketty didn't even make an argument that inequality had stayed the same - he made the argument that the top and bottom deciles hadn't changed much from a quantity standpoint. And he made the argument as evidence for the fact that they'd gone up towards WWII and had come back down. The argument was not that things stayed the same, it's that policies prior to the '70s had improved the standard of living of the poor and policies that began in the '70s were putting it in steady decline.

wasoxygen  ·  8 hours ago  ·  link  ·  

I am doing my level best but don't follow your side. The patronizing tone doesn't help; can we focus on the subject instead of my rhetorical skills?

When Piketty writes "The poorer half of the population are as poor today as they were in the past" I think a typical reader would get the impression that the material welfare of the poor has not improved.

But I agree with you, based on my reading of that chapter Piketty is not measuring material welfare. He is interested in share of total wealth. And he uses a moving yardstick, comparing the poor of the past to the rich of that era, and today's poor with today's rich.

The article points out that, despite this description of static share of wealth (which I do not see disputed) there are good reasons to celebrate improvement in material welfare, like highways and ambulances and A/C and penicillin, and also cable TV and Facebook.

rd95 summed up this list as merely "convenience in entertainment and leisure," in my view, a clear instance of straw man. I didn't want to irritate him by citing logical fallacies; bringing "ad hominem" and the rest never helps a discussion. But, regrettably, he seems disgruntled anyway. I would love to investigate all the issues he mentions, "privacy, clean water, working plumbing and electricity, fair rent rates, safe neighborhoods, and on and on and on" and see what the data show the trends are. We might start with the photo in the article depicting the family of 13 living in a converted chicken coop. I expect that the trends are generally positive and beneficial to people at all income levels.

Piketty might agree with all this, I don't know. If it's true that many poor are materially better off now than before, by absolute measures, I think we should celebrate that and look for ways to continue and expand the trend, and not worry so much about relative measures.

kleinbl00  ·  7 hours ago  ·  link  ·  

I won't patronize if you make a good-faith effort to address the question at hand rather than deflecting. The quote:

    In short, convenience in entertainment and leisure do not necessarily mean widespread economic security.

Your arguments:

    How about the air conditioning, that helps us sleep well and be alert at work?

Set aside for the moment the fact that air conditioning primarily changed the lifestyles of the south and southwest such that they were habitable and people could work. Air conditioning doesn't keep a roof over your head, nor does it put food on your family.

    The penicillin and ambulance services, which reduce the consequences of health problems?

Set aside for the moment the fact that penicillin and ambulances don't keep a roof over your head nor put food on your family. Neither of these are available to you if you're poor. You think they are, but what happens is you get sick, you go to the hospital, you get treatment, you can't pay, and they garnish your wages. Assuming you have wages. There is a powerful financial disincentive against the consumption of healthcare that the middle class and upper class do not experience. Not only that, but you miss a couple days at Dunder Mifflin, you take it out of sick leave. You miss a couple days at the gas'n'sip, you ain't gettin' paid and you might be on your ass.

    The poor spend money on entertainment and leisure as well.

Set aside for a moment...

A movie ticket in 1913 was seven cents. That's the equivalent of a $1.72 today. Meanwhile, movies cost between $8 and $15 depending on where you live. In 1929, you could see the Yankees play for a dollar, or the equivalent of $14. The average now is $34. On the other hand, first class on the Titanic was $4350, or the equivalent of $107k. And although Cunard is sold out of first class transatlantic voyages this year, midships is under a grand. So although your argument isn't quite "let them eat cake" it shares some traits.

But none of this gets to the matter at hand: does static wealth inequality matter? Piketty, at least, addresses the issue as a reason to not address the issue. The article you linked essentially says "never mind all that, the poor have refrigerators now." rd95 is arguing that having a refrigerator does not guarantee your ass won't be sleeping on a park bench a month from now and you said "how about air conditioning?"

HERE is a libertarian argument:

- If the poor today have experienced an equivalent boost to quality of life over yesterday's poor that the rich today have experienced over yesterday's rich, then the fact that today's poor are just as poor as yesterday's poor doesn't matter.

But you didn't make that argument, Piketty didn't make that argument and the author didn't make that argument. You want to focus on thirteen immigrants living in a chicken coop. If you're going to do that, we could drag stuff like this out:

...and I'll point out that the 3 bedroom house next to my old apartment that had fifteen illegal Chinese immigrants in it.

The question is not "are the poor materially better off now than before." That's an obvious yes. The question is "are the poor comparatively better off now than they were before" and Commentary magazine don't give a fuck. rd95 does.

kleinbl00  ·  13 hours ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: The beginning of the end? Reddit introduces profile pages

I sorta think the VCs told Imgur to quietly add comments and become a community separate from Reddit because reddit is legit toxic.

There's a reason they dont' get more money. Toxicity doesn't sell.

kleinbl00  ·  13 hours ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Pubski: March 22, 2017

Yeah. The therapist this morning was actually convinced to go about and kinesthetically measure my pelvic offset. Lo and behold, I've got 5 degrees of splay just in my hip sockets alone. Changed her tune a little.

kleinbl00  ·  15 hours ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Piketty’s Crumbs

These two sentences are the start of a contradictory four paragraphs. Here's more of the quote:

    And the poorer half of the population are as poor today as they were in the past, with barely 5 percent of total wealth in 2010 , just as in 1910. Basically, all the middle class managed to get its hands on was a few crumbs: scarecely more than a third of Europe's wealth and barely a quarter of the United States. This middle group has four times as many members as the top decile yet only one-half to one-third as much wealth. It is tempting to conclude that nothing has really changed: inequalities in the ownership of capital are still extreme (see Table 7.2).

    None of this is false, and it is essential to be aware of these things: the historical reduction of inequalities of wealth is less substantial than many people believe. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that the limited compression of inequality that we have seen is irreversible. Nevertheless, the crumbs that the middle class has collected are important, and it would be wrong to underestimate the historical significance of the change. A person who has a fortune from 200,000 to 300,000 euros may not be rich but is a long way from being destitute, and most of these people do not like to be treated as poor. Tens of millions of individuals - 40 percent of the population represents a large group, intermediate between rich and poor - individually own property worth hundreds of thousands of euros and collectively lay claim to one-quarter to one-third of national wealth: this is a change of some moment. In historical terms, it was a major transformation, which deeply altered the social landscape and the political structure of society and helped to redefine the terms of distributive conflict. It is therefore essential to understand why it occurred.

Piketty's argument in Capital was not that "it's all pointless, fuckin' waaaah" it's that wealth naturally accumulates unless checked by policy.

    Why 1910? He could have picked 1960 or 1800, I suppose, but the year 1910 seemed to float in the back of the mind like a silent paradox.

Because that's when the data started getting good and repeatable and comparable to modern data. Dude blows like a chapter explaining this. Say what you will about Piketty, but the dude shows his work.

The rest of it has fuckall to do with Piketty, but is instead an archetypal Commentary Magazine paean to how things were better when the HUAC was running America.

wasoxygen  ·  15 hours ago  ·  link  ·  

I haven't read Piketty, but Google Books allowed me to read a few pages to make sure that quote wasn't taken out of context.

So I agree that "None of this is false," but I question the value of measuring welfare by asking what percentage of the total someone holds, rather than more direct measures of life quality, like food, shelter, and health.

I also agree that wealth naturally accumulates unless checked by policy. That is precisely why "The target of reducing extreme poverty rates by half was met five years ahead of the 2015 deadline."

kleinbl00  ·  12 hours ago  ·  link  ·  

You should read Piketty.

He wasn't measuring welfare by any stretch of the imagination - he was measuring capital flows and the function of owned capital in wealth generation. Fact of the matter is, he basically points to the massive redistribution of wealth during WWII as the engine driving the post-war economic expansion without once saying the words "jew" "holocaust" "crystallnacht" or "ghetto"; I'm guessing because it would have opened up exactly this sort of bullshit argument.

More than that, "extreme poverty" isn't even vaguely a focus of the work. It's entirely about the top two deciles and how they compare to the middle six deciles historically and why. He even burns a few pages about how historically, the poor aren't even counted so it's difficult to find any metrics about them. He focuses on the middle class and the wealthy because that's where the data is.

Yet in your linked article, it forms the justification for some dude in a suit to go "look - it's not so bad as it was during the dust bowl." NO SHIT. How offensive is that? "Could be worse, you could have cholera." Fuckin' A - if we're taking "a reasonable expectation that the advances of modern science will raise the quality of life for all participants in society" off the table I'ma start gettin' strident.

kleinbl00  ·  16 hours ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Pubski: March 22, 2017

Ever set up an Airport Express? Simple as fuck, right?

How bout setting up an Airport Express to extend an existing network? utter shitshow, right? I'm not even sure they let you do it anymore. Take it from me - it takes about five hours of experimentation the first time, then pretty much every time you change something, expect to spend another couple hours.

Wanna see how Eduroam does it? It's on the Wikipedia page:

    The eduroam service uses IEEE 802.1X as the authentication method and a hierarchal system of RADIUS servers.[15] The hierarchy consists of RADIUS servers at the participating institutions, national RADIUS servers run by the National Roaming Operators and regional top-level RADIUS servers for individual world regions. When a user A from institution B in country C with two-letter country-code top-level domain xy visits institution P in country Q, A's mobile device presents his credentials to the RADIUS server of institution P. That RADIUS server discovers that it is not responsible for the Institution_B.xy realm and proxies the access request to the national RADIUS server of country Q. If C and Q are different countries, it is in turn proxied to the regional top-level RADIUS server, and then to the national RADIUS server of country C, which has a complete list of the participating eduroam institutions in that country. That national server forwards the credentials to the home institution B, where they are verified. The 'acknowledge' travels back over the proxy-hierarchy to the visited institution P and the user is granted access.

You can build a mesh network with Ubiquiti or Ruckus or whatever. You pay more. a Unifi is like $90 a node, compared to the $25 you pay for consumer shit. But it allows you to have everything working in concert - adjust the power, hand signals off from WAP to WAP and most importantly, put credentialing and access at one centralized location.

On the other hand, when you open up your Comcast router it has a 2nd network built in, on the same frequencies, at the same power, as your own personal SSID. The only thing Comcast has control over is whether or not your credentials let you on.

It matters a lot less when things are well-spaced but when they aren't, look out.

kleinbl00  ·  16 hours ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Pubski: March 22, 2017

Right. If you did deliver babies for a living, you'd discover that home birth mothers have a startling proclivity for living on the moon. More than that for my wife to accompany me out there she has to call everyone who might possibly go into labor over the next however-many hours and give them an alternate contact person (another midwife) to call with questions or concerns. And then as soon as we're back in cell coverage my wife has to check all her voicemails (usually under a dozen) and check in with that alternate midwife.

kleinbl00  ·  19 hours ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Pubski: March 22, 2017

Google phones don't have any of that shit.

kleinbl00  ·  19 hours ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Pubski: March 22, 2017

It's a known problem.

    You go into a bar. Standing in the doorway, you say, loudly, "Hey, Mike!" 22 people named "Mike" turn around and stare at you for more information. You, lacking Mike Murphy's last name, say, "Hey, Mike!", again to 22 angry Mikes who all try to answer you at the same time in a mass confusion as they are all Mike. Everyone is lost as you can't talk to 22 people simultaneously. That's what Comcast has done to crash wifi across America. Every Comcast wifi hotspot has the SAME EXACT SSID, "xfinitywifi".

    So, your stupid Windows/IOS/Android/Apple computer calls to connect to "xfinitywifi". At my local Waffle House, 15 of them all answer my call SIMULTANEOUSLY and, usually, nothing even connects. If one does connect, in the off chance one is a little stronger than the rest, the first time you send data to it, they all start calling and calling trying to reconnect. We sit with a professional networking program and joke about how stupid this is from this giant communications company that should, but doesn't, know better. Unless you can get close enough to ONE xfinitywifi that obliterates the signals from all the other xfinitywifi stations on the channel (1 or 6, sometimes 11), it WON'T WORK! As usual, when trying to describe this to tech support who know how to configure cable boxes but have no idea how 802.11(x) wifi operates, trying to get the Comcast beast to CHANGE the SSIDs to something UNIQUE, such as "xfinitywifi + the last 4 hex characters of that modem's MAC address" is like trying to push a 2500 pound elephant up a hill. Every hotspot having the same SSID must be ok or the Comcast beast wouldn't have done it. So, expect wireless wifi in every Comcast city in America to become a nightmare of stations all with the same SSID crashing and crashing and trashing wifi for everyone, not just Comcast's inop customers unless FCC does its job.

Starbuck's can pull it off because although they're everywhere, there generally aren't more than three per block. On the other hand, the birth center backs up against a 22-unit apartment building and unless you buy your own modem, every single Comcast customer is bleeding out "xfinitywifi" giving your phone around 11 SSIDs with the same name.

I can watch the "xfinitywifi" signal jump 20dB as my phone chooses between three or four of them.

Project Fi only works with Google or Nexus-branded phones because only Google or Nexus-branded phones will run dual-band on a single SIM. Your choices are 5X, 6, 6P, Pixel or Pixel XL.

Also, if your router is running damn near any kind of security, it'll take an extra second or two over barely-secure xfinitywifi. My laptop does it often, even though I'm less than five feet away from a rock-solid Netgear Nighthawk. It's the security.

veen  ·  17 hours ago  ·  link  ·  

Then how does eduroam solve this problem? I have solid wifi on all campuses in the world and throughout all campus buildings with no issues like this, through one single 'eduroam' SSID.

kleinbl00  ·  16 hours ago  ·  link  ·  

Ever set up an Airport Express? Simple as fuck, right?

How bout setting up an Airport Express to extend an existing network? utter shitshow, right? I'm not even sure they let you do it anymore. Take it from me - it takes about five hours of experimentation the first time, then pretty much every time you change something, expect to spend another couple hours.

Wanna see how Eduroam does it? It's on the Wikipedia page:

    The eduroam service uses IEEE 802.1X as the authentication method and a hierarchal system of RADIUS servers.[15] The hierarchy consists of RADIUS servers at the participating institutions, national RADIUS servers run by the National Roaming Operators and regional top-level RADIUS servers for individual world regions. When a user A from institution B in country C with two-letter country-code top-level domain xy visits institution P in country Q, A's mobile device presents his credentials to the RADIUS server of institution P. That RADIUS server discovers that it is not responsible for the Institution_B.xy realm and proxies the access request to the national RADIUS server of country Q. If C and Q are different countries, it is in turn proxied to the regional top-level RADIUS server, and then to the national RADIUS server of country C, which has a complete list of the participating eduroam institutions in that country. That national server forwards the credentials to the home institution B, where they are verified. The 'acknowledge' travels back over the proxy-hierarchy to the visited institution P and the user is granted access.

You can build a mesh network with Ubiquiti or Ruckus or whatever. You pay more. a Unifi is like $90 a node, compared to the $25 you pay for consumer shit. But it allows you to have everything working in concert - adjust the power, hand signals off from WAP to WAP and most importantly, put credentialing and access at one centralized location.

On the other hand, when you open up your Comcast router it has a 2nd network built in, on the same frequencies, at the same power, as your own personal SSID. The only thing Comcast has control over is whether or not your credentials let you on.

It matters a lot less when things are well-spaced but when they aren't, look out.

raisin  ·  17 hours ago  ·  link  ·  

Yeah, I'm curious about this as well, currently on eduroam wi-fi with no problems.

kleinbl00  ·  19 hours ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: The beginning of the end? Reddit introduces profile pages

You're backing into the truth despite bad data.

Reddit's published numbers are between a factor of 10 and a factor of 100 off of what any other measurer uses. There are blog posts early on where the team slags on Alexa and the like because they aren't measuring "true" metrics. Those same rankers also point out the major terms that bring people to Reddit - and it's all porn. All of it. All porn.

But reddit's numbers and reddit's monetization aren't inextricably linked because they bill you based on what they say the numbers are (and they rip you off HARD). However, they can't count when you have adblock on either, so yeah - it makes sense for them to serve the communities too stupid to run adblock.

For the longest time, the only thing that gave you karma was outbound links. That's not by accident. Outbound links increase Reddit's siterank, internal content does not. Things flipped when 9gag and the like started raiding Reddit content; now you get points for pretty much everything you do... but it's still all about "what can we do to inflate the metrics." And yes. Nothing in /r/depthhub will do that.

Imgur started out as a Reddit plugin. It now has higher profit and higher numbers. That's when Reddit decided to do their own image hosting - when they were basically an Imgur optimization engine.

It's a shitshow from stem to stern.

francopoli  ·  17 hours ago  ·  link  ·  

And Imgur has a better community, is more responsive under load, and the character limit, IMO, HELPS keep it an image site.

When Imgur ups the character limit for comments, they being the long slide.

kleinbl00  ·  13 hours ago  ·  link  ·  

I sorta think the VCs told Imgur to quietly add comments and become a community separate from Reddit because reddit is legit toxic.

There's a reason they dont' get more money. Toxicity doesn't sell.

kleinbl00  ·  20 hours ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: David Brooks: The Unifying American Story

There are many lenses one can see most of the bible through, no doubt. But to somehow imagine that - wait, where's that quote?

    For most of the past 400 years, Americans did have an overarching story. It was the Exodus story.

I mean, (1) "for particularly narrow interpretations of 'Americans'" (2) it's the same story that makes plague blankets and death marches okay. "I'm oppressed, it's payback time."

Having read up extensively on the Puritans, what they believed and what they were fleeing, I for one long for a country that never attempts to emulate them in any way, shape or form and I'm a middle-class, middle-aged white male.

kleinbl00  ·  1 day ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: David Brooks: The Unifying American Story

Sweet tapdancing christ has this mutherfucker not read Exodus? has he not read the Cliff's Notes for Exodus?

    The book of Exodus is full of social justice — care for the vulnerable, the equality of all souls.

THE BOOK OF EXODUS IS FULL OF PLAGUES, MUTHERFUCKER. It is the Kill Bill of biblical literature.

    It suggests that history is in the shape of an upward spiral.

It suggests that if God is on your side, genocide is A-OK.

    The Exodus narrative has pretty much been dropped from our civic culture. Schools cast off the Puritans as a bunch of religious fundamentalists.

They were one of thirteen colonies, Dave. The Carolinas weren't at all about fleeing Cromwell.

    It should be possible to revive the Exodus template, to see Americans as a single people trekking through a landscape of broken institutions. What’s needed is an act of imagination, somebody who can tell us what our goal is, and offer an ideal vision of what the country and the world should be.

It's like watching the Church Lady on shrooms.

lil  ·  21 hours ago  ·  link  ·  

There are many lenses one can see Exodus through. -- I'm not sure that the mass killing of the Egyptians or the removing of the existing populations of Canaan (a process continuing to this day) completely shutters the story Gorski is choosing to highlight:

    The Exodus story has six acts: first, a life of slavery and oppression, then the revolt against tyranny, then the difficult flight through the howling wilderness, then the infighting and misbehavior amid the stresses of that ordeal, then the handing down of a new covenant, a new law, and then finally the arrival into a new promised land and the project of building a new Jerusalem.

The difficulty and challenge is looking through both lenses at the same time, hoping that we are moving towards a story that can have liberation without genocide. Given the history of humans so far, it's a hard story to write.

kleinbl00  ·  20 hours ago  ·  link  ·  

There are many lenses one can see most of the bible through, no doubt. But to somehow imagine that - wait, where's that quote?

    For most of the past 400 years, Americans did have an overarching story. It was the Exodus story.

I mean, (1) "for particularly narrow interpretations of 'Americans'" (2) it's the same story that makes plague blankets and death marches okay. "I'm oppressed, it's payback time."

Having read up extensively on the Puritans, what they believed and what they were fleeing, I for one long for a country that never attempts to emulate them in any way, shape or form and I'm a middle-class, middle-aged white male.