|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
United States42685 Posts
On July 11 2017 00:40 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2017 00:32 KwarK wrote:On July 10 2017 23:35 LegalLord wrote:
Experience has taught me that whenever the so-called intelligence community makes a broad generalizations about Russia, they are more likely than not just talking out of their collective asses. Even consistent Putin critics would say as much when asked about it. Maybe it's just Russia, maybe it's everybody, but I only know the one in enough depth to be able to consistently note complete BS being passed as fact.
That's easy to just say, but I think the facts show it to be true. Many of the most significant blunders of the IC have been due to a failure to understand motivations of people. Hell, most of the Russian-descendant folks I know thought the US IC was just playing dumb whenever they said stupid things about Russia. They quickly found out that wasn't the case; the US intelligence is good at the technical aspects of intelligence, not so much at the human side. Endless blunders of the latter form attest to that.
It does, of course, stem from the more general American lack of knowledge about Russia and probably many other countries. Of course you could ask any of us actual Russians to clarify - and those few who are capable of formulating the question in a non-trollish manner might just get an answer. Your stance is "don't trust the paid experts who are employed specifically to tell you about Russia with your interests in mind, trust a Russian"? I mean I can see why that's your stance, but it's not a very good one. You can trust their results to tell you about how good of experts they are. I know that the "expert fetish" is strong around here but you really don't have to take my word for it that the Russian intelligence in the IC is quite middling. Just look at the results. That you talk about "having your best interests in mind" belies a necessarily hostile attitude towards anything that could be said. By that logic, if you say anything about Britain that is at odds with anything our experts say, we should instantly assume you're wrong because the experts are the ones with our best interests in mind, right?
If it were something I'm not an expert on then yeah, probably. Being from somewhere increases your exposure to the subject but doesn't necessarily grant authority and in many cases can reduce authority. Would you trust the opinion of a historian or a Japanese man on the street if they disagreed regarding the extent of Japanese war crimes and aggression in WWII?
|
Keep in mind Don Jr arranged this meeting through a Russian acquaintance he knew from the Ms Universe pageant.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On July 11 2017 00:44 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2017 00:40 LegalLord wrote:On July 11 2017 00:32 KwarK wrote:On July 10 2017 23:35 LegalLord wrote:
Experience has taught me that whenever the so-called intelligence community makes a broad generalizations about Russia, they are more likely than not just talking out of their collective asses. Even consistent Putin critics would say as much when asked about it. Maybe it's just Russia, maybe it's everybody, but I only know the one in enough depth to be able to consistently note complete BS being passed as fact.
That's easy to just say, but I think the facts show it to be true. Many of the most significant blunders of the IC have been due to a failure to understand motivations of people. Hell, most of the Russian-descendant folks I know thought the US IC was just playing dumb whenever they said stupid things about Russia. They quickly found out that wasn't the case; the US intelligence is good at the technical aspects of intelligence, not so much at the human side. Endless blunders of the latter form attest to that.
It does, of course, stem from the more general American lack of knowledge about Russia and probably many other countries. Of course you could ask any of us actual Russians to clarify - and those few who are capable of formulating the question in a non-trollish manner might just get an answer. Your stance is "don't trust the paid experts who are employed specifically to tell you about Russia with your interests in mind, trust a Russian"? I mean I can see why that's your stance, but it's not a very good one. You can trust their results to tell you about how good of experts they are. I know that the "expert fetish" is strong around here but you really don't have to take my word for it that the Russian intelligence in the IC is quite middling. Just look at the results. That you talk about "having your best interests in mind" belies a necessarily hostile attitude towards anything that could be said. By that logic, if you say anything about Britain that is at odds with anything our experts say, we should instantly assume you're wrong because the experts are the ones with our best interests in mind, right? If it were something I'm not an expert on then yeah, probably. Being from somewhere increases your exposure to the subject but doesn't necessarily grant authority and in many cases can reduce authority. Would you trust the opinion of a historian or a Japanese man on the street if they disagreed regarding the extent of Japanese war crimes and aggression in WWII?
You should look at both and evaluate them in context, as with literally anything else that involves imperfect information. Otherwise all you've done is made your best impression of "God said it, I believe it, that settles it" with an expert subbing in for God.
Besides, even if you're an expert on any given topic, you're not one of our experts, so obviously you can't be trusted to have our best interest in mind.
|
United States42685 Posts
You're doing the thing that Bible literalists do when they say that science can't be trusted because nobody is infallible. And sure, experts can be wrong. Just because they're an expert doesn't mean that they are always right. However the process is self regulating, experts are constantly assessing and testing the claims of other experts and an expert whose claims are routinely found to be false ceases to be viewed as an expert.
So yes, if I was trusting an expert purely because they are an expert then that would be wrong, in the same way that trusting a scientist because they're wearing a lab coat would be wrong.
But that's not actually how the process works. You trust an expert because you trust the system that creates experts to not let people who aren't generally right be acclaimed as experts and to rapidly disclaim their expertise should they cease to be right. In the same way you trust a scientist not because they're a scientist but because the scientific method involves screening and verification.
But good try. Maybe pitch that with the "believing in science is just another form of faith" crowd. They'll enjoy it.
|
On July 10 2017 23:16 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2017 22:55 Danglars wrote:On July 10 2017 13:14 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
It's sad that gross incompetence isn't an impeachable offense. This is just...sad that we as Americans continue to allow this to happen. I feel that all Republicans should be brought up on charges of treason at times for allowing this farce to continue. On July 10 2017 13:19 LegalLord wrote:
If Republicans were to be impeached for allowing this farce to continue, Democrats would have little cover under which to allow their own farce to continue. Face it, both sides are remarkably scummy. It would just be great if both parties could never occupy the white house with high opposition numbers in House and Senate. Let's just brush on the criminalization of incompetance and farcical notions of treason and pretend it wouldn't be a disgusting slap in the face of democratic elections. Don't like who won? Just get a lynch mob going! Thank God for the constitution. People do have a hard time wrapping their brain around the idea that you get what you vote for. On the other hand, both parties have been guilty of impeachment mongering in the last 30 years. I remember the calls for Bill to be removed from office. Obama and even Bush managed to avoid this, so I think we should lay the blame on the people holding the oval office. Don’t want calls for impeachment, don’t lie and cover up if you are being investigated.
They definitely look silly doing so, by which I mean "the people [that] do have a hard time wrapping their brain around the idea that you get what you vote for." You get a chance every four years to vote against a candidate if you think he's incompetent (turns out to be incompetent if seeking second term). Every two years, you can vote for members of the house that impeaches. That's the recourse. 2018 is shaping up to be the impeachment election, because Democrats will likely seek it in the unlikely case they get a majority. The rest is advancing Trump 2020 by whinging about do-overs that don't exist.
|
On July 11 2017 00:40 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2017 00:32 KwarK wrote:On July 10 2017 23:35 LegalLord wrote:
Experience has taught me that whenever the so-called intelligence community makes a broad generalizations about Russia, they are more likely than not just talking out of their collective asses. Even consistent Putin critics would say as much when asked about it. Maybe it's just Russia, maybe it's everybody, but I only know the one in enough depth to be able to consistently note complete BS being passed as fact.
That's easy to just say, but I think the facts show it to be true. Many of the most significant blunders of the IC have been due to a failure to understand motivations of people. Hell, most of the Russian-descendant folks I know thought the US IC was just playing dumb whenever they said stupid things about Russia. They quickly found out that wasn't the case; the US intelligence is good at the technical aspects of intelligence, not so much at the human side. Endless blunders of the latter form attest to that.
It does, of course, stem from the more general American lack of knowledge about Russia and probably many other countries. Of course you could ask any of us actual Russians to clarify - and those few who are capable of formulating the question in a non-trollish manner might just get an answer. Your stance is "don't trust the paid experts who are employed specifically to tell you about Russia with your interests in mind, trust a Russian"? I mean I can see why that's your stance, but it's not a very good one. You can trust their results to tell you about how good of experts they are. I know that the "expert fetish" is strong around here but you really don't have to take my word for it that the Russian intelligence in the IC is quite middling. Just look at the results. That you talk about "having your best interests in mind" belies a necessarily hostile attitude towards anything that could be said. By that logic, if you say anything about Britain that is at odds with anything our experts say, we should instantly assume you're wrong because the experts are the ones with our best interests in mind, right?
This seems like an excuse to disregard information you don't agree with and discredit the source without providing any reason for doing so. Qualifications don't matter if you say they don't.
|
So now we have reached the point where the conservative posters here are where DonJR and Hannity are at: they concede Collusion but argue (1) it isn't so bad because there isn't a specific law against it and (2) Dems would have done it too (even though they didn't) so that makes it okay when Republicans did it. This is a crap argument and it will fall apart faster than you think. Especially when Trump himself tweets out the confirmation of the center of the story in a few hours. Remember what Bill Clinton was impeached for: Obstruction of Justice and Perjury. Process violations are real crimes in America and you damned well know Kushner, DonJR, and Flynn are going to lie under oath before 2018. If Dems win in 2018, Trump himself will lie under oath before 2020.
DonJR admitting intent for Collusion, but claims his attempt went nowhere:
+ Show Spoiler +https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/884395618784993280
Hannity conceding Team Trump was going in for the dirt from the Russians:
+ Show Spoiler +https://twitter.com/seanhannity/status/884194562029346817
|
However the process is self regulating, experts are constantly assessing and testing the claims of other experts and an expert whose claims are routinely found to be false ceases to be viewed as an expert.
Part of expert fetishism is assuming that this is absolutely the case. Just like when economists get their prognostications wrong, the experts rationalize away their mistakes to misjudging small aspects of the larger picture. And they continue to call themselves Russian experts or what have you. It's one of the reason these so-called experts have been diminished in American political discourse: they did it to themselves by not self regulating.
|
Economists are particularly bad at forecasting, to the point where the forecasts on average are actually meaningless. Nate Silver has written about this often. This is absolutely not the case though for every discipline.
|
On July 11 2017 01:10 Wulfey_LA wrote:So now we have reached the point where the conservative posters here are where DonJR and Hannity are at: they concede Collusion but argue (1) it isn't so bad because there isn't a specific law against it and (2) Dems would have done it too (even though they didn't) so that makes it okay when Republicans did it. This is a crap argument and it will fall apart faster than you think. Especially when Trump himself tweets out the confirmation of the center of the story in a few hours. Remember what Bill Clinton was impeached for: Obstruction of Justice and Perjury. Process violations are real crimes in America and you damned well know Kushner, DonJR, and Flynn are going to lie under oath before 2018. If Dems win in 2018, Trump himself will lie under oath before 2020. DonJR admitting intent for Collusion, but claims his attempt went nowhere: + Show Spoiler +https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/884395618784993280
Hannity conceding Team Trump was going in for the dirt from the Russians: + Show Spoiler +https://twitter.com/seanhannity/status/884194562029346817
Ground zero for rewriting history to fit a political narrative:
1) Pretend opposition research is suspicious based on party and ethnicity, instead of widespread and common
2) Ignore how quickly collusion in hacking got trashed despite months of leaks and assertions (shifting goalposts)
3) Continued blind ignorance of law regarding obstruction of justice. We have google now, there's really no excuse.
All these things will make Democrats fight uphill battles in 2018 and make the White House harder to take in 2020. At this point, you'd be better off believing the British spy dossier is an accurate account of what happened.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On July 11 2017 01:02 KwarK wrote:
You're doing the thing that Bible literalists do when they say that science can't be trusted because nobody is infallible. And sure, experts can be wrong. Just because they're an expert doesn't mean that they are always right. However the process is self regulating, experts are constantly assessing and testing the claims of other experts and an expert whose claims are routinely found to be false ceases to be viewed as an expert.
So yes, if I was trusting an expert purely because they are an expert then that would be wrong, in the same way that trusting a scientist because they're wearing a lab coat would be wrong.
But that's not actually how the process works. You trust an expert because you trust the system that creates experts to not let people who aren't generally right be acclaimed as experts and to rapidly disclaim their expertise should they cease to be right. In the same way you trust a scientist not because they're a scientist but because the scientific method involves screening and verification.
But good try. Maybe pitch that with the "believing in science is just another form of faith" crowd. They'll enjoy it.
A very roundabout way to say "I trust them because I trust them not to make mistakes."
Well, that's your right of course, but blindly trusting a scientist or a group thereof is also problematic if you do it blindly. There is this neat little thing called evidence that you can use to confirm things. And the case for trusting your choice of historians is even more tenuous given the less-than-factual nature of historical "facts" relative to that of hard science.
|
On July 11 2017 01:14 Nyxisto wrote:
Economists are particularly bad at forecasting, to the point where the forecasts on average are actually meaningless. Nate Silver has written about this often. This is absolutely not the case though for every discipline.
The same can be said for anyone to is attempting to predict how a massively complex system will act. People still fail to predict the weather with 95% accuracy. I still check the forecast every day.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On July 11 2017 01:14 Nyxisto wrote:
Economists are particularly bad at forecasting, to the point where the forecasts on average are actually meaningless. Nate Silver has written about this often. This is absolutely not the case though for every discipline.
Economics is, to be fair, a discipline constrained in the evidence it can gather and highly dependent on the accuracy of a model that is highly insufficient to explain the entire scope of what it hopes to cover. Even the best fuck up at times. The problem is when you refuse to admit it.
|
Canada11350 Posts
Well in regards to motivation and historically speaking, I believe the West had a fairly large blind spot at the height of the Cold War for indentifying traitors working for the Russians. They were always looking for the ideological communist that turned spy. Turned out it was the more mercenary motivation that turned to spying for the Russians: desperate or greedy for money. I have no idea about the present or outside of turncoats.
|
On July 11 2017 01:19 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2017 01:14 Nyxisto wrote:
Economists are particularly bad at forecasting, to the point where the forecasts on average are actually meaningless. Nate Silver has written about this often. This is absolutely not the case though for every discipline. The same can be said for anyone to is attempting to predict how a massively complex system will act. People still fail to predict the weather with 95% accuracy. I still check the forecast every day.
Would you still check it if its just 1/4 accurate (rainy, cloudy, sunny or foggy) or see it as a respectable profession?
|
On July 11 2017 01:04 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2017 23:16 Plansix wrote:On July 10 2017 22:55 Danglars wrote:On July 10 2017 13:14 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
It's sad that gross incompetence isn't an impeachable offense. This is just...sad that we as Americans continue to allow this to happen. I feel that all Republicans should be brought up on charges of treason at times for allowing this farce to continue. On July 10 2017 13:19 LegalLord wrote:
If Republicans were to be impeached for allowing this farce to continue, Democrats would have little cover under which to allow their own farce to continue. Face it, both sides are remarkably scummy. It would just be great if both parties could never occupy the white house with high opposition numbers in House and Senate. Let's just brush on the criminalization of incompetance and farcical notions of treason and pretend it wouldn't be a disgusting slap in the face of democratic elections. Don't like who won? Just get a lynch mob going! Thank God for the constitution. People do have a hard time wrapping their brain around the idea that you get what you vote for. On the other hand, both parties have been guilty of impeachment mongering in the last 30 years. I remember the calls for Bill to be removed from office. Obama and even Bush managed to avoid this, so I think we should lay the blame on the people holding the oval office. Don’t want calls for impeachment, don’t lie and cover up if you are being investigated. They definitely look silly doing so, by which I mean "the people [that] do have a hard time wrapping their brain around the idea that you get what you vote for." You get a chance every four years to vote against a candidate if you think he's incompetent (turns out to be incompetent if seeking second term). Every two years, you can vote for members of the house that impeaches. That's the recourse. 2018 is shaping up to be the impeachment election, because Democrats will likely seek it in the unlikely case they get a majority. The rest is advancing Trump 2020 by whinging about do-overs that don't exist.
I know we like to talk about how the Democrats will need to field someone appealing enough if Trump is going to get voted out, but I defy anyone outside the pro-Trump echo chamber to look at how things are going and think it's anything but a negative for him. If you think blatant corruption, self-enrichment, qualified nepotism, and an otherwise complete ineffectiveness in office just make him look better come 2020, then I'm not sure what to say, or why we should be having a discussion. His next opponent will have to be pretty genuinely awful if it's even going to be a contest.
Talking about how scummy Democrats are is all well and good, but right now the Republicans have the majorities, they have the power, and they can't get anything done. There is no reason to keep them in the House and Senate as-is. I'll be looking to see if they're willing to change anything and work with Democrats, and if nothing improves I'll likely be voting against them next year.
|
On July 11 2017 01:26 Falling wrote:
Well in regards to motivation and historically speaking, I believe the West had a fairly large blind spot at the height of the Cold War for indentifying traitors working for the Russians. They were always looking for the ideological communist that turned spy. Turned out it was the more mercenary motivation that turned to spying for the Russians: desperate or greedy for money. I have no idea about the present or outside of turncoats.
This accurate historical anecdote jives pretty well with current events.
|
On July 11 2017 01:17 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2017 01:10 Wulfey_LA wrote:So now we have reached the point where the conservative posters here are where DonJR and Hannity are at: they concede Collusion but argue (1) it isn't so bad because there isn't a specific law against it and (2) Dems would have done it too (even though they didn't) so that makes it okay when Republicans did it. This is a crap argument and it will fall apart faster than you think. Especially when Trump himself tweets out the confirmation of the center of the story in a few hours. Remember what Bill Clinton was impeached for: Obstruction of Justice and Perjury. Process violations are real crimes in America and you damned well know Kushner, DonJR, and Flynn are going to lie under oath before 2018. If Dems win in 2018, Trump himself will lie under oath before 2020. DonJR admitting intent for Collusion, but claims his attempt went nowhere: + Show Spoiler +https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/884395618784993280
Hannity conceding Team Trump was going in for the dirt from the Russians: + Show Spoiler +https://twitter.com/seanhannity/status/884194562029346817 Ground zero for rewriting history to fit a political narrative: 1) Pretend opposition research is suspicious based on party and ethnicity, instead of widespread and common 2) Ignore how quickly collusion in hacking got trashed despite months of leaks and assertions (shifting goalposts) 3) Continued blind ignorance of law regarding obstruction of justice. We have google now, there's really no excuse. All these things will make Democrats fight uphill battles in 2018 and make the White House harder to take in 2020. At this point, you'd be better off believing the British spy dossier is an accurate account of what happened.
Who do you think actually believes the "just opposition research" spin outside of Hannity/Trump cult? We have DonJR admitting intent. And the Jun 9 "get dirt on HRC from the Russians" meeting just happen to take place 5 days before Wikileaks/Russia announce release of a new tranche of hacked HRC emails [yes I am reposting these links]. The only goalposts being moved here is that 2016 Collusion is back on the table.
Jullian Assange promises HRC emails
Jun 14, 2016
http://www.salon.com/2016/06/14/wikileaks_will_release_new_clinton_emails_to_add_to_incriminating_evidence_julian_assange_says_in_big_year_ahead/
Russia poised to release HRC emails
Jun 14, 2016
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3641838/Russia-poised-release-emails-Hillary-Clinton-s-private-server-report-claims.html
EDIT: do you realize how far the goalposts have shifted on the other side? (1) Russia stuff is all a hoax -> (2) No evidence of collusion from Russia stuff -> (3) Can't prove from anonymous sources -> (4) Deep State! -> (5) We accidentally forgot about innocent Russia meetings -> (6) yes we met with Russians to trade policy favors to get dirt on HRC, but that isn't specifically against the law. I can source all of 1-6 to actual statements by Trump and DonJR.
|
United States42685 Posts
On July 11 2017 01:18 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2017 01:02 KwarK wrote:
You're doing the thing that Bible literalists do when they say that science can't be trusted because nobody is infallible. And sure, experts can be wrong. Just because they're an expert doesn't mean that they are always right. However the process is self regulating, experts are constantly assessing and testing the claims of other experts and an expert whose claims are routinely found to be false ceases to be viewed as an expert.
So yes, if I was trusting an expert purely because they are an expert then that would be wrong, in the same way that trusting a scientist because they're wearing a lab coat would be wrong.
But that's not actually how the process works. You trust an expert because you trust the system that creates experts to not let people who aren't generally right be acclaimed as experts and to rapidly disclaim their expertise should they cease to be right. In the same way you trust a scientist not because they're a scientist but because the scientific method involves screening and verification.
But good try. Maybe pitch that with the "believing in science is just another form of faith" crowd. They'll enjoy it. A very roundabout way to say "I trust them because I trust them not to make mistakes." Well, that's your right of course, but blindly trusting a scientist or a group thereof is also problematic if you do it blindly. There is this neat little thing called evidence that you can use to confirm things. And the case for trusting your choice of historians is even more tenuous given the less-than-factual nature of historical "facts" relative to that of hard science.
No, I trust them because I trust the system to filter out those who do make mistakes. I don't think they're infallible, I think the system does a good job of managing and mitigating their fallibility.
This isn't complicated, you really ought to understand it.
|
On July 11 2017 01:29 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2017 01:26 Falling wrote:
Well in regards to motivation and historically speaking, I believe the West had a fairly large blind spot at the height of the Cold War for indentifying traitors working for the Russians. They were always looking for the ideological communist that turned spy. Turned out it was the more mercenary motivation that turned to spying for the Russians: desperate or greedy for money. I have no idea about the present or outside of turncoats. This accurate historical anecdote jives pretty well with current events.
And with our on recruitment of intelligence assets. We don't look for pro-freedom, pro-America ideology. Just people that are willing to do high risk illegal things for personal gain.
On July 11 2017 01:26 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2017 01:19 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2017 01:14 Nyxisto wrote:
Economists are particularly bad at forecasting, to the point where the forecasts on average are actually meaningless. Nate Silver has written about this often. This is absolutely not the case though for every discipline. The same can be said for anyone to is attempting to predict how a massively complex system will act. People still fail to predict the weather with 95% accuracy. I still check the forecast every day. Would you still check it if its just 1/4 accurate (rainy, cloudy, sunny or foggy) or see it as a respectable profession?
Sure. 1 out of 4 times it would be right. It's a pretty low impact part of my day, time investment zero.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
