| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On March 07 2020 20:53 Wombat_NI wrote: How do people not realise Trump is absolutely full of shit? It really does boggle the brain. He upsets the libs so its all good. | ||
|
IyMoon
United States1249 Posts
On March 07 2020 20:53 Wombat_NI wrote: How do people not realise Trump is absolutely full of shit? It really does boggle the brain. I'll tell you what I told my girlfriend yesterday when she asked the same question. I have a cousin who posted a FB meme about Biden reveling the identity of seal team 6 (which he did not do). So I posted the article of Trump reveling the identity of seal team 5 members (which he did do). Within 5 minutes he had called me an indoctrinated sheeple who worships pedophiles. These are the kind of people who are in so deep that nothing you could show them would make them lose faith. They will never think Trump can do or will do anything wrong | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12533 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany11973 Posts
Only recently have i really come into contact with people who just don't do rationality at all. And i have no idea what to do. All of the ways of talking with people which i have learned throughout my life just don't work anymore when people don't care about evidence, arguments or anything along those lines. It is a completely alien way of thinking to me. And it feels very, very strange. I feel as if am talking to caricatures sometimes. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27340 Posts
On March 10 2020 01:13 JimmiC wrote: I have been having the same experiences more and more lately and think it is only going to be more common. As people have less and less trust in the media, governments and science it becomes almost impossible to agree on the facts let alone move on to interpreting those facts. There seems to be a attitude that different facts are OK and that people should respect peoples different facts. Which I find mind boggling since there should be only one set of facts the correct ones. And on top of that there are more and more people treating their presumptions as facts and then making conclusions based on those. In becomes a lot more to unpack when your not sure what set of facts they are using to get to the conclusion they have come too. Need a dose of good old-fashioned elitism into the whole shebang if you ask me. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18436 Posts
On March 10 2020 01:13 JimmiC wrote: I have been having the same experiences more and more lately and think it is only going to be more common. As people have less and less trust in the media, governments and science it becomes almost impossible to agree on the facts let alone move on to interpreting those facts. There seems to be a attitude that different facts are OK and that people should respect peoples different facts. Which I find mind boggling since there should be only one set of facts the correct ones. And on top of that there are more and more people treating their presumptions as facts and then making conclusions based on those. In becomes a lot more to unpack when your not sure what set of facts they are using to get to the conclusion they have come too. To play the devil's advocate here: what is a fact? | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18436 Posts
On March 10 2020 02:13 JimmiC wrote: Something that is known to have happened. The reason for why it happened is usually an assumption. A lot of people, including in the media, are using absolutes to describe possible reasons and outcomes. Okay. But how do we know something happened? And I don't even want to ask how we know *anything*, which is probably too deep. But how do we know stuff that we didn't observe directly ourselves? | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27340 Posts
On March 10 2020 02:20 Acrofales wrote: Okay. But how do we know something happened? And I don't even want to ask how we know *anything*, which is probably too deep. But how do we know stuff that we didn't observe directly ourselves? A fourth estate doing its job should accomplish that. Between it not doing so and crazy conspiratorial internet posters though it is increasingly difficult to have any source of such information that is considered generally trustworthy. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28892 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18869 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27340 Posts
On March 10 2020 02:37 farvacola wrote: As an armchair continental crit theory guy, one of the few marginally positive developments out of Trump’s rise is that mainstreamers and analytics now must confront the notion that “truth” as a concept may be far less rooted in objectivity than they once maintained. In theory yes, in current practice absolutely not. We’re not talking some mass uptake in people’s critical faculties just discarding things they don’t liken and gravitating towards crazy town. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18869 Posts
 | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12533 Posts
I'm going to do a poker analogy because I'm a nerd. We're 100 big blinds deep on the button. How often should we raise? Someone rational might come and say, hey, I've put the situation into a software that solves poker, it says we should open between 45 and 50% of our range, we should simplify that for real situations and open 50% of hands. That makes sense. Someone else might come in and say, well, it depends. If the people in the blinds like to reraise very often, I don't want to open 50% of my hands, cause I'll be forced to fold to their reraises often. So in that situation I might adjust and only open 30%. Oppositely, if the people in the blinds fold very often, I don't want to lose that opportunity to win the blinds, and I'll open 70% of my buttons. That has different facts, but is also rational. Now a third person comes in and says "I think we should open 25% of buttons", and when you ask why, they answer "Because Jesus told me to", or "Because my ancestors were opening 25% of buttons and I think tradition matters", or "because opening more than 25% of buttons is degenerate and leads to the fall of the poker world." I don't have an issue with people who have different facts, I don't know that I have the right facts all the time. It would be a weird coincidence if I did. But the first two people, despite having different facts and different conclusions, are trying to find the right answer. The third person isn't trying to find the right answer, they already have the right answer because "right" doesn't mean the same thing to them. There is a switch there between rationality (even with different facts) and morality. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24341 Posts
On March 10 2020 02:32 Wombat_NI wrote: A fourth estate doing its job should accomplish that. Between it not doing so and crazy conspiratorial internet posters though it is increasingly difficult to have any source of such information that is considered generally trustworthy. Interesting examples of this discrepancy might be the factual winner of the Iowa caucus or the fact of which candidate is projected to win the California primary, or the vote tally of Dallas county Texas. Depending on who you ask or what media source you trust, you will have different answers. To that point, CodePink and The Grey Zone have called on OAS (Organization of American States) to send emergency international observers for the Democratic primary and to hold the US to at least the standards of the poorer nations it typically monitors. In light of clear irregularities in voting results in the 2020 Democratic presidential primary and structural barriers to voter participation, The Grayzone and CODEPINK call on the Organization of American States (OAS) to provide emergency international election monitors in the primary contest. Since its founding in 1962, the OAS has dispatched hundreds of election monitoring teams to countries across the Western hemisphere. But it has monitored a US election only once in its history – in 2016, after Donald Trump claimed that the vote would be rigged. In October 2019, the OAS accused the Bolivian government of irregularities in vote counting during the country’s presidential election. The organization issued a formal statement expressing “deep concern and surprise at the drastic and hard-to-explain change in the trend of the preliminary results after the closing of the polls.” Within days, a military coup was put into motion that resulted in the forcible removal of President Evo Morales – the winner of the presidential election – and the installation of a brutally repressive government. “While the OAS’s findings in Bolivia have been comprehensively discredited by researchers from the Center for Economic Policy Research and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, it is incumbent on this organization to uphold the same standards it applies in countries targeted by the United States for regime change to the United States itself,” said CODEPINK co-founder Medea Benjamin. After listing some citations/examples they mention these irregularities would also warrant international investigation under USAID standards. The US is also one of the worlds only industrialized nations that verifies our elections the way we do. The United States Agency of International Development (USAID), an arm of the US government notorious for meddling in foreign elections, stated in its 2015 election guide: “Detecting fraud: Exit polls provide data that is generally indicative of how people voted. A discrepancy between the aggregated choices reported by voters and the official results may suggest, but not prove, that results have been tampered with.” By the standards USAID applies to other nations, these troubling discrepancies must be investigated as signs of potential fraud and tampering. The United States is one of the world’s only industrialized countries that relies exclusively on computerized vote counting, which is not transparent and publicly observable. Most democracies verify election results through the use of paper ballots, which are counted by hand and publicly observable thegrayzone.com I'd also add to the discussion of facts that it is often a point of contention which facts are mentioned/emphasized, because the choices can craft/shape narratives with consequences that can't be undone. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
JohnDelaney
Ireland73 Posts
Sources: Reuters, New York Times, The Guardian, Washington Post, Salon | ||
Xxio
Canada5565 Posts
| ||
| ||
|
|
The PiG Daily
CranKy Ducklings
WardiTV Invitational
Cure vs Zoun
SHIN vs Classic
ByuN vs MaxPax
Percival vs YoungYakov
AI Arena Tournament
OSC
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV Invitational
Shopify Rebellion Sundays
Spirit vs Mixu
Clem vs TBD
RSL Revival
Serral vs Rogue
BlizzCon
IdrA vs MC
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
