|
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 |
Northern Ireland23783 Posts
On November 10 2022 08:54 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2022 07:29 WombaT wrote:On November 10 2022 06:21 BlackJack wrote:On November 10 2022 02:49 WombaT wrote:On November 10 2022 00:59 KwarK wrote:On November 09 2022 23:21 gobbledydook wrote:On November 09 2022 23:06 JimmiC wrote:On November 09 2022 22:51 L_Master wrote:On November 09 2022 16:00 ChristianS wrote:On November 09 2022 15:42 Introvert wrote:[quote] I didn't say moderate  He's a Tea Party type alright. Just again, I guess the word "needlessly" is doing some heavy lifting. but at at the end of tonight's consideration, we ought to think about how he managed to win by so much. Florida is becoming more red, but he did like 15 points better than Trump in 2020. he's convincing someone, or lots of someones. It’s a little early to be narrative-setting, but if we’re picking where to look for answers after this election: how did Republicans not clean house? You’ve repeatedly pointed out inflation, and gas prices, and Biden’s approval rating, and the longstanding historical trend for out-party gains in midterms. Funny you bring up the Tea Party, because last time you guys were here was 2010. How’s tonight looking by comparison? My point isn’t to gloat, you’ll still probably get both houses. My point is that guys like DeSantis got to decide what your party was gonna run on this cycle, and what did they pick? CRT. Trans panic. Culture war, all day every day. Republicans brought that message all over the country, with just about every conceivable wind at their back, and it flopped. Don’t get me wrong, Florida has clearly become Mecca for Christian nationalism, and we should absolutely look at how that happened, but most places that shit doesn’t sell. 1) Low conservative voter turnout 2) Racial admixture 3) GenZ strong woke Fwiw, trans panic is dumb. The obvious ideal optimum for that is everybody shrugs and says "oh your trans. Okay" and pays about as much attention as we would to the sun rising the morning or as we would if you said "hey I'm a girl$ The (local) protected and elevated status in certain groups isn't ideal, but given the overall awful treatment that trans people experience, I don't think it's bad. You're mostly going to get treated way worse as trans (especially FtM), which is rather regrettable. CRT, on the other hand is very problematic Like the actual CRT that is a university option? Or the CRT desantis rails against, which is basically a boogy man of anything ultra right people fear? I think this is a good explanation of the controversy surrounding critical race theory. https://www.edweek.org/leadership/what-is-critical-race-theory-and-why-is-it-under-attack/2021/05In essence the Democrats and Republicans are talking past each other. The Republicans fundamentally oppose the beliefs that underpin critical race theory. The Democrats support those beliefs. Critical race theory in the school teaching context is ultimately a convenient namesake for what could be more accurately called racial equity. As with many things, the Democrats are supporting the expert studied opinion. They’re not supporting it because it’s a vote winner, they’re supporting it because it is historical fact and facts don’t care about your feelings. I was recently unfortunate enough to catch some Fox News in the gym and the talking blob of lard was ranting about how convenient it is that all of the so called experts all happen to support the Democrat point of view. Surely it’s not a coincidence, he raved. Surely they’re all in on it. He suggested we follow the money. It just never occurs to them that the experts came first and that the Democrats listened. Not on CRT, not on police reform, not on homelessness, drug control, trans medical care, public health, or anything else. It’s always a conspiracy to push an agenda. That blind spot in conservative media is amusing to me because it’s a confession, they believe truth is something to be generated in order to support their ideals and they can’t imagine anyone listening first and then generating policy. They also aren’t massive fans of actually following the money. If they actually did they might notice that a fuckton of money was lost due to COVID and maybe all these ‘elites’ might be inconvenienced by that. Eh... every talking point from the AOC/Sanders archetype during the pandemic was about how "the rich got richer." They got richer to the tune of $1.7 trillion according to the title of this article I just googled and didn't bother to readThat's not to say I'm arguing in favor of any "follow the money" conspiracy. Only your insinuation that if we did indeed "follow the money" we wouldn't conclude that the so-called "elites" had a massive boon in wealth since the start of 2020. If anyone wanted to "inconvenience" me in such a manner I would welcome it. It’s an evocative framing. It’s a bit, IMO off but it sells well. Tech bros and brosettes made out like bandits sure, they’re not the only rich people, or sectors with influence. Tourism as a sector is not exactly small fry. Real estate types probably weren’t super happy at working from home reducing demand in lucrative office properties and leases not being renewed. The wider industrial sector had raw output affected by it. Whole supply chains were disrupted across the retail sector. Etc etc. If you want to follow the money, you have to actually follow the money, and where it leads. Not just conclude that tech companies made a killing ergo follow the money Covid is a manufactured conspiracy and stop at that. These aren’t insubstantial sectors, without pull and influence. These aren’t sectors without a full complement of ‘elites’ That’s the point I’m making if I hadn’t made it clear. I think most conceptions of ‘elites’ people bring to bear tend to be off base because they tend to zone in on one specific group of disliked ‘elites’ to the detriment of others, or indeed that it’s not a monolithic group and there may be active conflict within. Do you have evidence to imply that it was mostly only the tech bros that got richer during the pandemic? You mentioned Real estate types as one group that wasn't super happy. When I filtered the Forbes 400 list for Real Estate billionaires pretty much everyone I looked at is more wealthy than they were in 2019 and often massively more so. https://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/
How did they get more wealthy in that period? That link doesn’t work for me, I’m gonna assume you’re right.
How does their wealth accumulation curve compare to the previous say 3 year period of ‘peacetime’? Far as I can tell once you’re in the Forbes 400 kind of zone, it’s quite difficult not to keep growing your wealth.
It was most notably tech companies, given the nature of the pandemic and having a captive, bored stay at home enforced audience that had clear growth potential directly due to Pandemic conditions.
Anyway I’m going off piste here as regards what is in the news, my point was that Pandemic conspiracies that revolve around ‘follow the money’ but ignore the money and lobbying power of whole industries, are silly, particulars aside.
Not to mention that, much as some like to deify them, the ultra rich are people too. When you’re already ungodly wealthy, why conspire to make a bit more with some elaborate fabrication of a pandemic that stops you doing shit?
|
On November 10 2022 01:33 Slaughter wrote:
CRT becoming something conservatives clutch their pearls over is both hilarious as to how stupid and openly racist they are but also sad because of how effective the propaganda was in making voters actually fear it. Despite if you ask the average voter what CRT is you will get 5 different answers and they will all be wrong.
That's precisely the deceitful part. It's an optimum M/B argument.
Start talking about how white people are heavy oppressors (how many even recognize the difference between oppression and domestication?) -> "Hey that's CRT. Get that out of here" -> "Ohhh no. We would never do CRT. Don't you know that's a niche, academic theory"
You don't get five different answers, you get various complaints around the idea that white men are oppressors of women and or minorities. All complaints about CRT reduce back to that core.
On November 10 2022 00:59 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2022 23:21 gobbledydook wrote:On November 09 2022 23:06 JimmiC wrote:On November 09 2022 22:51 L_Master wrote:On November 09 2022 16:00 ChristianS wrote:On November 09 2022 15:42 Introvert wrote:On November 09 2022 15:39 ChristianS wrote:On November 09 2022 15:26 Introvert wrote:On November 09 2022 15:23 ChristianS wrote:On November 09 2022 15:10 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
key word "needless" i suppose there is a lot of room there.
Is the implication here that you’d consider calling people groomers “needed”? + Show Spoiler +not sure I actually want you to answer that. I mean I get the juxtaposition is with Trump who absolutely cannot help (more or less literally) tilting at windmills, but nearly every major DeSantis policy has fallen firmly under the “red meat for the base” heading. well to take these things together (and it is getting past my bed time), I think the fact that the education bill they passed was so overwhelming popular kind of speaks to both points. it wasn't divisive, and it wasn't just red meat. he let's the left overplay themselves, i mean imagine arguing that it's some great wrong to ban teaching that stuff to kids in kindergarten through 3rd grade. nuts. Yeah, it’s past my bedtime too. Book banning? Don’t Say Gay? Blatantly unconstitutional social media bill? Weird culture war against Disney? Fuck, chartering a plane to send migrants from Texas to Martha’s Vineyard? I mean Jesus Christ, he’s practically been licking camera lenses he’s been so eager for attention. I get it, he’s effective at selling what you’d like people to buy, but come on, don’t try to tell me the guy paying Christina Pushaw is some “common sense” moderate who “doesn’t needlessly antagonize people.” He’s maybe the single most influential figure in deciding Republicans were gonna run on CRT and trans panic this cycle. I didn't say moderate He's a Tea Party type alright. Just again, I guess the word "needlessly" is doing some heavy lifting. but at at the end of tonight's consideration, we ought to think about how he managed to win by so much. Florida is becoming more red, but he did like 15 points better than Trump in 2020. he's convincing someone, or lots of someones. It’s a little early to be narrative-setting, but if we’re picking where to look for answers after this election: how did Republicans not clean house? You’ve repeatedly pointed out inflation, and gas prices, and Biden’s approval rating, and the longstanding historical trend for out-party gains in midterms. Funny you bring up the Tea Party, because last time you guys were here was 2010. How’s tonight looking by comparison? My point isn’t to gloat, you’ll still probably get both houses. My point is that guys like DeSantis got to decide what your party was gonna run on this cycle, and what did they pick? CRT. Trans panic. Culture war, all day every day. Republicans brought that message all over the country, with just about every conceivable wind at their back, and it flopped. Don’t get me wrong, Florida has clearly become Mecca for Christian nationalism, and we should absolutely look at how that happened, but most places that shit doesn’t sell. 1) Low conservative voter turnout 2) Racial admixture 3) GenZ strong woke Fwiw, trans panic is dumb. The obvious ideal optimum for that is everybody shrugs and says "oh your trans. Okay" and pays about as much attention as we would to the sun rising the morning or as we would if you said "hey I'm a girl$ The (local) protected and elevated status in certain groups isn't ideal, but given the overall awful treatment that trans people experience, I don't think it's bad. You're mostly going to get treated way worse as trans (especially FtM), which is rather regrettable. CRT, on the other hand is very problematic Like the actual CRT that is a university option? Or the CRT desantis rails against, which is basically a boogy man of anything ultra right people fear? I think this is a good explanation of the controversy surrounding critical race theory. https://www.edweek.org/leadership/what-is-critical-race-theory-and-why-is-it-under-attack/2021/05In essence the Democrats and Republicans are talking past each other. The Republicans fundamentally oppose the beliefs that underpin critical race theory. The Democrats support those beliefs. Critical race theory in the school teaching context is ultimately a convenient namesake for what could be more accurately called racial equity. As with many things, the Democrats are supporting the expert studied opinion. They’re not supporting it because it’s a vote winner, they’re supporting it because it is historical fact and facts don’t care about your feelings. I was recently unfortunate enough to catch some Fox News in the gym and the talking blob of lard was ranting about how convenient it is that all of the so called experts all happen to support the Democrat point of view. Surely it’s not a coincidence, he raved. Surely they’re all in on it. He suggested we follow the money. It just never occurs to them that the experts came first and that the Democrats listened. Not on CRT, not on police reform, not on homelessness, drug control, trans medical care, public health, or anything else. It’s always a conspiracy to push an agenda. That blind spot in conservative media is amusing to me because it’s a confession, they believe truth is something to be generated in order to support their ideals and they can’t imagine anyone listening first and then generating policy.
And, it doesn't occur to you that the experts came first and did very poor (dishonest) science. After all, science is never systematically wrong about something. And certainly there are never incentives to do things like create further bad incentives and obfuscate reality (read: 50 years of nutritional science).
Luckily, your feelings and intuitions about science don't decide anything.
Falsification via adversarial competition does.
In the case of CRT, it's false as all problems are race problems, because all race problems are class problems: genetic distributions.
It really isn't that complicated. Your incentives need to do two things
1) maximize responsibility, agency, and reciprocity -> maximize cooperation -> maximize rate of adaptation to nature.
2) minimize the rate of expansion in the underclass
And the beauty of #1 is that it completely takes care of any of the crazy unhinged stuff that weird people want to do to individuals when they recognize there are significant differences across groups and across the genders at the distribution level.
|
On November 10 2022 14:07 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2022 08:54 BlackJack wrote:On November 10 2022 07:29 WombaT wrote:On November 10 2022 06:21 BlackJack wrote:On November 10 2022 02:49 WombaT wrote:On November 10 2022 00:59 KwarK wrote:On November 09 2022 23:21 gobbledydook wrote:On November 09 2022 23:06 JimmiC wrote:On November 09 2022 22:51 L_Master wrote:On November 09 2022 16:00 ChristianS wrote:
[quote]
It’s a little early to be narrative-setting, but if we’re picking where to look for answers after this election: how did Republicans not clean house? You’ve repeatedly pointed out inflation, and gas prices, and Biden’s approval rating, and the longstanding historical trend for out-party gains in midterms. Funny you bring up the Tea Party, because last time you guys were here was 2010. How’s tonight looking by comparison?
My point isn’t to gloat, you’ll still probably get both houses. My point is that guys like DeSantis got to decide what your party was gonna run on this cycle, and what did they pick? CRT. Trans panic. Culture war, all day every day. Republicans brought that message all over the country, with just about every conceivable wind at their back, and it flopped. Don’t get me wrong, Florida has clearly become Mecca for Christian nationalism, and we should absolutely look at how that happened, but most places that shit doesn’t sell. 1) Low conservative voter turnout 2) Racial admixture 3) GenZ strong woke Fwiw, trans panic is dumb. The obvious ideal optimum for that is everybody shrugs and says "oh your trans. Okay" and pays about as much attention as we would to the sun rising the morning or as we would if you said "hey I'm a girl$ The (local) protected and elevated status in certain groups isn't ideal, but given the overall awful treatment that trans people experience, I don't think it's bad. You're mostly going to get treated way worse as trans (especially FtM), which is rather regrettable. CRT, on the other hand is very problematic Like the actual CRT that is a university option? Or the CRT desantis rails against, which is basically a boogy man of anything ultra right people fear? I think this is a good explanation of the controversy surrounding critical race theory. https://www.edweek.org/leadership/what-is-critical-race-theory-and-why-is-it-under-attack/2021/05In essence the Democrats and Republicans are talking past each other. The Republicans fundamentally oppose the beliefs that underpin critical race theory. The Democrats support those beliefs. Critical race theory in the school teaching context is ultimately a convenient namesake for what could be more accurately called racial equity. As with many things, the Democrats are supporting the expert studied opinion. They’re not supporting it because it’s a vote winner, they’re supporting it because it is historical fact and facts don’t care about your feelings. I was recently unfortunate enough to catch some Fox News in the gym and the talking blob of lard was ranting about how convenient it is that all of the so called experts all happen to support the Democrat point of view. Surely it’s not a coincidence, he raved. Surely they’re all in on it. He suggested we follow the money. It just never occurs to them that the experts came first and that the Democrats listened. Not on CRT, not on police reform, not on homelessness, drug control, trans medical care, public health, or anything else. It’s always a conspiracy to push an agenda. That blind spot in conservative media is amusing to me because it’s a confession, they believe truth is something to be generated in order to support their ideals and they can’t imagine anyone listening first and then generating policy. They also aren’t massive fans of actually following the money. If they actually did they might notice that a fuckton of money was lost due to COVID and maybe all these ‘elites’ might be inconvenienced by that. Eh... every talking point from the AOC/Sanders archetype during the pandemic was about how "the rich got richer." They got richer to the tune of $1.7 trillion according to the title of this article I just googled and didn't bother to readThat's not to say I'm arguing in favor of any "follow the money" conspiracy. Only your insinuation that if we did indeed "follow the money" we wouldn't conclude that the so-called "elites" had a massive boon in wealth since the start of 2020. If anyone wanted to "inconvenience" me in such a manner I would welcome it. It’s an evocative framing. It’s a bit, IMO off but it sells well. Tech bros and brosettes made out like bandits sure, they’re not the only rich people, or sectors with influence. Tourism as a sector is not exactly small fry. Real estate types probably weren’t super happy at working from home reducing demand in lucrative office properties and leases not being renewed. The wider industrial sector had raw output affected by it. Whole supply chains were disrupted across the retail sector. Etc etc. If you want to follow the money, you have to actually follow the money, and where it leads. Not just conclude that tech companies made a killing ergo follow the money Covid is a manufactured conspiracy and stop at that. These aren’t insubstantial sectors, without pull and influence. These aren’t sectors without a full complement of ‘elites’ That’s the point I’m making if I hadn’t made it clear. I think most conceptions of ‘elites’ people bring to bear tend to be off base because they tend to zone in on one specific group of disliked ‘elites’ to the detriment of others, or indeed that it’s not a monolithic group and there may be active conflict within. Do you have evidence to imply that it was mostly only the tech bros that got richer during the pandemic? You mentioned Real estate types as one group that wasn't super happy. When I filtered the Forbes 400 list for Real Estate billionaires pretty much everyone I looked at is more wealthy than they were in 2019 and often massively more so. https://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/ How did they get more wealthy in that period? That link doesn’t work for me, I’m gonna assume you’re right. How does their wealth accumulation curve compare to the previous say 3 year period of ‘peacetime’? Far as I can tell once you’re in the Forbes 400 kind of zone, it’s quite difficult not to keep growing your wealth. It was most notably tech companies, given the nature of the pandemic and having a captive, bored stay at home enforced audience that had clear growth potential directly due to Pandemic conditions. Anyway I’m going off piste here as regards what is in the news, my point was that Pandemic conspiracies that revolve around ‘follow the money’ but ignore the money and lobbying power of whole industries, are silly, particulars aside. Not to mention that, much as some like to deify them, the ultra rich are people too. When you’re already ungodly wealthy, why conspire to make a bit more with some elaborate fabrication of a pandemic that stops you doing shit?
By and large (minus the 3-5x higher rate of psychopathy) the rich and ultra rich are outright better. Healthier, smarter, more energetic, intelligent, and generally more moral in most cases.
But...isn't the answer to that obvious? Because, to get that wealthy you have to be extraordinarily driven to rise high up into the hierarchy. That kind of compulsion is part of personality, and is usually pretty hardwired. They just can't help themselves. They are impossible competitive and hierarchy driven to reach those peaks of absurd wealth.
|
Northern Ireland23783 Posts
On November 10 2022 12:28 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2022 12:09 Sermokala wrote:
Something I think that shouldn't be missed is that all of the republican candidates dems funded because they're crazies lost. 5 of the six lost by double digits. You should expect 2024 to be an absolute madhouse now that its been proven to be value for money. That might be value for money but I can only think that it is actively harmful for democracy. You shouldn't be able to fund bad candidates with the hope that they might win the other party's primary so you can have an easier time. That's sabotage and is a disservice to Americans, who should be offered the opportunity to pick between the best each side has to offer.
In isolation sure, but it’s relatively low down the chain in terms of other broken aspects of democracy.
I don’t care how much funding was thrown at some of these candidates, they should never have come within a million years of winning their primaries.
That said I don’t like this practice either, to be clear.
|
Northern Ireland23783 Posts
On November 10 2022 14:20 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2022 00:59 KwarK wrote:On November 09 2022 23:21 gobbledydook wrote:On November 09 2022 23:06 JimmiC wrote:On November 09 2022 22:51 L_Master wrote:On November 09 2022 16:00 ChristianS wrote:On November 09 2022 15:42 Introvert wrote:On November 09 2022 15:39 ChristianS wrote:On November 09 2022 15:26 Introvert wrote:On November 09 2022 15:23 ChristianS wrote:[quote] Is the implication here that you’d consider calling people groomers “needed”? + Show Spoiler +not sure I actually want you to answer that. I mean I get the juxtaposition is with Trump who absolutely cannot help (more or less literally) tilting at windmills, but nearly every major DeSantis policy has fallen firmly under the “red meat for the base” heading. well to take these things together (and it is getting past my bed time), I think the fact that the education bill they passed was so overwhelming popular kind of speaks to both points. it wasn't divisive, and it wasn't just red meat. he let's the left overplay themselves, i mean imagine arguing that it's some great wrong to ban teaching that stuff to kids in kindergarten through 3rd grade. nuts. Yeah, it’s past my bedtime too. Book banning? Don’t Say Gay? Blatantly unconstitutional social media bill? Weird culture war against Disney? Fuck, chartering a plane to send migrants from Texas to Martha’s Vineyard? I mean Jesus Christ, he’s practically been licking camera lenses he’s been so eager for attention. I get it, he’s effective at selling what you’d like people to buy, but come on, don’t try to tell me the guy paying Christina Pushaw is some “common sense” moderate who “doesn’t needlessly antagonize people.” He’s maybe the single most influential figure in deciding Republicans were gonna run on CRT and trans panic this cycle. I didn't say moderate He's a Tea Party type alright. Just again, I guess the word "needlessly" is doing some heavy lifting. but at at the end of tonight's consideration, we ought to think about how he managed to win by so much. Florida is becoming more red, but he did like 15 points better than Trump in 2020. he's convincing someone, or lots of someones. It’s a little early to be narrative-setting, but if we’re picking where to look for answers after this election: how did Republicans not clean house? You’ve repeatedly pointed out inflation, and gas prices, and Biden’s approval rating, and the longstanding historical trend for out-party gains in midterms. Funny you bring up the Tea Party, because last time you guys were here was 2010. How’s tonight looking by comparison? My point isn’t to gloat, you’ll still probably get both houses. My point is that guys like DeSantis got to decide what your party was gonna run on this cycle, and what did they pick? CRT. Trans panic. Culture war, all day every day. Republicans brought that message all over the country, with just about every conceivable wind at their back, and it flopped. Don’t get me wrong, Florida has clearly become Mecca for Christian nationalism, and we should absolutely look at how that happened, but most places that shit doesn’t sell. 1) Low conservative voter turnout 2) Racial admixture 3) GenZ strong woke Fwiw, trans panic is dumb. The obvious ideal optimum for that is everybody shrugs and says "oh your trans. Okay" and pays about as much attention as we would to the sun rising the morning or as we would if you said "hey I'm a girl$ The (local) protected and elevated status in certain groups isn't ideal, but given the overall awful treatment that trans people experience, I don't think it's bad. You're mostly going to get treated way worse as trans (especially FtM), which is rather regrettable. CRT, on the other hand is very problematic Like the actual CRT that is a university option? Or the CRT desantis rails against, which is basically a boogy man of anything ultra right people fear? I think this is a good explanation of the controversy surrounding critical race theory. https://www.edweek.org/leadership/what-is-critical-race-theory-and-why-is-it-under-attack/2021/05In essence the Democrats and Republicans are talking past each other. The Republicans fundamentally oppose the beliefs that underpin critical race theory. The Democrats support those beliefs. Critical race theory in the school teaching context is ultimately a convenient namesake for what could be more accurately called racial equity. As with many things, the Democrats are supporting the expert studied opinion. They’re not supporting it because it’s a vote winner, they’re supporting it because it is historical fact and facts don’t care about your feelings. I was recently unfortunate enough to catch some Fox News in the gym and the talking blob of lard was ranting about how convenient it is that all of the so called experts all happen to support the Democrat point of view. Surely it’s not a coincidence, he raved. Surely they’re all in on it. He suggested we follow the money. It just never occurs to them that the experts came first and that the Democrats listened. Not on CRT, not on police reform, not on homelessness, drug control, trans medical care, public health, or anything else. It’s always a conspiracy to push an agenda. That blind spot in conservative media is amusing to me because it’s a confession, they believe truth is something to be generated in order to support their ideals and they can’t imagine anyone listening first and then generating policy. And, it doesn't occur to you that the experts came first and did very poor (dishonest) science. After all, science is never systematically wrong about something. And certainly there are never incentives to do things like create further bad incentives and obfuscate reality (read: 50 years of nutritional science). Luckily, your feelings and intuitions about science don't decide anything. Falsification via adversarial competition does. In the case of CRT, it's false as all problems are race problems, because all race problems are class problems: genetic distributions. It really isn't that complicated. Your incentives need to do two things 1) maximize responsibility, agency, and reciprocity -> maximize cooperation -> maximize rate of adaptation to nature. 2) minimize the rate of expansion in the underclass And the beauty of #1 is that it completely takes care of any of the crazy unhinged stuff that weird people want to do to individuals when they recognize there are significant differences across groups and across the genders at the distribution level.
Any chance of rewording some of that? I’m unclear what you mean
|
On November 10 2022 14:26 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2022 12:28 gobbledydook wrote:On November 10 2022 12:09 Sermokala wrote:
Something I think that shouldn't be missed is that all of the republican candidates dems funded because they're crazies lost. 5 of the six lost by double digits. You should expect 2024 to be an absolute madhouse now that its been proven to be value for money. That might be value for money but I can only think that it is actively harmful for democracy. You shouldn't be able to fund bad candidates with the hope that they might win the other party's primary so you can have an easier time. That's sabotage and is a disservice to Americans, who should be offered the opportunity to pick between the best each side has to offer. In isolation sure, but it’s relatively low down the chain in terms of other broken aspects of democracy. I don’t care how much funding was thrown at some of these candidates, they should never have come within a million years of winning their primaries. That said I don’t like this practice either, to be clear.
It's not far down the chain.
It's at the top.
All of the problems are a result in the breakdown of natural law and of reciprocity, through the methods of Abrahamic deceit and GSRRM.
And funding another parties candidate that you know to be bad is certainly a violation of reciprocity, attempting to impose a cost upon someone else.
|
Canada11268 Posts
Is this from The Natural Law Institute?
|
Northern Ireland23783 Posts
On November 10 2022 14:33 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2022 14:26 WombaT wrote:On November 10 2022 12:28 gobbledydook wrote:On November 10 2022 12:09 Sermokala wrote:
Something I think that shouldn't be missed is that all of the republican candidates dems funded because they're crazies lost. 5 of the six lost by double digits. You should expect 2024 to be an absolute madhouse now that its been proven to be value for money. That might be value for money but I can only think that it is actively harmful for democracy. You shouldn't be able to fund bad candidates with the hope that they might win the other party's primary so you can have an easier time. That's sabotage and is a disservice to Americans, who should be offered the opportunity to pick between the best each side has to offer. In isolation sure, but it’s relatively low down the chain in terms of other broken aspects of democracy. I don’t care how much funding was thrown at some of these candidates, they should never have come within a million years of winning their primaries. That said I don’t like this practice either, to be clear. It's not far down the chain. It's at the top. All of the problems are a result in the breakdown of natural law and of reciprocity, through the methods of Abrahamic deceit and GSRRM.And funding another parties candidate that you know to be bad is certainly a violation of reciprocity, attempting to impose a cost upon someone else.
Any chance of rewording some of that? I’m unclear what you mean
I should be googling in here to find numbers, or recall some event. Not to parse what someone’s entire point is.
There are no ways to rephrase this into vaguely common parlance?
|
On November 10 2022 14:32 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2022 14:20 L_Master wrote:On November 10 2022 00:59 KwarK wrote:On November 09 2022 23:21 gobbledydook wrote:On November 09 2022 23:06 JimmiC wrote:On November 09 2022 22:51 L_Master wrote:On November 09 2022 16:00 ChristianS wrote:On November 09 2022 15:42 Introvert wrote:On November 09 2022 15:39 ChristianS wrote:On November 09 2022 15:26 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
well to take these things together (and it is getting past my bed time), I think the fact that the education bill they passed was so overwhelming popular kind of speaks to both points. it wasn't divisive, and it wasn't just red meat. he let's the left overplay themselves, i mean imagine arguing that it's some great wrong to ban teaching that stuff to kids in kindergarten through 3rd grade. nuts. Yeah, it’s past my bedtime too. Book banning? Don’t Say Gay? Blatantly unconstitutional social media bill? Weird culture war against Disney? Fuck, chartering a plane to send migrants from Texas to Martha’s Vineyard? I mean Jesus Christ, he’s practically been licking camera lenses he’s been so eager for attention. I get it, he’s effective at selling what you’d like people to buy, but come on, don’t try to tell me the guy paying Christina Pushaw is some “common sense” moderate who “doesn’t needlessly antagonize people.” He’s maybe the single most influential figure in deciding Republicans were gonna run on CRT and trans panic this cycle. I didn't say moderate He's a Tea Party type alright. Just again, I guess the word "needlessly" is doing some heavy lifting. but at at the end of tonight's consideration, we ought to think about how he managed to win by so much. Florida is becoming more red, but he did like 15 points better than Trump in 2020. he's convincing someone, or lots of someones. It’s a little early to be narrative-setting, but if we’re picking where to look for answers after this election: how did Republicans not clean house? You’ve repeatedly pointed out inflation, and gas prices, and Biden’s approval rating, and the longstanding historical trend for out-party gains in midterms. Funny you bring up the Tea Party, because last time you guys were here was 2010. How’s tonight looking by comparison? My point isn’t to gloat, you’ll still probably get both houses. My point is that guys like DeSantis got to decide what your party was gonna run on this cycle, and what did they pick? CRT. Trans panic. Culture war, all day every day. Republicans brought that message all over the country, with just about every conceivable wind at their back, and it flopped. Don’t get me wrong, Florida has clearly become Mecca for Christian nationalism, and we should absolutely look at how that happened, but most places that shit doesn’t sell. 1) Low conservative voter turnout 2) Racial admixture 3) GenZ strong woke Fwiw, trans panic is dumb. The obvious ideal optimum for that is everybody shrugs and says "oh your trans. Okay" and pays about as much attention as we would to the sun rising the morning or as we would if you said "hey I'm a girl$ The (local) protected and elevated status in certain groups isn't ideal, but given the overall awful treatment that trans people experience, I don't think it's bad. You're mostly going to get treated way worse as trans (especially FtM), which is rather regrettable. CRT, on the other hand is very problematic Like the actual CRT that is a university option? Or the CRT desantis rails against, which is basically a boogy man of anything ultra right people fear? I think this is a good explanation of the controversy surrounding critical race theory. https://www.edweek.org/leadership/what-is-critical-race-theory-and-why-is-it-under-attack/2021/05In essence the Democrats and Republicans are talking past each other. The Republicans fundamentally oppose the beliefs that underpin critical race theory. The Democrats support those beliefs. Critical race theory in the school teaching context is ultimately a convenient namesake for what could be more accurately called racial equity. As with many things, the Democrats are supporting the expert studied opinion. They’re not supporting it because it’s a vote winner, they’re supporting it because it is historical fact and facts don’t care about your feelings. I was recently unfortunate enough to catch some Fox News in the gym and the talking blob of lard was ranting about how convenient it is that all of the so called experts all happen to support the Democrat point of view. Surely it’s not a coincidence, he raved. Surely they’re all in on it. He suggested we follow the money. It just never occurs to them that the experts came first and that the Democrats listened. Not on CRT, not on police reform, not on homelessness, drug control, trans medical care, public health, or anything else. It’s always a conspiracy to push an agenda. That blind spot in conservative media is amusing to me because it’s a confession, they believe truth is something to be generated in order to support their ideals and they can’t imagine anyone listening first and then generating policy. And, it doesn't occur to you that the experts came first and did very poor (dishonest) science. After all, science is never systematically wrong about something. And certainly there are never incentives to do things like create further bad incentives and obfuscate reality (read: 50 years of nutritional science). Luckily, your feelings and intuitions about science don't decide anything. Falsification via adversarial competition does. In the case of CRT, it's false as all problems are race problems, because all race problems are class problems: genetic distributions. It really isn't that complicated. Your incentives need to do two things 1) maximize responsibility, agency, and reciprocity -> maximize cooperation -> maximize rate of adaptation to nature. 2) minimize the rate of expansion in the underclass And the beauty of #1 is that it completely takes care of any of the crazy unhinged stuff that weird people want to do to individuals when they recognize there are significant differences across groups and across the genders at the distribution level. Any chance of rewording some of that? I’m unclear what you mean
I'll assume first block or two is fine.
The precision in wording is important for disambiguation, so not possibility for misinterpretation exists.
Sorry, I'm used to writing academic content, but I can try to explain longer form a few of the terms that might be unfamiliar if you haven't spent much time with the science of decidability.
Falsification via adversarial competition does.
Falsification means demonstrating something is false. E.g. if my intuition tells me that eating only meat is healthy for me, and I just do that, it's neither truth nor reasoning. It's basically just honed instincts. Only via trying to prove myself wrong, and others trying to prove me wrong; and that intuition surviving those attacks (from adversaries, both self and other) is truth revealed.
Truth, outside of formal logic (but really, even there) is that which stands the test of time against adversarial competition.
In the case of CRT, it's false as all problems are race problems, because all race problems are class problems: genetic distributions.
CRT views race as a social construct, that society advances whites at the expense of other races, and that the US "neutral" laws are actively racist.
Classes (e.g. lower, middle, upper) are nothing more than distributions. Higher cognitive ability, greater impulse control, greater intuition for reciprocity, greater conscientiousness, etc. Better genetics. Classes are classes because we've already sorted (distribution level) by ability. This is why if you look overall, class mobility looks like garbage. But, if you look at first gen immigrants there is excellent class mobility still. It's not that it's impossible or broken, it's that we are already sorted by our genetic ability (minus, of course, outliers).
So, race problems are class problems because the races are also already sorted by class, and the underlying cause is the genetic distributions across the population.
1) maximize responsibility, agency, and reciprocity -> maximize cooperation -> maximize rate of adaptation to nature.
As an individual, you're alone against nature. And every day nature asks one key question of you at every waking and sleeping second of your life:
"Why shouldn't I kill you and take all of your resources?"
We cooperate with each other, because by cooperating we are able to gain a buffer from this question. Other people can help protect us, we build stores of food for hard times, etc.
The purpose of civilization is, exclusively, to provide that buffer between us and the harsh feedback of nature (reality).
We do this through cooperation. The better, and more effectively we cooperate, the more rapidly and effectively we can adapt to nature (e.g. to whatever problems arise), in other words we increase velocity (speed) at which we can adapt to nature (challenges) and if we maximize cooperation we maximize the above, which maximizes our buffer against nature, which in turn is the absolute optimum a civilization can do.
Cooperation is maximized by maximizing responsibility (obvious I think), agency (ability to act in a goal directed manner in your best interests), and reciprocity (fully informed free from lies or omission, productive, voluntary, warrantied, and free from imposition of costs on others)
2) minimize the rate of expansion in the underclass
Genetics (or if you want to be hopeful, unknown factors). The underclass (those that cannot meaningfully produce value equal to that which they consume) are the least capable of reciprocity, of contribution, and of adding value, and this is a result of accumulation of mutational load (disadvantaged genetics). If the growth of the underclass outpaces the growth of your productive classes, your society loses prosperity, as well as suffers destruction of (genetic) commons.
This eventually drags your civilization down into the mud, ever decreasing the buffer you have been provided by civilization between you and nature's harsh, eternal question.
And the beauty of #1 is that it completely takes care of any of the crazy unhinged stuff that weird people want to do to individuals when they recognize there are significant differences across groups and across the genders at the distribution level.
Reciprocity prevents any fucked up shit like: being a racist asshole, genociding people, forced sterilizations, exploitation of less fortunate, etc.
All of those are imposing a cost on someone else.
The first thing that happens is you go.
Oh.
Fuck.
No.
No no no no. Nonono.
This isn't what I wanted. You mean things are this unequal in this ugly way that has so little hope?
And you spend some time wrestling with that and not wanting to accept it purely because of how disheartening it is. But, eventually, if you're honest and capable of it you start to grudgingly accept it, because truth is truth regardless of what we want.
And then you say, well okay, this is a completely shit situation....how can we make it as least shit as we possibly can? How can we minimize the suffering of those who drew a crappy hand? How can be drag civilization with all it's cruel inequality in natural ability and fortune out of the mud?
|
GSRRM refers to various forms of lying: magical thinking (oh, its okay, we will make it work), denial, gossiping, shaming, rallying, moralizing, psychologizing, undermining, reputation-destruction, etc.
Most of the time, they are used in attempts to dodge responsibility/truth by equating face (reputation) with truth.
E.g. "You're literally Hitler" in response to an argument, with no commentary or discussion of the truth value of the argument in hopes the emotions of "your literally Hitler" will cause people to ignore the truth value of the claim at hand.
----
And yea, I'm not incredibly into discussing details of specific events or policies because they are usually all downstream of problems of reciprocity, responsibility, and agency and loss of cultural means of producing them.
|
Classes (e.g. lower, middle, upper) are nothing more than distributions. Higher cognitive ability, greater impulse control, greater intuition for reciprocity, greater conscientiousness, etc. Better genetics. Classes are classes because we've already sorted (distribution level) by ability. This is why if you look overall, class mobility looks like garbage. But, if you look at first gen immigrants there is excellent class mobility still. It's not that it's impossible or broken, it's that we are already sorted by our genetic ability (minus, of course, outliers).
Is this some misguided social darwinism? Are you really arguing that poor people are poor because they are genetically inferior to the rich? While ignoring all the socioeconomic and historical factors that lead to and continue to maintain and deepen current class inequalities?
By and large (minus the 3-5x higher rate of psychopathy) the rich and ultra rich are outright better. Healthier, smarter, more energetic, intelligent, and generally more moral in most cases.
They are all those things (minus "more moral", because fucking LOL) becuase they are rich, not because they are somehow the modern ubermensch. It's easy to be healthy and educated when you're rich. You're mistaking effects of being rich for causes.
Furthermore, most of the rich, and especially the ultrarich have either inherited their wealth, or were born into already wealthy and/or connected families that provided them with seed capital and/or networking necessary to start a successful business (e.g. Musk, Bezos, Gates). They also usually had the luck of being in the right place at the right time for their business to grow. For every success story like that there are thousands of failure stories that we never hear about. This whole "the upper class is genetically superior" talk is nonsense.
|
On November 10 2022 17:20 PoulsenB wrote:Show nested quote +Classes (e.g. lower, middle, upper) are nothing more than distributions. Higher cognitive ability, greater impulse control, greater intuition for reciprocity, greater conscientiousness, etc. Better genetics. Classes are classes because we've already sorted (distribution level) by ability. This is why if you look overall, class mobility looks like garbage. But, if you look at first gen immigrants there is excellent class mobility still. It's not that it's impossible or broken, it's that we are already sorted by our genetic ability (minus, of course, outliers). Is this some misguided social darwinism? Are you really arguing that poor people are poor because they are genetically inferior to the rich? While ignoring all the socioeconomic and historical factors that lead to and continue to maintain and deepen current class inequalities? Show nested quote +By and large (minus the 3-5x higher rate of psychopathy) the rich and ultra rich are outright better. Healthier, smarter, more energetic, intelligent, and generally more moral in most cases. They are all those things (minus "more moral", because fucking LOL) becuase they are rich, not because they are somehow the modern ubermensch. It's easy to be healthy and educated when you're rich. You're mistaking effects of being rich for causes. Furthermore, most of the rich, and especially the ultrarich have either inherited their wealth, or were born into already wealthy and/or connected families that provided them with seed capital and/or networking necessary to start a successful business (e.g. Musk, Bezos, Gates). They also usually had the luck of being in the right place at the right time for their business to grow. For every success story like that there are thousands of failure stories that we never hear about. This whole "the upper class is genetically superior" talk is nonsense.
Yes, PoulsenB has some chilling logic. It is often underesteimated how much luck is a factor for being rich. Others are also good at exploiting without getting caught. I don't mind that people are rich, but it does not imply that they are smarter or "better".
Unfortunately, social factors are equally important in the other end of the spectrum. Heavy baggage is also passed on to children, and even in social democratic countries, there is no easy way to solve this.
Things like free education mainly benefit the middle class.
|
By and large (minus the 3-5x higher rate of psychopathy) the rich and ultra rich are outright better. Healthier, smarter, more energetic, intelligent, and generally more moral in most cases.
They are all those things (minus "more moral", because fucking LOL) becuase they are rich, not because they are somehow the modern ubermensch. It's easy to be healthy and educated when you're rich. You're mistaking effects of being rich for causes.
They are also not "more intelligent". I might be biased, but I would see Physics and Mathematics as a field attracting many highly intelligent people, none of them are superior rich superhumans.
|
On November 10 2022 17:46 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2022 17:20 PoulsenB wrote:Classes (e.g. lower, middle, upper) are nothing more than distributions. Higher cognitive ability, greater impulse control, greater intuition for reciprocity, greater conscientiousness, etc. Better genetics. Classes are classes because we've already sorted (distribution level) by ability. This is why if you look overall, class mobility looks like garbage. But, if you look at first gen immigrants there is excellent class mobility still. It's not that it's impossible or broken, it's that we are already sorted by our genetic ability (minus, of course, outliers). Is this some misguided social darwinism? Are you really arguing that poor people are poor because they are genetically inferior to the rich? While ignoring all the socioeconomic and historical factors that lead to and continue to maintain and deepen current class inequalities? By and large (minus the 3-5x higher rate of psychopathy) the rich and ultra rich are outright better. Healthier, smarter, more energetic, intelligent, and generally more moral in most cases. They are all those things (minus "more moral", because fucking LOL) becuase they are rich, not because they are somehow the modern ubermensch. It's easy to be healthy and educated when you're rich. You're mistaking effects of being rich for causes. Furthermore, most of the rich, and especially the ultrarich have either inherited their wealth, or were born into already wealthy and/or connected families that provided them with seed capital and/or networking necessary to start a successful business (e.g. Musk, Bezos, Gates). They also usually had the luck of being in the right place at the right time for their business to grow. For every success story like that there are thousands of failure stories that we never hear about. This whole "the upper class is genetically superior" talk is nonsense. Yes, PoulsenB has some chilling logic. It is often underesteimated how much luck is a factor for being rich. Others are also good at exploiting without getting caught. I don't mind that people are rich, but it does not imply that they are smarter or "better". Unfortunately, social factors are equally important in the other end of the spectrum. Heavy baggage is also passed on to children, and even in social democratic countries, there is no easy way to solve this. Things like free education mainly benefits the middle class.
The quotes are from L_Master, just to clarify. I was really annoyed and used the empty quote option for speed.
|
United States24569 Posts
On November 10 2022 12:28 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2022 12:09 Sermokala wrote:
Something I think that shouldn't be missed is that all of the republican candidates dems funded because they're crazies lost. 5 of the six lost by double digits. You should expect 2024 to be an absolute madhouse now that its been proven to be value for money. That might be value for money but I can only think that it is actively harmful for democracy. You shouldn't be able to fund bad candidates with the hope that they might win the other party's primary so you can have an easier time. That's sabotage and is a disservice to Americans, who should be offered the opportunity to pick between the best each side has to offer.
Am I wrong or is this a consequence of the Citizens United decision?
|
On November 10 2022 17:51 Symplectos wrote:Show nested quote +By and large (minus the 3-5x higher rate of psychopathy) the rich and ultra rich are outright better. Healthier, smarter, more energetic, intelligent, and generally more moral in most cases.
They are all those things (minus "more moral", because fucking LOL) becuase they are rich, not because they are somehow the modern ubermensch. It's easy to be healthy and educated when you're rich. You're mistaking effects of being rich for causes. They are also not "more intelligent". I might be biased, but I would see Physics and Mathematics as a field attracting many highly intelligent people, none of them are superior rich superhumans.
Rich people simply have better bumpmapping on their heads.
|
United States41965 Posts
I really don’t see why any of you guys take the time replying to him. None of his posts so far have merited the time it would take to write a response.
|
Northern Ireland23783 Posts
On November 10 2022 19:24 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2022 12:28 gobbledydook wrote:On November 10 2022 12:09 Sermokala wrote:
Something I think that shouldn't be missed is that all of the republican candidates dems funded because they're crazies lost. 5 of the six lost by double digits. You should expect 2024 to be an absolute madhouse now that its been proven to be value for money. That might be value for money but I can only think that it is actively harmful for democracy. You shouldn't be able to fund bad candidates with the hope that they might win the other party's primary so you can have an easier time. That's sabotage and is a disservice to Americans, who should be offered the opportunity to pick between the best each side has to offer. Am I wrong or is this a consequence of the Citizens United decision?
Bingo.
Lost among the sauce is, in the interim the platform maturation for aggregating tons of small donors has somewhat mitigated it.
One shudders think quite how bad a ruling Citizens United would have been without those developments.
Ethical qualms aside I’m not even sure if this new weapon will enter the long, long list of ‘you do realise your opponents can do this as well?’
The Dems for all their flaws don’t have a bunch of crazy people who can win primaries with a bit of funding. Hell I could easily see an attempt to install a Dem candidate with ‘unelectable’ progressives who do surprisingly well.
|
On November 10 2022 20:50 KwarK wrote:
I really don’t see why any of you guys take the time replying to him. None of his posts so far have merited the time it would take to write a response.
The long form word salad, unsubstantiated “name of the enemy” drops, and retro pseudo-scientific essentialism reminded me of what some folks used to post here ten years ago, so there’s that at least.
|
On November 10 2022 15:03 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +In the case of CRT, it's false as all problems are race problems, because all race problems are class problems: genetic distributions. CRT views race as a social construct, that society advances whites at the expense of other races, and that the US "neutral" laws are actively racist. Classes (e.g. lower, middle, upper) are nothing more than distributions. Higher cognitive ability, greater impulse control, greater intuition for reciprocity, greater conscientiousness, etc. Better genetics. Classes are classes because we've already sorted (distribution level) by ability. This is why if you look overall, class mobility looks like garbage. But, if you look at first gen immigrants there is excellent class mobility still. It's not that it's impossible or broken, it's that we are already sorted by our genetic ability (minus, of course, outliers). So, race problems are class problems because the races are also already sorted by class, and the underlying cause is the genetic distributions across the population.
You think upper class people live with better genetics, impulse control and conscientiousness? People who have value contests over how big their boat is and how many bathrooms their house has? Who have to fly to Milan to buy a new pair of shoes? Or measure worth by how many diamonds your watch has? Impulse control? Conscientiousness?
I don't know where you are going with 'races are already sorted by genetics' and 'Abrahamic Deceit' but it's not a good look.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
