• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 03:36
CEST 09:36
KST 16:36
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Serral wins EWC 202543Tournament Spotlight: FEL Cracow 202510Power Rank - Esports World Cup 202580RSL Season 1 - Final Week9[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall15
Community News
Weekly Cups (Jul 28-Aug 3): herO doubles up5LiuLi Cup - August 2025 Tournaments3[BSL 2025] H2 - Team Wars, Weeklies & SB Ladder10EWC 2025 - Replay Pack4Google Play ASL (Season 20) Announced58
StarCraft 2
General
Clem Interview: "PvT is a bit insane right now" Serral wins EWC 2025 TL Team Map Contest #5: Presented by Monster Energy Would you prefer the game to be balanced around top-tier pro level or average pro level? Weekly Cups (Jul 28-Aug 3): herO doubles up
Tourneys
WardiTV Mondays $5,000 WardiTV Summer Championship 2025 Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament LiuLi Cup - August 2025 Tournaments Sea Duckling Open (Global, Bronze-Diamond)
Strategy
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation # 485 Death from Below Mutation # 484 Magnetic Pull Mutation #239 Bad Weather Mutation # 483 Kill Bot Wars
Brood War
General
BW General Discussion How do the new Battle.net ranks translate? Which top zerg/toss will fail in qualifiers? Google Play ASL (Season 20) Announced Nobody gona talk about this year crazy qualifiers?
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues [ASL20] Online Qualifiers Day 2 Cosmonarchy Pro Showmatches [ASL20] Online Qualifiers Day 1
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers [G] Mineral Boosting Muta micro map competition Does 1 second matter in StarCraft?
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread Total Annihilation Server - TAForever Beyond All Reason [MMORPG] Tree of Savior (Successor of Ragnarok)
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine US Politics Mega-thread European Politico-economics QA Mega-thread Bitcoin discussion thread 9/11 Anniversary
Fan Clubs
INnoVation Fan Club SKT1 Classic Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Anime Discussion Thread [\m/] Heavy Metal Thread Korean Music Discussion
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Gtx660 graphics card replacement Installation of Windows 10 suck at "just a moment" Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
TeamLiquid Team Shirt On Sale The Automated Ban List
Blogs
[Girl blog} My fema…
artosisisthebest
Sharpening the Filtration…
frozenclaw
ASL S20 English Commentary…
namkraft
The Link Between Fitness and…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 766 users

US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3964

Forum Index > General Forum
Post a Reply
Prev 1 3962 3963 3964 3965 3966 5139 Next
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
Gorsameth
Profile Joined April 2010
Netherlands21687 Posts
June 21 2023 21:17 GMT
#79261
On June 22 2023 06:02 KwarK wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 22 2023 01:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
On June 22 2023 01:05 KwarK wrote:
On June 22 2023 00:54 GreenHorizons wrote:
On June 22 2023 00:36 Taelshin wrote:
On the topic of us politics RFK just gave a rousing speech not long after being on Joe Rogan's podcast.

+ Show Spoiler +
I've sniped it to where his speech starts and its a good listen.


Gotta say I'm pretty pumped to see a democrat saying what he's saying god damn its refreshing. Interested in what you all think.

Democrats would sooner burn down the nomination process than let him win it so he's basically got no chance. On the other hand he got a pretty positive response from Rogan listeners so he actually has the crossover appeal Biden's more conservative choices are supposed to be rationalized by.

If beating Trump/DeSantis (who are both beating Biden and Harris in the polls) is the most important thing, RFK Jr. might be Democrats best chance.

Biden can beat Trump. We know because we’ve tried.


Biden can absolutely beat Trump, even if the polls favor Trump on Election Day.

As far as the rationale of "We know because we’ve tried" goes, what would your response be to a counterpoint that goes something like "Sure, Biden beat Trump last election, but a lot of things have changed since then, such as Biden noticeably slowing down cognitively, and it might be the case that some Democratic voters are unhappy with how Biden's presidency has turned out. Therefore, those disillusioned voters may stay home and not vote for him a second time (not everyone believes in the "lesser of two evils" voting philosophy). For these reasons, the fact that Biden beat Trump in the past doesn't mean he necessarily has a good chance of beating him in future." Thoughts?

If we’re talking how events after the 2016 election has changed the public perception of them then I don’t see how Trump hasn’t been more harmed by his attempted coup and series of indictments.
Because his supporters will still vote for him regardless.

I question if the group that were willing to vote for Trump in 2020 are actually really turned off by everything since.
It ignores such insignificant forces as time, entropy, and death
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States23233 Posts
Last Edited: 2023-06-21 21:34:17
June 21 2023 21:32 GMT
#79262
On June 22 2023 06:02 KwarK wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 22 2023 01:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
On June 22 2023 01:05 KwarK wrote:
On June 22 2023 00:54 GreenHorizons wrote:
On June 22 2023 00:36 Taelshin wrote:
On the topic of us politics RFK just gave a rousing speech not long after being on Joe Rogan's podcast.

+ Show Spoiler +
https://youtu.be/z59vaHQ3zPE?t=2712
I've sniped it to where his speech starts and its a good listen.


Gotta say I'm pretty pumped to see a democrat saying what he's saying god damn its refreshing. Interested in what you all think.

Democrats would sooner burn down the nomination process than let him win it so he's basically got no chance. On the other hand he got a pretty positive response from Rogan listeners so he actually has the crossover appeal Biden's more conservative choices are supposed to be rationalized by.

If beating Trump/DeSantis (who are both beating Biden and Harris in the polls) is the most important thing, RFK Jr. might be Democrats best chance.

Biden can beat Trump. We know because we’ve tried.


Biden can absolutely beat Trump, even if the polls favor Trump on Election Day.

As far as the rationale of "We know because we’ve tried" goes, what would your response be to a counterpoint that goes something like "Sure, Biden beat Trump last election, but a lot of things have changed since then, such as Biden noticeably slowing down cognitively, and it might be the case that some Democratic voters are unhappy with how Biden's presidency has turned out. Therefore, those disillusioned voters may stay home and not vote for him a second time (not everyone believes in the "lesser of two evils" voting philosophy). For these reasons, the fact that Biden beat Trump in the past doesn't mean he necessarily has a good chance of beating him in future." Thoughts?

If we’re talking how events after the 2016 election has changed the public perception of them then I don’t see how Trump hasn’t been more harmed by his attempted coup and series of indictments.


You could look at public polling. It's pretty clear Biden has lost a lot more support since the 2020 cycle than Trump has. Hell Biden's approval is lower than Trump's was at this point in his presidency.
"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
BlackJack
Profile Blog Joined June 2003
United States10501 Posts
June 21 2023 21:46 GMT
#79263
On June 22 2023 06:13 Sadist wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 22 2023 05:39 BlackJack wrote:
On June 21 2023 23:02 Sadist wrote:
On June 21 2023 22:52 Liquid`Drone wrote:
BJ wasn't actually complaining about the banning of gas stoves, he was complaining about ridiculing republicans for claiming that democrats were going to do it followed by doing it. It's very possible that he's also opposed, but the issue wasn't the policy.

And I agree with that. I mean, I haven't followed to what degree democrats have denied wanting to do that and then doing that, but I think there is a real issue with people not truthfully communicating what going carbon neutral will entail, although I also understand the logic because honest communication might lose you the votes you need to go carbon neutral and that's an urgent matter, but I can't deny that it'll also have long term costs in terms of trust in politicians. I also see the relation between this and covid-related communication, where some politicians/spokespeople thought they could get even more desirable behavior through not being perfectly honest, and while yes, that might be true, and there is a real benefit through doing so, there's a long term danger in further eroding trust in institutions/politicians. I think it's fair to think about this and conclude that you prefer the short term gain, but not to claim there is no potential long term harm.



Drone, agree with everything you just typed about eroding trust. Thats not BJs point though. He 100% wants to show those smug virtue signaling liberals how dumb they really are or how they are hypocrits. All the snarky takes and pot shots show the true intentions.

And you know what? Hes right. A lot of those people suck. But the fact of the matter is its really easy to sit on the sidelines and take potshots at people trying to fix things while never offering solutions to real problems yourself. Additionally, while I agree "if you know better you should do better" its never mentioned that one party/movement BY DESIGN erodes faith in Government and Institutions. Its literally been the US Republican calling card that all problems are caused by Govt. Govt sucks. They need to get out of our way. Etc.

Isnt it funny how the party who says elect me because government sucks has an incentive to make it suck more so they can further their message and get elected again? This has been going in the US for well over 50 years.

Maybe there needs to be a ceasefire of the snarky one liners, misconstrued statements, bad faith arguments on both sides of the discussion. But it takes two to Tango. If BJ would plainly say what he believes instead of beating around the bush it would help.



Actually that was my point. Just look at the context of the argument to know my point. I was talking about labeling people as conspiracy theorists for believing in very plausible things. I'm sure we could argue all day about the semantics of whether "taking away your gas stove" means functionally removing your ability to own one or jackbooted thugs kicking in your door to steal it. Or how much of the "conspiracy theories" actually used the verbiage of "taking away your stove" vs "wanting to ban stoves." But what you did was argue the merits of whether we should ban gas stoves and try to hit carbon neutral. At that point we're just talking past each other because I'm not making any argument of whether or not we should ban gas stoves as a matter of policy.



But the verbiage and words used actually do matter. Thats why this is frustrating. Anyone saying or having headlines about the government taking away your gas stoves is a big part of the problem. Thats not whats happening. Headlines like that conjure images of Ray Bradbury and some dystopian future. Why do you want to critique democrats on the subtleties of language but not hold republicans accountable for firing up their base with sensationalism?


Im all for being honest with people about what a carbon neutral future looks like. The idea is frankly daunting and sweat enducing to think about when you realize the scale we are talking about. But its hard to have those honest conversations when anytime we try to fix a problem one party screams bloody murder, denies the problem exists, says we can do nothing about it, and misleads with sensationalist BS. They are not behaving like adults. Simply trying to change anything sends them into a rage.



The problem is most of the headlines are about banning gas stoves and not about the government coming into your home to take your stove. The sensationalism is when the MSM hones in and amplifies that small group that may think Big Brother is coming into your home to take your stove and conflating them with the larger group that is just worried about a ban on gas stoves. Then they get to use the same broad brush to paint them all as conspiracy theorists. It's an effective strategy. Amplify the fringe and try to paint them as the majority. Both sides are doing it. It just seems more pernicious coming from the left because when the Right does it it's basically just Rupert Murdoch's companies and the right-wing blogosphere. When the left does it it can be most of the MSM, social media, entertainment media.
BlackJack
Profile Blog Joined June 2003
United States10501 Posts
June 21 2023 21:50 GMT
#79264
On June 22 2023 06:02 KwarK wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 22 2023 01:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
On June 22 2023 01:05 KwarK wrote:
On June 22 2023 00:54 GreenHorizons wrote:
On June 22 2023 00:36 Taelshin wrote:
On the topic of us politics RFK just gave a rousing speech not long after being on Joe Rogan's podcast.

+ Show Spoiler +
https://youtu.be/z59vaHQ3zPE?t=2712
I've sniped it to where his speech starts and its a good listen.


Gotta say I'm pretty pumped to see a democrat saying what he's saying god damn its refreshing. Interested in what you all think.

Democrats would sooner burn down the nomination process than let him win it so he's basically got no chance. On the other hand he got a pretty positive response from Rogan listeners so he actually has the crossover appeal Biden's more conservative choices are supposed to be rationalized by.

If beating Trump/DeSantis (who are both beating Biden and Harris in the polls) is the most important thing, RFK Jr. might be Democrats best chance.

Biden can beat Trump. We know because we’ve tried.


Biden can absolutely beat Trump, even if the polls favor Trump on Election Day.

As far as the rationale of "We know because we’ve tried" goes, what would your response be to a counterpoint that goes something like "Sure, Biden beat Trump last election, but a lot of things have changed since then, such as Biden noticeably slowing down cognitively, and it might be the case that some Democratic voters are unhappy with how Biden's presidency has turned out. Therefore, those disillusioned voters may stay home and not vote for him a second time (not everyone believes in the "lesser of two evils" voting philosophy). For these reasons, the fact that Biden beat Trump in the past doesn't mean he necessarily has a good chance of beating him in future." Thoughts?

If we’re talking how events after the 2016 election has changed the public perception of them then I don’t see how Trump hasn’t been more harmed by his attempted coup and series of indictments.


The main difference here is that the Republican candidate has the benefit of being the guy that emerges from a serious primary competition and are guaranteed to be the most popular candidate among the base which should translate into more voter turnout among the base. Biden on the other hand may not be the most desired candidate among the Democrats which may translate to worse turnout among the base.
Acrofales
Profile Joined August 2010
Spain17992 Posts
June 21 2023 21:54 GMT
#79265
On June 22 2023 05:39 BlackJack wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 21 2023 23:02 Sadist wrote:
On June 21 2023 22:52 Liquid`Drone wrote:
BJ wasn't actually complaining about the banning of gas stoves, he was complaining about ridiculing republicans for claiming that democrats were going to do it followed by doing it. It's very possible that he's also opposed, but the issue wasn't the policy.

And I agree with that. I mean, I haven't followed to what degree democrats have denied wanting to do that and then doing that, but I think there is a real issue with people not truthfully communicating what going carbon neutral will entail, although I also understand the logic because honest communication might lose you the votes you need to go carbon neutral and that's an urgent matter, but I can't deny that it'll also have long term costs in terms of trust in politicians. I also see the relation between this and covid-related communication, where some politicians/spokespeople thought they could get even more desirable behavior through not being perfectly honest, and while yes, that might be true, and there is a real benefit through doing so, there's a long term danger in further eroding trust in institutions/politicians. I think it's fair to think about this and conclude that you prefer the short term gain, but not to claim there is no potential long term harm.



Drone, agree with everything you just typed about eroding trust. Thats not BJs point though. He 100% wants to show those smug virtue signaling liberals how dumb they really are or how they are hypocrits. All the snarky takes and pot shots show the true intentions.

And you know what? Hes right. A lot of those people suck. But the fact of the matter is its really easy to sit on the sidelines and take potshots at people trying to fix things while never offering solutions to real problems yourself. Additionally, while I agree "if you know better you should do better" its never mentioned that one party/movement BY DESIGN erodes faith in Government and Institutions. Its literally been the US Republican calling card that all problems are caused by Govt. Govt sucks. They need to get out of our way. Etc.

Isnt it funny how the party who says elect me because government sucks has an incentive to make it suck more so they can further their message and get elected again? This has been going in the US for well over 50 years.

Maybe there needs to be a ceasefire of the snarky one liners, misconstrued statements, bad faith arguments on both sides of the discussion. But it takes two to Tango. If BJ would plainly say what he believes instead of beating around the bush it would help.



Actually that was my point. Just look at the context of the argument to know my point. I was talking about labeling people as conspiracy theorists for believing in very plausible things. I'm sure we could argue all day about the semantics of whether "taking away your gas stove" means functionally removing your ability to own one or jackbooted thugs kicking in your door to steal it. Or how much of the "conspiracy theories" actually used the verbiage of "taking away your stove" vs "wanting to ban stoves." But what you did was argue the merits of whether we should ban gas stoves and try to hit carbon neutral. At that point we're just talking past each other because I'm not making any argument of whether or not we should ban gas stoves as a matter of policy.


I have to ask. Why do you think the inability to buy a gas stove in a new construction or a reform of your kitchen is bad? Do you also lament the ability to not use a wood stove in your kitchen? I used to be a huge fan of cooking on gas, but we moved into a house that was all electric in 2016 and induction is just... better. It is cheaper, the heat is equally easy to regulate, and you don't risk setting your house on fire if you forget to switch it off (or it is damaged and leaks). Since then I became a home owner and actually installing induction is considerably more expensive than gas, so we're waiting until we have to reform the whole kitchen anyway, but for a new installation, the expense is roughly similar: the device is more expensive, but you save on having to put gas pipes in the wall. So why do you have a problem if natural gas stoves are phased out in favour of electric cooking?

+ Show Spoiler [foody stuff] +

Really there's only one thing I can think of that induction is truly inferior and that is anything that requires an open flame or a localized source of intense heat. You can generally replace that type of cooking with an oven or an air fryer, and the only thing I cook that really is inferior on induction than on gas is cooking paella, which you just cannot get a good socarrat on with induction. I'm sure there are other super specific types of cooking that work better on gas than induction, but I doubt you're lamenting the ability to get good socarrats on your paellas when you complain about the gradual disappearance of gas cooking. If it is, you'll be happy to know that you can get an even better socarrat with a wood grill!

JimmiC
Profile Blog Joined May 2011
Canada22817 Posts
June 21 2023 22:03 GMT
#79266
--- Nuked ---
BlackJack
Profile Blog Joined June 2003
United States10501 Posts
June 21 2023 22:12 GMT
#79267
On June 22 2023 06:54 Acrofales wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 22 2023 05:39 BlackJack wrote:
On June 21 2023 23:02 Sadist wrote:
On June 21 2023 22:52 Liquid`Drone wrote:
BJ wasn't actually complaining about the banning of gas stoves, he was complaining about ridiculing republicans for claiming that democrats were going to do it followed by doing it. It's very possible that he's also opposed, but the issue wasn't the policy.

And I agree with that. I mean, I haven't followed to what degree democrats have denied wanting to do that and then doing that, but I think there is a real issue with people not truthfully communicating what going carbon neutral will entail, although I also understand the logic because honest communication might lose you the votes you need to go carbon neutral and that's an urgent matter, but I can't deny that it'll also have long term costs in terms of trust in politicians. I also see the relation between this and covid-related communication, where some politicians/spokespeople thought they could get even more desirable behavior through not being perfectly honest, and while yes, that might be true, and there is a real benefit through doing so, there's a long term danger in further eroding trust in institutions/politicians. I think it's fair to think about this and conclude that you prefer the short term gain, but not to claim there is no potential long term harm.



Drone, agree with everything you just typed about eroding trust. Thats not BJs point though. He 100% wants to show those smug virtue signaling liberals how dumb they really are or how they are hypocrits. All the snarky takes and pot shots show the true intentions.

And you know what? Hes right. A lot of those people suck. But the fact of the matter is its really easy to sit on the sidelines and take potshots at people trying to fix things while never offering solutions to real problems yourself. Additionally, while I agree "if you know better you should do better" its never mentioned that one party/movement BY DESIGN erodes faith in Government and Institutions. Its literally been the US Republican calling card that all problems are caused by Govt. Govt sucks. They need to get out of our way. Etc.

Isnt it funny how the party who says elect me because government sucks has an incentive to make it suck more so they can further their message and get elected again? This has been going in the US for well over 50 years.

Maybe there needs to be a ceasefire of the snarky one liners, misconstrued statements, bad faith arguments on both sides of the discussion. But it takes two to Tango. If BJ would plainly say what he believes instead of beating around the bush it would help.



Actually that was my point. Just look at the context of the argument to know my point. I was talking about labeling people as conspiracy theorists for believing in very plausible things. I'm sure we could argue all day about the semantics of whether "taking away your gas stove" means functionally removing your ability to own one or jackbooted thugs kicking in your door to steal it. Or how much of the "conspiracy theories" actually used the verbiage of "taking away your stove" vs "wanting to ban stoves." But what you did was argue the merits of whether we should ban gas stoves and try to hit carbon neutral. At that point we're just talking past each other because I'm not making any argument of whether or not we should ban gas stoves as a matter of policy.


I have to ask. Why do you think the inability to buy a gas stove in a new construction or a reform of your kitchen is bad? Do you also lament the ability to not use a wood stove in your kitchen? I used to be a huge fan of cooking on gas, but we moved into a house that was all electric in 2016 and induction is just... better. It is cheaper, the heat is equally easy to regulate, and you don't risk setting your house on fire if you forget to switch it off (or it is damaged and leaks). Since then I became a home owner and actually installing induction is considerably more expensive than gas, so we're waiting until we have to reform the whole kitchen anyway, but for a new installation, the expense is roughly similar: the device is more expensive, but you save on having to put gas pipes in the wall. So why do you have a problem if natural gas stoves are phased out in favour of electric cooking?

+ Show Spoiler [foody stuff] +

Really there's only one thing I can think of that induction is truly inferior and that is anything that requires an open flame or a localized source of intense heat. You can generally replace that type of cooking with an oven or an air fryer, and the only thing I cook that really is inferior on induction than on gas is cooking paella, which you just cannot get a good socarrat on with induction. I'm sure there are other super specific types of cooking that work better on gas than induction, but I doubt you're lamenting the ability to get good socarrats on your paellas when you complain about the gradual disappearance of gas cooking. If it is, you'll be happy to know that you can get an even better socarrat with a wood grill!



Are you trolling me?
micronesia
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States24682 Posts
Last Edited: 2023-06-21 22:21:52
June 21 2023 22:20 GMT
#79268
I've been following this news item for a while: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/plan-to-discharge-water-into-hudson-river-from-closed-indian-point-nuclear-plant-sparks-uproar (URL is pretty decent summary)

I thought about it when the thread mentioned earlier how academia tends to lean left. For this issue, it's the republicans who care at all about science... or they are just pretending. Probably a combination.

edit: To meet the minimum threshold: Company wants to process and discharge water from commercial nuclear power plant in accordance with applicable regulations as has occurred in the past. Public decides they suddenly have no appetite and NYS attempts to block it using a new law.
ModeratorThere are animal crackers for people and there are people crackers for animals.
JimmiC
Profile Blog Joined May 2011
Canada22817 Posts
June 21 2023 22:28 GMT
#79269
--- Nuked ---
Taelshin
Profile Joined September 2010
Canada418 Posts
June 22 2023 00:43 GMT
#79270
@Sadist don't ever forget, the people you disagree with, They are all the same person.

Sasdist
"The "Conservatives" on TL just muck up the politics thread and the covid thread. Theres always a rotating group of you, its like you tag each in/out for a while. It would appear you are all a smurf of a single person or something.


Wish I could add some spooky music to that one lol.

@DPB and to everyone that is true you need to make an account that was an over sight by me trust me I'm not getting a kick back from Spotify for linking it. My fault but yeah I understand its def not gonna be up your alley or like Sermo's taste but if you maybe are interested in the man it might help you form a more concrete opinion.
"We didnt listen"
BlackJack
Profile Blog Joined June 2003
United States10501 Posts
June 22 2023 00:52 GMT
#79271
On June 22 2023 07:20 micronesia wrote:
I've been following this news item for a while: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/plan-to-discharge-water-into-hudson-river-from-closed-indian-point-nuclear-plant-sparks-uproar (URL is pretty decent summary)

I thought about it when the thread mentioned earlier how academia tends to lean left. For this issue, it's the republicans who care at all about science... or they are just pretending. Probably a combination.

edit: To meet the minimum threshold: Company wants to process and discharge water from commercial nuclear power plant in accordance with applicable regulations as has occurred in the past. Public decides they suddenly have no appetite and NYS attempts to block it using a new law.


There's no shortage of "anti-science" positions you can find on the left. Before COVID the face of the anti-vax movement was Jenny McCarthy and husband Jim Carey and was most popular in liberal circles in California. The same kinds of people that shun GMOs, conventional pesticides, favor things like homeopathy and other alternative medicines, etc. Now you get into the more extreme and in the name of progressing social justice almost anything can be believed. One of my favorite examples of this is the things people will buy into in the name of "fat acceptance." There's plenty of people now that are rejecting the laws of thermodynamics and insisting that you can gain weight while burning more calories than you consume. Not just the quacks on the dark web - here's a Harvard doctor on a Biden advisory panel arguing that obesity can't be treated with diet and exercise

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/health/wellness/doctor-on-advisory-committee-says-obesity-cant-be-treated-with-diet-exercise/ar-AA16Mh0k

“That means if you are born to parents that have obesity, you have a 50% to 85% likelihood of having the disease yourself. Even with optimal diet, exercise, sleep management, stress management.”


Even with perfect diet and exercise and sleep and stress management you still have an up to 85% chance of being obese. C'mon now. She also happens to be getting paid thousands by the pharma company that makes Ozempic so it might be safe to say she has a little bit of a motive to peddle her bullshit.
JimmiC
Profile Blog Joined May 2011
Canada22817 Posts
June 22 2023 01:21 GMT
#79272
--- Nuked ---
DarkPlasmaBall
Profile Blog Joined March 2010
United States44336 Posts
Last Edited: 2023-06-22 01:35:54
June 22 2023 01:28 GMT
#79273
On June 22 2023 09:52 BlackJack wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 22 2023 07:20 micronesia wrote:
I've been following this news item for a while: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/plan-to-discharge-water-into-hudson-river-from-closed-indian-point-nuclear-plant-sparks-uproar (URL is pretty decent summary)

I thought about it when the thread mentioned earlier how academia tends to lean left. For this issue, it's the republicans who care at all about science... or they are just pretending. Probably a combination.

edit: To meet the minimum threshold: Company wants to process and discharge water from commercial nuclear power plant in accordance with applicable regulations as has occurred in the past. Public decides they suddenly have no appetite and NYS attempts to block it using a new law.


There's no shortage of "anti-science" positions you can find on the left. Before COVID the face of the anti-vax movement was Jenny McCarthy and husband Jim Carey and was most popular in liberal circles in California. The same kinds of people that shun GMOs, conventional pesticides, favor things like homeopathy and other alternative medicines, etc. Now you get into the more extreme and in the name of progressing social justice almost anything can be believed. One of my favorite examples of this is the things people will buy into in the name of "fat acceptance." There's plenty of people now that are rejecting the laws of thermodynamics and insisting that you can gain weight while burning more calories than you consume. Not just the quacks on the dark web - here's a Harvard doctor on a Biden advisory panel arguing that obesity can't be treated with diet and exercise

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/health/wellness/doctor-on-advisory-committee-says-obesity-cant-be-treated-with-diet-exercise/ar-AA16Mh0k

Show nested quote +
“That means if you are born to parents that have obesity, you have a 50% to 85% likelihood of having the disease yourself. Even with optimal diet, exercise, sleep management, stress management.”


Even with perfect diet and exercise and sleep and stress management you still have an up to 85% chance of being obese. C'mon now. She also happens to be getting paid thousands by the pharma company that makes Ozempic so it might be safe to say she has a little bit of a motive to peddle her bullshit.


While every medical source I can find does clearly state that there is a genetic factor that can contribute to chances of obesity, I'm seeing a variety of percentages or impact. It does seem to be the case that diet and exercise can probably overcome most situations, even with a genetic predisposition to obesity. Here are three different sources showing how varied the takes are:

This medical study seems to mostly agree with the doctor you quoted:
"Genetic and environmental factors interact to regulate body weight. Overall, the heritability of obesity is estimated at 40% to 70%."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2787002/

This Harvard source offers a very large range of impact, with only the upper half of that range matching the doctor you quoted:
"The strength of the genetic influence on weight disorders varies quite a bit from person to person. Research suggests that for some people, genes account for just 25% of the predisposition to be overweight, while for others the genetic influence is as high as 70% to 80%."
https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/why-people-become-overweight

The CDC's stance seems to be a little more in line with your skepticism:
"Genetics can directly cause obesity in specific disorders such as Bardet-Biedl syndrome and Prader-Willi syndrome. However genes do not always predict future health. In some cases, multiple genes may increase susceptibility for obesity, but obesity does not occur without excess food or too little physical activity."
https://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/calories/index.html?CDC_AA_refVal=https://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/calories/other_factors.html
"There is nothing more satisfying than looking at a crowd of people and helping them get what I love." ~Day[9] Daily #100
Djabanete
Profile Blog Joined May 2008
United States2786 Posts
Last Edited: 2023-06-22 02:00:25
June 22 2023 01:56 GMT
#79274
Huh. I’ve never binned homeopathy as either a left-wing or a right-wing kind of thing. I just figured that buying it probably correlates negatively with education level and the sellers are, well, horrible. What makes you perceive a belief in homeopathy as a primarily left-wing thing?
May the BeSt man win.
JimmiC
Profile Blog Joined May 2011
Canada22817 Posts
Last Edited: 2023-06-22 02:02:20
June 22 2023 02:01 GMT
#79275
--- Nuked ---
Sadist
Profile Blog Joined October 2002
United States7231 Posts
Last Edited: 2023-06-22 02:08:16
June 22 2023 02:03 GMT
#79276
I would say the homeopath thing seemed more new age left wing slanted early on (Jenny McCarthy was definitely a loud voice in the early antivax movement). With all the essential oils and covid vaccine skepticism it seems more evenly distributed now.
How do you go from where you are to where you want to be? I think you have to have an enthusiasm for life. You have to have a dream, a goal and you have to be willing to work for it. Jim Valvano
DarkPlasmaBall
Profile Blog Joined March 2010
United States44336 Posts
June 22 2023 02:13 GMT
#79277
I was unable to find actual data on which demographics (political affiliation, sex, ethnicity, religion, etc.) are more likely to use homeopathy. Anyone else have better luck?
"There is nothing more satisfying than looking at a crowd of people and helping them get what I love." ~Day[9] Daily #100
JimmiC
Profile Blog Joined May 2011
Canada22817 Posts
June 22 2023 02:39 GMT
#79278
--- Nuked ---
Acrofales
Profile Joined August 2010
Spain17992 Posts
June 22 2023 04:12 GMT
#79279
Vaccine skepticism was also all over the map, but the new age tree huggers were (are still?) pretty adamant about the debunked "vaccines cause autism" nonsense.

But, at least here in Europe, the measles outbreaks happened in very conservative religious communities who are anti-vaccines on religious grounds.

Anti-scientific points of view are by no means limited to just the political right. However, I don't think we were discussing the voting base, but rather the politicians themselves. And it's safe to say anti-scientific stances have been embraced, promoted, and weaponized by right-wing populists, with Trump at their head.

I don't know enough about RFK Jr., but the criticism leveled against the Democratic Party is that he is being deplatformed and ostracized, which sounds to me like exactly the right thing to do with anti-scientific populists...
Sermokala
Profile Blog Joined November 2010
United States13933 Posts
Last Edited: 2023-06-22 05:44:08
June 22 2023 05:43 GMT
#79280
Don't pay attention to RFK I watch some joe every now and then and rfk thinks wifi signals cause cancer and destroy the blood brain barrier causing toxins to enter your brain. He's not a serious person and has no policy just grievance and grif. If he didn't have the last name of a Kennedy he wouldn't have gotten a second of air time.

Odd callout but joe is my taste I find his long term decent into dumber and dumber things he believes and doesn't challenge to be hilarious. He's long from poisoning his mind with supplements and drugs.
A wise man will say that he knows nothing. We're gona party like its 2752 Hail Dark Brandon
Prev 1 3962 3963 3964 3965 3966 5139 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 3h 24m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
ProTech10
StarCraft: Brood War
Rain 5791
ggaemo 2161
Zeus 862
Backho 497
Larva 371
Leta 205
PianO 143
Nal_rA 92
Aegong 40
ToSsGirL 37
[ Show more ]
soO 14
ivOry 8
Dota 2
BananaSlamJamma407
XcaliburYe169
Counter-Strike
Stewie2K704
shoxiejesuss151
allub86
Other Games
summit1g6386
singsing777
Tasteless230
Fuzer 12
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick809
StarCraft: Brood War
UltimateBattle 77
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 14 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• davetesta29
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
League of Legends
• Rush1667
• Stunt287
• HappyZerGling144
Upcoming Events
WardiTV Summer Champion…
3h 24m
Stormgate Nexus
6h 24m
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
8h 24m
The PondCast
1d 2h
WardiTV Summer Champion…
1d 3h
Replay Cast
1d 16h
LiuLi Cup
2 days
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
2 days
RSL Revival
2 days
RSL Revival
3 days
[ Show More ]
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
3 days
CSO Cup
3 days
Sparkling Tuna Cup
4 days
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
4 days
Wardi Open
5 days
RotterdaM Event
5 days
RSL Revival
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

ASL Season 20: Qualifier #2
FEL Cracow 2025
CC Div. A S7

Ongoing

Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL 20 Team Wars
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 3
BSL 21 Qualifiers
HCC Europe
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025

Upcoming

ASL Season 20
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
BSL Season 21
BSL 21 Team A
RSL Revival: Season 2
Maestros of the Game
SEL Season 2 Championship
WardiTV Summer 2025
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
MESA Nomadic Masters Fall
Thunderpick World Champ.
CS Asia Championships 2025
Roobet Cup 2025
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.