|
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 |
On November 06 2024 19:32 Uldridge wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 18:45 EnDeR_ wrote:On November 06 2024 18:36 Uldridge wrote:
A surprising amount of things are based on how people feel about a thing. Weird how that works. Even science.
Could you clarify what you mean by that? Are you talking about the scientific process or how non-scientists feel about science? I'm talking about the process of how we, as humans - organisms that filter a highly selective part of reality - try to understand reality. Don't get me wrong, we understand a vast amount already, but it's possible we're limited in understanding only a fraction of it due to our limitations of the brain. Now, science is a framework that hinges upon the actors being, so to speak, completely objective and truth and reality, or our understanding of that at least, kind of depends on that. Time and time again it has been shown that history, personal and institutional biases, funding etc. get in the way of accurately finding out how things work. People abuse statistics to get more interesting results, replication crisis remains an issue, people try to get funding for potentially futile endeavors because it's trending right now, when other theories that could be as challenging get less because that's how hype and momentum works and humans are not devoid of that. We can agree on basic facts. We can observe things on our world and we can describe them pretty rigorously. Often times, though, a narrative of reality is created that we adhere to because that's the current hype or does a particular thing in that point in time pretty well, but will then be torn to shreds because it was incomplete or because it was simply wrong. And none of it matters really because at the end of the day all you do as a human is sleep, eat, drink, shit, piss, socialize and if you're lucky fuck. It's a feelings based reality we live in. How much energy do you have today? How hungry are you? Our scientifically based jnfrastructure we have is nice, but... completely unnecessary. I'm starting to ramble now so I'll see myself out.
Thank you for the clarification, I get what you're saying.
The beauty of science is that it is a self-correcting system. If you have bad scientists or bad system implementation (which is what you're describing in the majority of your post), this leads to results that will not be replicated and research that will not lead to new breakthroughs. If you expect scientists to be accurate and correct 100% of the time, that's unfeasible. Mistakes in methodology happen. Data is misinterpreted all the time. It can derail the field in the short term, sure, but in the long-term, no scientist clings to an approach that doesn't work, flawed methodology leads to results that simply do not match reality and are eventually discarded. Scientific consensus emerges and we make progress -- it is designed to be an iterative process after all.
|
On November 06 2024 19:20 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 18:35 Uldridge wrote:On November 06 2024 18:05 Simberto wrote:
The US is just so completely lost.
I hope this will lead to europe getting our shit together and building a better world, less reliant on the idiocracy across the atlantic.
But realistically, we will just get the same shit in a few years. It has already been happening here, and with this victory of insanity it will likely only increase. Apparently the most idiotic of rightwing people have just figured out a brainhack in some way, and that is just the world we live in now.
I just don't know how to deal with this. Why are large parts of humanity like this? A two decades ago it looked as if we were making huge strides towards a better future. Now...not so much.
A sad day for humanity. Your AfD is on the rise. Our Vlaams Belang js on the rise. Populism and polarization is firmly on the tise. You better start understanding where they're coming from. Been saying that since 2016, but everyone keeps saying people on the right are morons and delusional. Whatever the truth is, they are people and they have voting power and disenfranchising them with your rhetoric will only tear your social fabric apart. I try to refrain from this kind of rhetoric like you (not just you specificallly Simberto), because I deem it highly corrosive. Keep thinking your side is the best for all humans (which it very well might be, might I add), but that's completely missing the point, and probably a lot of nuance that's at play here. As long as none of you truly understand what makes Trump so favorable, it will bite you in the ass over and over. Yeah, i know. But i am mostly just done. The rightwing people make it very, very hard to try to deal with them, meet them in the middle and try to get them back into reality, because they all the things they do and say they want are just so bad. For them, for society, for everything. And they are so very obnoxious about it, too. It is also annoying that apparently all of the impetus is on me and people like me to get the people who plainly believe just insane bullshit back, while those same people shout hateful shit all day. And the solution is supposed to be that i have to be very empathic and nice to them. And i have been trying. For a decade or more. But it just gets worse and worse. More insanity, more removal from reality, more rightwing hate, more conspiracy bullshit. It is very hard not to treat people like morons when they act like morons. It is hard to pretend people are adults when they clearly don't act that way themselves. I am just exhausted. I am of the opinion that a lot of the problems could be solved by doing some radical left stuff, but that ain't happening either. I think some of the reason that people drift towards insanity is that they feel lost economically. Rightwing conspiracies give them a nice, easy answer as to why that is, so they drift further and further in that direction. To prevent this, we need some good oldschool Klassenkampf. Redistribution of wealth, from the ultra rich to the poor, so that the poor don't feel the need to fight other poor over scraps from the rich mans table. But that is clearly not happening, if anything we are moving further and further away from that idea. So, i guess i will mostly just give up. Leave politics to the insane, try my best to survive. Hope that the insanity eventually just passes.
I was at that point in 2016. Came to the same conclusion that only taking care of my family and myself is the most reasonable decision. My personal opinion is that the "Klassenkampf" is over and we lost, face it. But it's still worth it to engage, don't give up.
|
On November 06 2024 19:41 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 19:33 L_Master wrote:On November 06 2024 19:20 Simberto wrote:On November 06 2024 18:35 Uldridge wrote:On November 06 2024 18:05 Simberto wrote:
The US is just so completely lost.
I hope this will lead to europe getting our shit together and building a better world, less reliant on the idiocracy across the atlantic.
But realistically, we will just get the same shit in a few years. It has already been happening here, and with this victory of insanity it will likely only increase. Apparently the most idiotic of rightwing people have just figured out a brainhack in some way, and that is just the world we live in now.
I just don't know how to deal with this. Why are large parts of humanity like this? A two decades ago it looked as if we were making huge strides towards a better future. Now...not so much.
A sad day for humanity. Your AfD is on the rise. Our Vlaams Belang js on the rise. Populism and polarization is firmly on the tise. You better start understanding where they're coming from. Been saying that since 2016, but everyone keeps saying people on the right are morons and delusional. Whatever the truth is, they are people and they have voting power and disenfranchising them with your rhetoric will only tear your social fabric apart. I try to refrain from this kind of rhetoric like you (not just you specificallly Simberto), because I deem it highly corrosive. Keep thinking your side is the best for all humans (which it very well might be, might I add), but that's completely missing the point, and probably a lot of nuance that's at play here. As long as none of you truly understand what makes Trump so favorable, it will bite you in the ass over and over. Yeah, i know. But i am mostly just done. The rightwing people make it very, very hard to try to deal with them, meet them in the middle and try to get them back into reality, because they all the things they do and say they want are just so bad. For them, for society, for everything. And they are so very obnoxious about it, too. It is also annoying that apparently all of the impetus is on me and people like me to get the people who plainly believe just insane bullshit back, while those same people shout hateful shit all day. And the solution is supposed to be that i have to be very empathic and nice to them. And i have been trying. For a decade or more. But it just gets worse and worse. More insanity, more removal from reality, more rightwing hate, more conspiracy bullshit. It is very hard not to treat people like morons when they act like morons. It is hard to pretend people are adults when they clearly don't act that way themselves. I am just exhausted. I am of the opinion that a lot of the problems could be solved by doing some radical left stuff, but that ain't happening either. I think some of the reason that people drift towards insanity is that they feel lost economically. Rightwing conspiracies give them a nice, easy answer as to why that is, so they drift further and further in that direction. To prevent this, we need some good oldschool Klassenkampf. Redistribution of wealth, from the ultra rich to the poor, so that the poor don't feel the need to fight other poor over scraps from the rich mans table. But that is clearly not happening, if anything we are moving further and further away from that idea. So, i guess i will mostly just give up. Leave politics to the insane, try my best to survive. Hope that the insanity eventually just passes. How confident are you in your ability to steelman the conservative position? Not the stupid mainstream stuff you hear thrown out by Republicans, but rather the sort of case made using concepts from people like Hayek, Sowell, Popper, the federalists, etc.? If you think they are all absolutely insane, then best can be said is I don't see how their is any "hope" to bring anything together. I believe there is a lot that goes into this question. And oftentimes I've found you do get absolutely nowhere, and when that happens it's almost always a case of different personalities/incentives creating difference in preferences that don't have much or any common ground, or personality differences (usually low openness in mainline conservatives) that renders them very stuck in whatever their current mode of thought is. They simply don't seem to care for new ideas. Those names are about as relevant to the MAGA zealots as they are to hardened Communists. That’s precisely the problem. It should concern more regular,independent ideologically-based or moderate conservatives too. Do you folks think you’re getting the party back anytime soon?
You folks?
I won't pretend to have any understanding of what ideas or factions are gaining popularity within either party, nor any ability to predict such.
I was curious about the steelman of ardent conservatism to see if I notice anything in what's happening with Simberto's attempts to find common ground not going as he would hope.
|
So this is what depression feels like. I wish I had some humor in me to lighten the mood but it's serious stuff and I don't have it in me.
To me it's another confirmation that perception Trumps reality and why was there any doubt to begin with, it's the whole data analystics / social media thing. What issues did people vote on? What swung where, don't matter. Looking at shit from the bottom up gets you no where.
Just how it is, science if you will. Maybe I'm stupid and that's exactly why they call it data science.
|
On November 06 2024 19:45 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 19:43 SEB2610 wrote:On November 06 2024 19:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2024 19:26 SEB2610 wrote:
best of luck to Trump with the deportations and extermination of gay race communism
tfw you realize this isn't sarcastic. Why would it be? By not at least deporting illegals, all you are doing is encouraging more to invade. As for why the extermination of gay race communism is good, I trust anyone who isnt a dysgenic retard to understand this intuitively. Oh fuck right off
❤️
|
@Wombat it feels like you moved over this cycle, cant say for sure but I thought you were a more centrist person with centrist ideals. You hitched your cart to the wrong wagon bud, It'll be okay.
Last post tonight - fucking pumped - if you sad, I'm sorry loosing sucks I know (we've all been there). If your angry thinking of doing stupid stuff, Just don't.
|
On November 06 2024 19:41 WombaT wrote:
Those names are about as relevant to the MAGA zealots as they are to hardened Communists.
What is a woman MAGA zealot? The hardened communists I've known over the years take those names seriously.
How many MAGA/Reagan people have you met in person? Of my 6 biggest customers 4 are MAGA Hat wearers. They've been wearing MAGA hats since the 80s. I talk to them about people like Rand, Sowell, Hayek, and Greenspan all the time. One time I showed up to the big labour day cook out in an "Austrian School of Economics" t-shirt with the big "A" symbol on it. The MAGA crowd loved it. And lemme tell ya man... these MoFos have got money to spend.
On November 06 2024 19:55 Taelshin wrote:
Last post tonight - fucking pumped - if you sad, I'm sorry loosing sucks I know (we've all been there). If your angry thinking of doing stupid stuff, Just don't.
Canadian eh? look for the team around Trump to out-negotiate the inept team Justin Trudeau has assembled for 2025. This is bad news for Canada.
|
United States42688 Posts
Biden objectively did a fantastic job on inflation and cost of living. Better than Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Australia, SK, China, Russia, Turkey, Mexico etc.
Trump’s monetary policy and deficit spending played a big role in creating the asset bubble in the first place. The Fed spent the first few years of his presidency trying to rein in the printer to stop the economy from overheating but Trump couldn’t tell the difference between the SP500 and the economy and felt like a cash injected asset valuation bubble was a benchmark for success.
But people feel like Biden did poorly and Trump did well. There’s simply no evidence for it.
|
On November 06 2024 19:43 SEB2610 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 19:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2024 19:26 SEB2610 wrote:
best of luck to Trump with the deportations and extermination of gay race communism
tfw you realize this isn't sarcastic. Why would it be? By not at least deporting illegals, all you are doing is encouraging more to invade. As for why the extermination of gay race communism is good, I trust anyone who isnt a dysgenic retard to understand this intuitively.
This is the kind of people Trump's presidency will empower and embolden, and I don't like it one bit. It's gonna be long 4 years of this shit, and it will only get worse.
|
Sad that we are on track for 4 more years at least of bizzaro land. I hope the press covers things better than the first go round. Theres way more potential for things to go sideways this time.
Cannot believe Elon Musk and RFK may have cabinet positions. Yuck.
|
On November 06 2024 19:49 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 19:32 Uldridge wrote:On November 06 2024 18:45 EnDeR_ wrote:On November 06 2024 18:36 Uldridge wrote:
A surprising amount of things are based on how people feel about a thing. Weird how that works. Even science.
Could you clarify what you mean by that? Are you talking about the scientific process or how non-scientists feel about science? I'm talking about the process of how we, as humans - organisms that filter a highly selective part of reality - try to understand reality. Don't get me wrong, we understand a vast amount already, but it's possible we're limited in understanding only a fraction of it due to our limitations of the brain. Now, science is a framework that hinges upon the actors being, so to speak, completely objective and truth and reality, or our understanding of that at least, kind of depends on that. Time and time again it has been shown that history, personal and institutional biases, funding etc. get in the way of accurately finding out how things work. People abuse statistics to get more interesting results, replication crisis remains an issue, people try to get funding for potentially futile endeavors because it's trending right now, when other theories that could be as challenging get less because that's how hype and momentum works and humans are not devoid of that. We can agree on basic facts. We can observe things on our world and we can describe them pretty rigorously. Often times, though, a narrative of reality is created that we adhere to because that's the current hype or does a particular thing in that point in time pretty well, but will then be torn to shreds because it was incomplete or because it was simply wrong. And none of it matters really because at the end of the day all you do as a human is sleep, eat, drink, shit, piss, socialize and if you're lucky fuck. It's a feelings based reality we live in. How much energy do you have today? How hungry are you? Our scientifically based jnfrastructure we have is nice, but... completely unnecessary. I'm starting to ramble now so I'll see myself out. Thank you for the clarification, I get what you're saying. The beauty of science is that it is a self-correcting system. If you have bad scientists or bad system implementation (which is what you're describing in the majority of your post), this leads to results that will not be replicated and research that will not lead to new breakthroughs. If you expect scientists to be accurate and correct 100% of the time, that's unfeasible. Mistakes in methodology happen. Data is misinterpreted all the time. It can derail the field in the short term, sure, but in the long-term, no scientist clings to an approach that doesn't work, flawed methodology leads to results that simply do not match reality and are eventually discarded. Scientific consensus emerges and we make progress -- it is designed to be an iterative process after all.
I agree with all of that.
But if the incentives are bad enough, it can lead to all kinds of bodies of horrible research, founded and built upon more horrible research, that people try to shoehorn into ever more aggressively.
Evolution wise, even if a civilization stuck to that, it's likely it would be outcompeted by a civilization that did better science in due course.
At it's worst, you're talking about essentially the next scientific dark age. (No, I don't think this is happening or will happen)
But it can easily set progress back a decade or three.
And cause tremendous pain and wasted energy and resources trying solutions based on science built on a house of cards. Not to mention the issues with creativity and the fact that funding very strongly rewards immediate results doing in paradigm science and shows less interest in studies that accept the null.
|
Step 1: Believe outrageously obviously untrue things
Step 2: Refuse to listen to well trained experts, and in fact deliberately believe the opposite of what trained experts say in every single case because they are well trained experts
Step 3: Insist that its fine to believe whatever you want despite being obviously wrong
Step 4: Cry because your stupid beliefs, stupid actions and general stupid bullshit have led to people calling you stupid.
Step 5: Claim victory having elected the stupidest president of all time twice and blame the others for calling you stupid.
Seems perfectly logical to me.
|
Northern Ireland25331 Posts
On November 06 2024 19:55 Taelshin wrote:
@Wombat it feels like you moved over this cycle, cant say for sure but I thought you were a more centrist person with centrist ideals. You hitched your cart to the wrong wagon bud, It'll be okay.
Last post tonight - fucking pumped - if you sad, I'm sorry loosing sucks I know (we've all been there). If your angry thinking of doing stupid stuff, Just don't.
No, I’d probably be one of the furthest left here minus your GHs
On November 06 2024 19:55 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 19:41 WombaT wrote:
Those names are about as relevant to the MAGA zealots as they are to hardened Communists.
What is a woman MAGA zealot? The hardened communists I've known over the years take those names seriously. How many MAGA/Reagan people have you met in person? Of my 6 biggest customers 4 are MAGA Hat wearers. They've been wearing MAGA hats since the 80s. I talk to them about people like Rand, Sowell, Hayek, and Greenspan all the time. One time I showed up to the big labour day cook out in an "Austrian School of Economics" t-shirt with the big "A" symbol on it. The MAGA crowd loved it. And lemme tell ya man... these MoFos have got money to spend.
I mean Americans have appalling aesthetic taste and that’s just one example. Daft bloody hats
As per my previous like, given I’ d contrasted with other conservatives, or their traditions a MAGA zealot is just a Trump cultist, the kind of person who thinks Marjorie Taylor Greene was onto something when she mentioned Jewish space lazers.
Not people who read Hayek et al, much less discuss him
One group of people is idiotic, hateful, insane or all 3, one Is a group of people with an actual belief system that I can have cordial discussions with, even if ultimately we’ll disagree ideologically
|
On November 06 2024 17:47 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 17:41 L_Master wrote:On November 06 2024 17:30 Vindicare605 wrote:On November 06 2024 17:24 Dante08 wrote:
The most shocking thing is Trump is likely to win the popular vote which is CRAZY It's honestly not that shocking. This is what the cynical side of me knew was going to happen. This election isn't so much an affirmation of Trump it's a rejection of the Democrats. Of their messaging, of their candidates and of their politics. 100%. Pretty much every person I knew isn't especially pro Trump. They are simply disgusted, angry, or afraid of the democrats DEI policies, the rapid shift in demographics, the monetary policy (admittedly R isn't a ton better here, but perception skews that way), and the general bureaucracy and onerous endless regulations that are added. Also very strong opposition to the moral posture that liberals always take. Almost impossible to overstate that. Everyone I know in person, unless ardent left, despises this. The ardent left folk almost always take these moral framings "you're a horrible racist", "you hate trans people", "you're a misogynist", "you don't care about women", etc. when you don't agree or do what they want. Put all that together with Harris as a candidate and.... you get tonight. I've been saying it and I'll keep saying it. Democrats need to focus on fucking POLICY. Stop getting into these shit slinging contests with the Republicans about wedge issues.There's A REASON the Republicans want politics to be about that. They win those fights.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Harris was laser-focused on policy and put out way more policy ideas than Trump. Especially with the economy, she talked in depth about lowering the price of groceries / stopping price gouging, continuing to lower medical and medicine costs and improve healthcare, childcare affordability, housing affordability, and small business affordability - among others - with actual plans laid out. She also didn't get pulled into Trump's shit-slinging contests about her race, her sex, his lies about immigrants eating and stealing dogs, his hating on trans people, etc.
There are plenty of reasons why Kamala Harris lost - from the Democratic (non-)primary situation, to Harris's message not resonating with key demographics, to Trump's base and swing voters continuing to fall for his lies and empty promises, to the fact that most voters are low-information and there was a serious lack of communication and education on the Democratic side (e.g., "the economy" was considered to be an important issue among many voters, yet plenty of them incorrectly thought that Trump is better for the economy than Biden/Harris), to sexism, to racism, and surely a variety of other reasons - but I don't see how one could take the position that Kamala Harris didn't focus enough on policy.
|
On November 06 2024 20:00 Jockmcplop wrote:
Step 1: Believe outrageously obviously untrue things
Step 2: Refuse to listen to well trained experts, and in fact deliberately believe the opposite of what trained experts say in every single case because they are well trained experts
Step 3: Insist that its fine to believe whatever you want despite being obviously wrong
Step 4: Cry because your stupid beliefs, stupid actions and general stupid bullshit have led to people calling you stupid.
Step 5: Claim victory having elected the stupidest president of all time twice and blame the others for calling you stupid.
Seems perfectly logical to me.
This step I've found lots of issues with. Seems to me that the well trained experts in a great many fields are determined via credentials in most cases, rather than ability to produce results.
I've had much better fitness results and diet results abandoning what most would call nutrition experts or exercise physiologists.
I've had much better results with ADHD after ditching therapists and psychiatrists, and focusing on wierd internet people who talked about things like dopamine/serotonin, territorial design, etc.
I've had much better results with investing abandoning large sections of financial advice from financial advisers.
I've been able to start building a really solid group of friends, and take some of the rough edges off my social personality after abandoning much of traditional therapy usage and books and again, following the advice of weird internet people.
At some point, that just became impossible for me to ignore. Caused me to develop a deeper doubt in how our attempts at science are playing out as well, or at least who is getting selected into the scientist group and how well are they being trained and incentivized to think like scientists.
|
On November 06 2024 20:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 17:47 Vindicare605 wrote:On November 06 2024 17:41 L_Master wrote:On November 06 2024 17:30 Vindicare605 wrote:On November 06 2024 17:24 Dante08 wrote:
The most shocking thing is Trump is likely to win the popular vote which is CRAZY It's honestly not that shocking. This is what the cynical side of me knew was going to happen. This election isn't so much an affirmation of Trump it's a rejection of the Democrats. Of their messaging, of their candidates and of their politics. 100%. Pretty much every person I knew isn't especially pro Trump. They are simply disgusted, angry, or afraid of the democrats DEI policies, the rapid shift in demographics, the monetary policy (admittedly R isn't a ton better here, but perception skews that way), and the general bureaucracy and onerous endless regulations that are added. Also very strong opposition to the moral posture that liberals always take. Almost impossible to overstate that. Everyone I know in person, unless ardent left, despises this. The ardent left folk almost always take these moral framings "you're a horrible racist", "you hate trans people", "you're a misogynist", "you don't care about women", etc. when you don't agree or do what they want. Put all that together with Harris as a candidate and.... you get tonight. I've been saying it and I'll keep saying it. Democrats need to focus on fucking POLICY. Stop getting into these shit slinging contests with the Republicans about wedge issues.There's A REASON the Republicans want politics to be about that. They win those fights. I'm not sure what you mean by this. Harris was laser-focused on policy and put out way more policy ideas than Trump. Especially with the economy, she talked in depth about lowering the price of groceries / stopping price gouging, continuing to lower medical and medicine costs and improve healthcare, childcare affordability, housing affordability, and small business affordability - among others - with actual plans laid out. She also didn't get pulled into Trump's shit-slinging contests about her race, her sex, his lies about immigrants eating and stealing dogs, his hating on trans people, etc. There are plenty of reasons why Kamala Harris lost - from the Democratic (non-)primary situation, to Harris's message not resonating with key demographics, to Trump's base and swing voters continuing to fall for his lies and empty promises, to the fact that most voters are low-information and there was a serious lack of communication and education on the Democratic side (e.g., "economy" was an important issue, yet many voters incorrectly thought that Trump is better for the economy than Biden/Harris), to sexism, to racism, to plenty of others - but I don't see how one could take the position that Kamala Harris didn't focus enough on policy.
What were the democrats' top 5 priorities when they got into office?
Name them, 5 solid, useful things the democrats were going to do.
I can't think of one, but I wasn't following things as closely as you.
|
On November 06 2024 20:11 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 20:00 Jockmcplop wrote:
Step 1: Believe outrageously obviously untrue things
Step 2: Refuse to listen to well trained experts, and in fact deliberately believe the opposite of what trained experts say in every single case because they are well trained experts
Step 3: Insist that its fine to believe whatever you want despite being obviously wrong
Step 4: Cry because your stupid beliefs, stupid actions and general stupid bullshit have led to people calling you stupid.
Step 5: Claim victory having elected the stupidest president of all time twice and blame the others for calling you stupid.
Seems perfectly logical to me. This step I've found lots of issues with. Seems to me that the well trained experts in a great many fields are determined via credentials in most cases, rather than ability to produce results. I've had much better fitness results and diet results abandoning what most would call nutrition experts or exercise physiologists. I've had much better results with ADHD after ditching therapists and psychiatrists, and focusing on wierd internet people who talked about things like dopamine/serotonin, territorial design, etc. I've had much better results with investing abandoning large sections of financial advice from financial advisers. I've been able to start building a really solid group of friends, and take some of the rough edges off my social personality after abandoning much of traditional therapy usage and books and again, following the advice of weird internet people. At some point, that just became impossible for me to ignore. Caused me to develop a deeper doubt in how our attempts at science are playing out as well, or at least who is getting selected into the scientist group and how well are they being trained and incentivized to think like scientists.
Do you do your own dentistry?
|
On November 06 2024 19:59 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 19:49 EnDeR_ wrote:On November 06 2024 19:32 Uldridge wrote:On November 06 2024 18:45 EnDeR_ wrote:On November 06 2024 18:36 Uldridge wrote:
A surprising amount of things are based on how people feel about a thing. Weird how that works. Even science.
Could you clarify what you mean by that? Are you talking about the scientific process or how non-scientists feel about science? I'm talking about the process of how we, as humans - organisms that filter a highly selective part of reality - try to understand reality. Don't get me wrong, we understand a vast amount already, but it's possible we're limited in understanding only a fraction of it due to our limitations of the brain. Now, science is a framework that hinges upon the actors being, so to speak, completely objective and truth and reality, or our understanding of that at least, kind of depends on that. Time and time again it has been shown that history, personal and institutional biases, funding etc. get in the way of accurately finding out how things work. People abuse statistics to get more interesting results, replication crisis remains an issue, people try to get funding for potentially futile endeavors because it's trending right now, when other theories that could be as challenging get less because that's how hype and momentum works and humans are not devoid of that. We can agree on basic facts. We can observe things on our world and we can describe them pretty rigorously. Often times, though, a narrative of reality is created that we adhere to because that's the current hype or does a particular thing in that point in time pretty well, but will then be torn to shreds because it was incomplete or because it was simply wrong. And none of it matters really because at the end of the day all you do as a human is sleep, eat, drink, shit, piss, socialize and if you're lucky fuck. It's a feelings based reality we live in. How much energy do you have today? How hungry are you? Our scientifically based jnfrastructure we have is nice, but... completely unnecessary. I'm starting to ramble now so I'll see myself out. Thank you for the clarification, I get what you're saying. The beauty of science is that it is a self-correcting system. If you have bad scientists or bad system implementation (which is what you're describing in the majority of your post), this leads to results that will not be replicated and research that will not lead to new breakthroughs. If you expect scientists to be accurate and correct 100% of the time, that's unfeasible. Mistakes in methodology happen. Data is misinterpreted all the time. It can derail the field in the short term, sure, but in the long-term, no scientist clings to an approach that doesn't work, flawed methodology leads to results that simply do not match reality and are eventually discarded. Scientific consensus emerges and we make progress -- it is designed to be an iterative process after all. I agree with all of that. But if the incentives are bad enough, it can lead to all kinds of bodies of horrible research, founded and built upon more horrible research, that people try to shoehorn into ever more aggressively.
Evolution wise, even if a civilization stuck to that, it's likely it would be outcompeted by a civilization that did better science in due course. At it's worst, you're talking about essentially the next scientific dark age. (No, I don't think this is happening or will happen) But it can easily set progress back a decade or three. And cause tremendous pain and wasted energy and resources trying solutions based on science built on a house of cards. Not to mention the issues with creativity and the fact that funding very strongly rewards immediate results doing in paradigm science and shows less interest in studies that accept the null.
Do you have any evidence regarding the bolded part in modern times, i.e. 2000+? I would like to look into it. This is a topic very dear to me.
In my experience, bad science only influences policy when it is politically convenient to do so. It is very easy for politicians to ignore scientific consensus by pointing at a piece of bad science. It's essentially a bad faith argument: "how can you be so sure that you are correct when your fellow scientists say the complete opposite?".
|
On November 06 2024 20:12 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 20:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 06 2024 17:47 Vindicare605 wrote:On November 06 2024 17:41 L_Master wrote:On November 06 2024 17:30 Vindicare605 wrote:On November 06 2024 17:24 Dante08 wrote:
The most shocking thing is Trump is likely to win the popular vote which is CRAZY It's honestly not that shocking. This is what the cynical side of me knew was going to happen. This election isn't so much an affirmation of Trump it's a rejection of the Democrats. Of their messaging, of their candidates and of their politics. 100%. Pretty much every person I knew isn't especially pro Trump. They are simply disgusted, angry, or afraid of the democrats DEI policies, the rapid shift in demographics, the monetary policy (admittedly R isn't a ton better here, but perception skews that way), and the general bureaucracy and onerous endless regulations that are added. Also very strong opposition to the moral posture that liberals always take. Almost impossible to overstate that. Everyone I know in person, unless ardent left, despises this. The ardent left folk almost always take these moral framings "you're a horrible racist", "you hate trans people", "you're a misogynist", "you don't care about women", etc. when you don't agree or do what they want. Put all that together with Harris as a candidate and.... you get tonight. I've been saying it and I'll keep saying it. Democrats need to focus on fucking POLICY. Stop getting into these shit slinging contests with the Republicans about wedge issues.There's A REASON the Republicans want politics to be about that. They win those fights. I'm not sure what you mean by this. Harris was laser-focused on policy and put out way more policy ideas than Trump. Especially with the economy, she talked in depth about lowering the price of groceries / stopping price gouging, continuing to lower medical and medicine costs and improve healthcare, childcare affordability, housing affordability, and small business affordability - among others - with actual plans laid out. She also didn't get pulled into Trump's shit-slinging contests about her race, her sex, his lies about immigrants eating and stealing dogs, his hating on trans people, etc. There are plenty of reasons why Kamala Harris lost - from the Democratic (non-)primary situation, to Harris's message not resonating with key demographics, to Trump's base and swing voters continuing to fall for his lies and empty promises, to the fact that most voters are low-information and there was a serious lack of communication and education on the Democratic side (e.g., "economy" was an important issue, yet many voters incorrectly thought that Trump is better for the economy than Biden/Harris), to sexism, to racism, to plenty of others - but I don't see how one could take the position that Kamala Harris didn't focus enough on policy. What were the democrats' top 5 priorities when they got into office? Name them, 5 solid, useful things the democrats were going to do. I can't think of one, but I wasn't following things as closely as you.
Harris listed a bunch of things she'd want to do immediately: return to the bipartisan border bill on immigration that Trump blew up, lower the price of groceries by going after price gouging, expanding the child tax credit, increasing financial support for housing, starting to enact the plan for millions of more houses to be built, etc.
There are a few articles that outline different parts of her Day 1 plan. Here is one of them:
"Vice President Harris outlined her Day 1 agenda to support middle-class families if she were to win the election this fall in her first sit-down interview since becoming the Democratic nominee for president. She addressed plans to make housing more affordable and to expand the child tax credit, and she acknowledged that despite economic growth since the pandemic, prices are still too high for many Americans."
https://www.wgbh.org/news/2024-08-29/harris-explains-her-policy-shifts-and-day-1-plan-in-1st-sit-down-interview-as-nominee
|
On November 06 2024 20:08 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 19:55 Taelshin wrote:
@Wombat it feels like you moved over this cycle, cant say for sure but I thought you were a more centrist person with centrist ideals. You hitched your cart to the wrong wagon bud, It'll be okay.
Last post tonight - fucking pumped - if you sad, I'm sorry loosing sucks I know (we've all been there). If your angry thinking of doing stupid stuff, Just don't. No, I’d probably be one of the furthest left here minus your GHs Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 19:55 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On November 06 2024 19:41 WombaT wrote:
Those names are about as relevant to the MAGA zealots as they are to hardened Communists.
What is a woman MAGA zealot? The hardened communists I've known over the years take those names seriously. How many MAGA/Reagan people have you met in person? Of my 6 biggest customers 4 are MAGA Hat wearers. They've been wearing MAGA hats since the 80s. I talk to them about people like Rand, Sowell, Hayek, and Greenspan all the time. One time I showed up to the big labour day cook out in an "Austrian School of Economics" t-shirt with the big "A" symbol on it. The MAGA crowd loved it. And lemme tell ya man... these MoFos have got money to spend. I mean Americans have appalling aesthetic taste and that’s just one example. Daft bloody hats As per my previous like, given I’ d contrasted with other conservatives, or their traditions a MAGA zealot is just a Trump cultist, the kind of person who thinks Marjorie Taylor Greene was onto something when she mentioned Jewish space lazers. Not people who read Hayek et al, much less discuss him One group of people is idiotic, hateful, insane or all 3, one Is a group of people with an actual belief system that I can have cordial discussions with, even if ultimately we’ll disagree ideologically
This feels to broad even for me. MAGA is made up of at least a few different sections. The lower IQ alt right adjacent faction seems to me to jusitfy the use of the word hateful. They seem like frustrated, bitter, most low ability white men that are just pissed off at the world, and use race and perceived moral superiority of their own variety to feel good about themselves "At least I'm not black", "at least I'm not gay", etc.
Then you've got a bunch of fairly normal MAGA people, aside from believing in whacky stuff like Jewish Space Lazers, as affable people. I've never experienced what I would use the word hate for. They want everybody to be happy. They want everybody to succeed. They might not love gay people, but they don't hate them. They want them to overall do well. They just don't want them to be gay. Or, often, they just don't want them to be gay around them. It's something, but I don't extend hate to that. Just otherwise normal, mostly happy, stubborn stuck in their ways people with whacky beliefs they get from feeling like their concerns are dismissed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
