|
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 20:44 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 20:29 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On November 06 2024 20:08 WombaT wrote:
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
and Democratic Party voters have among them a similar group of idiotic, hateful, insane people. Hand pick from any group of 50+ million and you'll always find idiots. meh. The Democratic Party doesn’t cater to the worst of their base though, to anything like the same degree. That is the pertinent difference
Wow. It's amazing how differently we see that.
I'm curious to hear how you see both the left and the right catering to the "worst of their base". Which I take to mean the far right, super spiteful, full on Nazi types on the right, and the absolute worst of the spiteful, crabs in a bucket, leftist LGBTQ mega diversity types on the left.
|
As expected, Republicans won the Senate. When will we know about the House?
|
On November 06 2024 20:29 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 20:08 WombaT wrote:
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
and Democratic Party voters have among them a similar group of idiotic, hateful, insane people. Hand pick from any group of 50+ million and you'll always find idiots. meh.
The quantity for either side isn't even remotely comparable.
|
The rest of the world weeps today.
Realistically won't affect me much, but the implications on society today are horrible.
|
On November 06 2024 20:22 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 20:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 06 2024 20:12 Jockmcplop wrote: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 I read that article and its just too.... vague Here's what people mean when they say Democrats should talk policy: Remember the wall? "I'm going to build a wall, and its going to keep illegal immigrants out" That is how you discuss policy in modern America. You take the outcome people want (illegal immigrants out), and tell people how you are going to achieve it in 10 words or less (I'm going to build a wall) so that they can understand what you're talking about. There is none of that in the article you linked. Its full of 'well we want to do this, but we're not going to tell you how'. Trump is all 'I'll build a wall' and then you look where he said he was going to build it and you see a wall. Its a whole different thing. Democrats don't understand why this works and why what they do doesn't work.
I think there are so many sensitive issues for the left that they have a hard time talking clearly about policy. Take the wall example: the dems can't say simple things like "we don't want illegal immigrants, let's build a wall" or "we want a strong police force staving off crime" because there is such a large portion of the base that doesn't want those things. It feels like there are so many issues on the left that are too sensitive to talk about. I guess that's why Kamala couldn't give interviews like Trump did.
|
On November 06 2024 20:39 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 20:32 EnDeR_ wrote:On November 06 2024 20:28 Uldridge wrote:On November 06 2024 19:59 L_Master wrote: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. I believe we're in the dark ages of scientific research because it's all to do with funding and clout and unwillingness to reflect on biases. Replication crisis, predatory journals, actual fraudulence in papers (made up data etc), peer reviews being shit at times because reviewers don't like the research due to it clashing with their work or they want to publish that type of research first. It's crazy. People lose faith in the framework because people abuse everything that's built on the solid foundations. In this aspect I don't think science a self correcting thing any longer. More fundamentally I think it's one of the narratives on how we can shape society, just like religion. It's important becuase it's useful. Make science useless and it's existence stops. As far as reality goes, a thing I wanted to mention that is very apt right now: no matter the facts, if people feel a certain way, you won't change that by flaunting numbers in their faces. Example: people feel unsafe in public spaces, even though empirically speaking, the crime rate has gone down. Saying this won't make a difference. "Reality" in this case is that people, through a variety of paramaters, feel less safe than it actually is. The idea is the find out why that is, not saying that they're wrong. I will direct the same question to yourself as I did to L_master. Do you have any evidence that modern science is being misled by these perverse incentives and that the self-correcting nature of the scientific consensus is not working? I would genuinely like to look at this. I can give you the ideas of things to look for. I'm not saying any of these are or are not happening. Only the kinds of things I would imagine looking at. - Out of paradigm novel ideas I have heard continually from friends in research are much harder to get funding for. I don't know if this creates wrong science, but it limits scope - It's very risky for your career to publish any sensitive genetic or anthropologic research. If you're a geneticist, you're very unlikely to touch anything about race or sex differences with a ten foot pool, and god forbid you do a study and get a result that europeans or men outperform. Many cases of publishing such papers being career ending. May or may not be producing false data, but at a minimum creates a blind spot and produces evidence only in one direction - Nutrition is horrible science. Massive fraction of all departments have funding directly from industrial or corporate food and drug companies. Digging here you'll find lots of example of horrible, absolutely atrocious papers. Then you'll see they have an h-index of like 30, 40, 50+ are you're just like "wtf....."
Yeah the god damn mainstream scientific consensus on nutrition that is held by pretty every fucking health agency in the modern world Is so bad, The thought of having a well balanced diet with a focus on natural greens and vegetables with balanced intake of meat and fish is fucking unscientific and bad for you and sponsored by big pharma.
|
On November 06 2024 20:56 Xan wrote:
Yeah the god damn mainstream scientific consensus on nutrition that is held by pretty every fucking health agency in the modern world Is so bad, The thought of having a well balanced diet with a focus on natural greens and vegetables with balanced intake of meat and fish is fucking unscientific and bad for you and sponsored by big pharma.
the goal is to keep you kinda, sorta ill for decades so that you continue to be a life time customer of Big Pharma.
|
Northern Ireland25333 Posts
On November 06 2024 20:51 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 20:44 WombaT wrote:On November 06 2024 20:29 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On November 06 2024 20:08 WombaT wrote:
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
and Democratic Party voters have among them a similar group of idiotic, hateful, insane people. Hand pick from any group of 50+ million and you'll always find idiots. meh. The Democratic Party doesn’t cater to the worst of their base though, to anything like the same degree. That is the pertinent difference Wow. It's amazing how differently we see that. I'm curious to hear how you see both the left and the right catering to the "worst of their base". Which I take to mean the far right, super spiteful, full on Nazi types on the right, and the absolute worst of the spiteful, crabs in a bucket, leftist LGBTQ mega diversity types on the left.
If the Democratic Party catered to its further left elements, it would actually be a left wing party.
And ‘cater’ doesn’t necessarily do absolutely everything x group wants, insert 15 other caveats
|
Americans dedication to make the world a worse place at all cost, even if it means enduring again the ridicule of reelecting the most grotesque man in America, is quite remarkable.
|
On November 06 2024 20:59 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 20:56 Xan wrote:
Yeah the god damn mainstream scientific consensus on nutrition that is held by pretty every fucking health agency in the modern world Is so bad, The thought of having a well balanced diet with a focus on natural greens and vegetables with balanced intake of meat and fish is fucking unscientific and bad for you and sponsored by big pharma.
the goal is to keep you kinda, sorta ill for decades so that you continue to be a life time customer of Big Pharma.
Yeah the big pharma is trying to gaslight us from the fact that most of the population in the western world eat very healthy and exercise regulary. Thereby they won't have a need for their products and they lose money.
|
On November 06 2024 20:39 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 20:18 L_Master wrote:On November 06 2024 20:08 WombaT wrote: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: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. You can be an affable person and have hateful abstract political beliefs. Or the inverse etc etc Possibly why so many arguments also happen, I don’t know if you’re a conservative yourself but regardless So much energy is put into defending these people, or excusing their behavioural, or blaming the ‘elites’ for disenfranchising them. Or Donald Trump’s latest blatant misbehaviour You don’t have to do that (the collective ‘you’) try this: 1. ‘Hey yeah those people kinda suck, not my kind of conservatism’ 2. ‘I’ll reluctantly vote for Trump because my values are too far from the Democratic Party, but man he sure is a shitbag One doesn’t have to, but one absolutely CAN do these things if one is actually serious about common ground. And of course some on the other side of the ledger could have some equivalent concessions, I’m talking from my perspective of what frequently poisons ones I’m involved in Instead the pattern is 1. Defend the basically indefensible for some reason 2. Other side of discussion gets increasingly irascible 3. ‘Why can’t we have productive conversations’
I'm a very unusual set of beliefs that change fairly often. For example I lean towards genetic determinism/scientific racism. I'm not convinced that's how rEaLiTy is, but I lean that way. Super far right kind of thing.
Then on the other hand, I think transmen are indeed, men, and a transwoman is indeed a woman.
I think Xtianity is amazing warts and all, despite not believing in god.
I'm pro abortion.
I'm not interested in forcing anyone to live by my beliefs. My preference is for a very small central government, and then pushing most decision making way down below the state level to small federation. Closer to counties than to states, so that people can find the methods of governing that work for themselves, and moving between them is fluid and you're not stuck in a giant Red or Blue expanse like Texas or California with those ways forced on you.
I'm an original textualist when it comes to the Court
I think polyamory is fine and works great for 10-20% of the population
Etc.
(For the bolded, I don't find that happens to often. Usually I'm able to get to what they believe, and then I sort of push around for why, and it feels like it usually boils down to everybody around them believes it so they do also and the social cost of giving it up isn't tenable; it's something they will almost always believe from personality, in the same way high conscientiousness people cannot seem to understand ADHD types, totally different set of facts or assumption about reality, etc.)
|
On November 06 2024 21:04 Xan wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 20:59 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On November 06 2024 20:56 Xan wrote:
Yeah the god damn mainstream scientific consensus on nutrition that is held by pretty every fucking health agency in the modern world Is so bad, The thought of having a well balanced diet with a focus on natural greens and vegetables with balanced intake of meat and fish is fucking unscientific and bad for you and sponsored by big pharma.
the goal is to keep you kinda, sorta ill for decades so that you continue to be a life time customer of Big Pharma. Yeah the big pharma is trying to gaslight us from the fact that most of the population in the western world eat very healthy and exercise regulary. Thereby they won't have a need for their products and they lose money.
Most people in the West eat absolute garbage (especially in Norway by the way) and have a good awful lifestyle (though i give you that norwegians are good at that).
Do you know what the obesity rate is the US and what people eat there? It’s absolutely disgusting.
|
On November 06 2024 19:33 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I am pretty confident that i can argue reasonably well for a sane conservative position, like one championed by the names you mention.
But sadly, those aren't the conservatives we have. I have zero confidence in my ability to steelman the MAGA position, which seems to be mostly insane gibberish, conspiracy theories and memes to me. I could start with some vague idea and steelman it into something sane, but then i would be very far removed from actual MAGA positions again.
|
On November 06 2024 20:56 Xan wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 20:39 L_Master wrote:On November 06 2024 20:32 EnDeR_ wrote:On November 06 2024 20:28 Uldridge wrote:On November 06 2024 19:59 L_Master wrote: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. I believe we're in the dark ages of scientific research because it's all to do with funding and clout and unwillingness to reflect on biases. Replication crisis, predatory journals, actual fraudulence in papers (made up data etc), peer reviews being shit at times because reviewers don't like the research due to it clashing with their work or they want to publish that type of research first. It's crazy. People lose faith in the framework because people abuse everything that's built on the solid foundations. In this aspect I don't think science a self correcting thing any longer. More fundamentally I think it's one of the narratives on how we can shape society, just like religion. It's important becuase it's useful. Make science useless and it's existence stops. As far as reality goes, a thing I wanted to mention that is very apt right now: no matter the facts, if people feel a certain way, you won't change that by flaunting numbers in their faces. Example: people feel unsafe in public spaces, even though empirically speaking, the crime rate has gone down. Saying this won't make a difference. "Reality" in this case is that people, through a variety of paramaters, feel less safe than it actually is. The idea is the find out why that is, not saying that they're wrong. I will direct the same question to yourself as I did to L_master. Do you have any evidence that modern science is being misled by these perverse incentives and that the self-correcting nature of the scientific consensus is not working? I would genuinely like to look at this. I can give you the ideas of things to look for. I'm not saying any of these are or are not happening. Only the kinds of things I would imagine looking at. - Out of paradigm novel ideas I have heard continually from friends in research are much harder to get funding for. I don't know if this creates wrong science, but it limits scope - It's very risky for your career to publish any sensitive genetic or anthropologic research. If you're a geneticist, you're very unlikely to touch anything about race or sex differences with a ten foot pool, and god forbid you do a study and get a result that europeans or men outperform. Many cases of publishing such papers being career ending. May or may not be producing false data, but at a minimum creates a blind spot and produces evidence only in one direction - Nutrition is horrible science. Massive fraction of all departments have funding directly from industrial or corporate food and drug companies. Digging here you'll find lots of example of horrible, absolutely atrocious papers. Then you'll see they have an h-index of like 30, 40, 50+ are you're just like "wtf....." Yeah the god damn mainstream scientific consensus on nutrition that is held by pretty every fucking health agency in the modern world Is so bad, The thought of having a well balanced diet with a focus on natural greens and vegetables with balanced intake of meat and fish is fucking unscientific and bad for you and sponsored by big pharma.
1) My health improved noticeably when I made vegetables a rare intake and focused on lots of red meat. By subjective measures and by all the typical biomarkers and labs. 7 years now.
YMMV. This is NOT a claim that I have found some dietary secret or nonsense like that.
2) USAObesityMap.jpeg
3) If #2 didn't make sense, it's as much what is left out as it is about what's included. The recommendations of what to eat don't seem bad. The recommendations on how to eat it are atrocious.
|
On November 06 2024 21:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Do you know what the obesity rate is the US and what people eat there? It’s absolutely disgusting.
Food scientists devote their entire lives to creating laboratory made frankenstein foods that light up your entire brain. If you want to optimize your level of health ... It is all out war.
|
On November 06 2024 13:23 FlaShFTW wrote:
Well that ends my coverage considering Rust Belt and AZ are gonna take days to count their votes. Really feels like 2016 all over again. Pretty significant red wave for the presidency and the Selzer poll being off by so much really left a sour taste in my mouth.
It's not entirely over yet, there's some some comeback potential for Harris but she needs to run the gauntlet in the Rust Belt to win, sort of like how Biden did when things didn't look good for him. But we'll pretty much know by tomorrow morning.
GG everyone appreciate everyone who tuned in for the coverage, we'll see everyone in 2 years for the midterms!
Thanks for the stream I enjoyed it.
|
On November 06 2024 21:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 21:04 Xan wrote:On November 06 2024 20:59 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On November 06 2024 20:56 Xan wrote:
Yeah the god damn mainstream scientific consensus on nutrition that is held by pretty every fucking health agency in the modern world Is so bad, The thought of having a well balanced diet with a focus on natural greens and vegetables with balanced intake of meat and fish is fucking unscientific and bad for you and sponsored by big pharma.
the goal is to keep you kinda, sorta ill for decades so that you continue to be a life time customer of Big Pharma. Yeah the big pharma is trying to gaslight us from the fact that most of the population in the western world eat very healthy and exercise regulary. Thereby they won't have a need for their products and they lose money. Most people in the West eat absolute garbage (especially in Norway by the way) and have a good awful lifestyle (though i give you that norwegians are good at that). Do you know what the obesity rate is the US and what people eat there? It’s absolutely disgusting.
Which is my point.
The nutrition and exercise recommendations are not that different from saying:
"Biff, I recommend you work with furious focus for 4-8 hours each day. Locked in. Lazer focused. Then go relax and enjoy life"
"Biff, I recommend not getting upset and shouting at somebody or allowing their behavior to frustrate you"
"Biff, I recommend that you always be witty, charming, and a calming secure presence when around women"
My hunch is most would say the actual advice is fine.
|
On November 06 2024 20:32 EnDeR_ wrote:
I will direct the same question to yourself as I did to L_master. Do you have any evidence that modern science is being misled by these perverse incentives and that the self-correcting nature of the scientific consensus is not working? I would genuinely like to look at this.
I would call it being a victim of its own success, but aren't my examples good enough? Other than that, look at the volume and quality. We can also look at how much innovation there truly is.. we're stagnating. Are we stagnating because of all the shit or are we stagnating because of inspiration crisis, or because we're pursuing old ideas? Maybe we're just too dumb to go further. We need a breakthrough at the very least. Fusion, Moon or Mars colony, general AI, who knows. All I see is self interest promotion and high volume, not high tech translation or insights.
|
As a non-American, this is a very disappointing but sadly not unexpected result. Any democracy electing a convicted criminal is completely mental to me.
Trump's flagship economic policies of tariffs and tax cuts will inevitably lead to significant inflation, which will affect Australia. A potential trade war with China will most certainly affect Australia too, China are by far our biggest trading partner and where most of our exports go.
When Trump was in last time, our relationship with China was badly damaged and it took a lot of time and work to rebuild. Embargoes on Australian products would be disastrous, we can't exactly make it up with exports to the US instead if tariffs come in.
I fear Australia will experience significant diplomatic pressure from both countries and it will be a lose/lose situation for us.
|
On November 06 2024 20:30 Gorsameth wrote:
No I'm done making excuses for Americans. They are racist, sexist morons and if they have a problem with being branded as such they should have thought about that before voting for a racist rapist who can't string a coherent thought together.
the economic opportunities in the USA are way better than in Canada. Because the USA is so great... you see its flaws more easily. its flaws appear larger because of the depth and breadth of the responsibilities it fulfills.
I'm lucky to be in the USA. I think Americans are great.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
