|
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 22:09 L_Master wrote:I would feel confident that 99/100 people would both feel worse and have worse blood markers (CBC, WBC, HDL/LDL/Trigs, etc.) in far less than five years. I would also wager the same for consistent soda consumption, especially if in a surplus of calories. Show nested quote +because when i was a high schooler i sat in my room playing starcraft 24/7, and when i went away to school there was ample outdoor hiking opportunities. Makes sense to me. You made a major positive life change and saw some benefits.
where does your confidence come from? and can you dumb down for me why you think smokers have decreased health markers?
and i’m sure you’re missing the point intentionally, but in case not, the risk of results based analysis i’m highlighting here is obviously confusing correlation for causation. i could as easily convince myself drinking is the cause of my increased muscle mass.
|
Trump's been president-elect for only a few hours, and we're already denying basic facts about nutrition.
Thanks, Obama.
|
On November 06 2024 22:09 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 22:02 Xan wrote:On November 06 2024 21:43 L_Master wrote:On November 06 2024 21:38 brian wrote:On November 06 2024 21:10 L_Master wrote:On November 06 2024 20:56 Xan wrote: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:
[quote]
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. this results based analysis has obvious flaws. talk to a smoker in the 60s, and they’d feel fucking great. talk to a guy who bumped his first line of coke and his momentary impression is that it’s a wonder drug. the long term effects of a diet heavy in red meat has demonstrable consequences. that you aren’t seeing them right now is, of course, not evidence that they don’t exist. Let's say I smoke for 5 years. Do expect things like my testosterone, blood sugar, cholesterol, trigs, immune markers, heart rate, etc, to improve? Would you expect someone who smokes for 5 years to feel better or the same with each passing year? Are you mostly avoiding procceced meat? not eating excess amounts of one thing and generally balancing your intake of calories?, getting your requiered nutrients and vitamins through various means confirmed apparently by regular bloodowork? Congratulations in this case you just described yourself having a probably healthy and balanced diet. It's in the name a recomendation that for the average person would promote a healthy diet and nothing more. And the average population is in no way or form close to following anything that resembles these principles I probably average about 250-500g of ham per day. The rest I get is mostly through beef of various cuts (usually 150-200g protein per day), then potatoes and rice as the main carb sources. Some butter and ice cream here and there, along with occassional snacks. Usually sugar. Pure sugar stuff (slurpees, gummi candies, etc.). I've found fatcarbs to be nothing but an absolute disaster for me. Overeat, gain weight, feel worse in fairly short order if fatcarb consumption goes high. Show nested quote + And the average population is in no way or form close to following anything that resembles these principles That's the main thing I'm driving at, that Biff was missing. It's not that the advice is bad. It's that the advice is incomplete.
Your statement was that the field of nutrition is horrible science. The advice of how to incorporate results into society being in your opinion "Incomplete" has nothing to do with the science. The US regulations and political system allowing for the distortion of knowledge from 3rd parties and a increasing illiteracy from failing education system failing the individual does neither
|
On November 06 2024 22:18 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 22:09 L_Master wrote:I would feel confident that 99/100 people would both feel worse and have worse blood markers (CBC, WBC, HDL/LDL/Trigs, etc.) in far less than five years. I would also wager the same for consistent soda consumption, especially if in a surplus of calories. because when i was a high schooler i sat in my room playing starcraft 24/7, and when i went away to school there was ample outdoor hiking opportunities. Makes sense to me. You made a major positive life change and saw some benefits. where does your confidence come from? and can you dumb down for me why you think smokers have decreased health markers? and i’m sure you’re missing the point intentionally, but in case not, the risk of results based analysis i’m highlighting here is obviously confusing correlation for causation. i could as easily convince myself drinking is the cause of my increased muscle mass.
Descriptions in literature of what smoking tends to do to both the body from a physical perspective, as well as changes to biomarkers in literature which studies of far shorter duration than five years.
Second point: Don't get it. Where did I mention causality?
Are you arguing an imaginary demon? Or did I misspeak somewhere? I don't think I once said "I am certain this improved my health":
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.
That's much different than saying something like:
My health improved noticeably because I made vegetables a rare intake and focused on lots of red meat. If I had said that, I'd be following you better
|
On November 06 2024 22:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Trump's been president-elect for only a few hours, and we're already denying basic facts about nutrition.
Thanks, Obama.
denying facts about nutrition has been going on long before Trump got elected though. Ultimately, its up to the individual to do their own research and create their own health plan.
Personally, I started by taking a careful look at what my great grandparents who lived past 90 did and compared it to the general population.
|
On November 06 2024 22:22 Xan wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 22:09 L_Master wrote:On November 06 2024 22:02 Xan wrote:On November 06 2024 21:43 L_Master wrote:On November 06 2024 21:38 brian wrote:On November 06 2024 21:10 L_Master wrote:On November 06 2024 20:56 Xan wrote: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:
[quote]
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. this results based analysis has obvious flaws. talk to a smoker in the 60s, and they’d feel fucking great. talk to a guy who bumped his first line of coke and his momentary impression is that it’s a wonder drug. the long term effects of a diet heavy in red meat has demonstrable consequences. that you aren’t seeing them right now is, of course, not evidence that they don’t exist. Let's say I smoke for 5 years. Do expect things like my testosterone, blood sugar, cholesterol, trigs, immune markers, heart rate, etc, to improve? Would you expect someone who smokes for 5 years to feel better or the same with each passing year? Are you mostly avoiding procceced meat? not eating excess amounts of one thing and generally balancing your intake of calories?, getting your requiered nutrients and vitamins through various means confirmed apparently by regular bloodowork? Congratulations in this case you just described yourself having a probably healthy and balanced diet. It's in the name a recomendation that for the average person would promote a healthy diet and nothing more. And the average population is in no way or form close to following anything that resembles these principles I probably average about 250-500g of ham per day. The rest I get is mostly through beef of various cuts (usually 150-200g protein per day), then potatoes and rice as the main carb sources. Some butter and ice cream here and there, along with occassional snacks. Usually sugar. Pure sugar stuff (slurpees, gummi candies, etc.). I've found fatcarbs to be nothing but an absolute disaster for me. Overeat, gain weight, feel worse in fairly short order if fatcarb consumption goes high. And the average population is in no way or form close to following anything that resembles these principles That's the main thing I'm driving at, that Biff was missing. It's not that the advice is bad. It's that the advice is incomplete. Your statement was that the field of nutrition is horrible science. The advice of how to incorporate results into society being in your opinion "Incomplete" has nothing to do with the science. The US regulations and political system allowing for the distortion of knowledge from 3rd parties and a increasing illiteracy from failing education system failing the individual does neither
Oh I think I might understand now. That's partially me then.
My personal experience is not driving the "nutrition is a horrible science" comment. That comment is driven purely from the absolutely awful studies I've come across over and over and over, along with the known conflicts with funding for almost all labs.
On November 06 2024 22:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Trump's been president-elect for only a few hours, and we're already denying basic facts about nutrition.
Thanks, Obama.
What basic facts do you perceive are being denied?
|
The Guardian is characterizing this as 'fear winning over hope'.
If you watched Harris and that somehow gave you hope for something, I'm worried for you.
What hope was there with the Democrats anyway? Ooh I really hope everything stays kinda shit.
|
On November 06 2024 22:28 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 22:18 brian wrote:On November 06 2024 22:09 L_Master wrote:I would feel confident that 99/100 people would both feel worse and have worse blood markers (CBC, WBC, HDL/LDL/Trigs, etc.) in far less than five years. I would also wager the same for consistent soda consumption, especially if in a surplus of calories. because when i was a high schooler i sat in my room playing starcraft 24/7, and when i went away to school there was ample outdoor hiking opportunities. Makes sense to me. You made a major positive life change and saw some benefits. where does your confidence come from? and can you dumb down for me why you think smokers have decreased health markers? and i’m sure you’re missing the point intentionally, but in case not, the risk of results based analysis i’m highlighting here is obviously confusing correlation for causation. i could as easily convince myself drinking is the cause of my increased muscle mass. Descriptions in literature of what smoking tends to do to both the body from a physical perspective, as well as changes to biomarkers in literature which studies of far shorter duration than five years. Second point: Don't get it. Where did I mention causality? Are you arguing an imaginary demon? Or did I misspeak somewhere? I don't think I once said "I am certain this improved my health": Show nested quote +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. That's much different than saying something like: My health improved noticeably because I made vegetables a rare intake and focused on lots of red meat. If I had said that, I'd be following you better
descriptions in literature is a crazy verbal gymnastic to avoid saying i trust the science when i agree with it, while you call out other ‘literatures’ as untrustworthy when it doesn’t align with your limited personal experience. i’m trying to highlight that results based analysis is intensely flawed. it leads to exactly this kind of anecdotal silliness.
that you’re substituting ‘when’ for ‘because’ is either intensely semantic or specifically highlighting your propensity for seeing results as correlations. i’m not sure which but, i guess at least we got here together.
in english results implies one thing leads to another. if you’re using this in some other fashion where you’re obviously understanding that eating a diet high in red meat isn’t actually resulting in your experienced health changes then please do correct me. sorry in advance for the misunderstanding.
|
On November 06 2024 22:30 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 22:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Trump's been president-elect for only a few hours, and we're already denying basic facts about nutrition.
Thanks, Obama. denying facts about nutrition has been going on long before Trump got elected though. Ultimately, its up to the individual to do their own research and create their own health plan. Personally, I started by taking a careful look at what my great grandparents who lived past 90 did and compared it to the general population.
While this is fine and dandy on apersonall level.
It's pretty fucking horrible fallacy in any serious argument.
"My father smoked everyday until he was 95 and never got sick a day in his life" you probably heared something like this before?
|
Northern Ireland22614 Posts
On November 06 2024 21:56 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 21:41 WombaT wrote:On November 06 2024 21:09 Simberto wrote: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. 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 21:06 L_Master wrote:On November 06 2024 20:39 WombaT wrote: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.) Thanks, interesting What I was really getting at is, why is it so difficult for many conservatives to just distance themselves, or draw a distinction to another group, rather than defend them reflexively? Not you specifically, more broadly. And really only as pronounced a trend in the Trump era One doesn’t have to defend Donald Trump on absolutely everything. One can just say ‘hey those folks are dicks but those aren’t my views’. Being very speculative here, I think a portion of it is territory. Similar to how you would likely defend yourself against an intruder in your home, or react reflexively to someone trying to get into your car. Words, verbal space, whatever...I see that as a form of territory and something that we have a reflexive nature to defend because failure to do so can carry real costs (loss of status, ostracization, even death). There is also a big "cost" in there with changing beliefs. If I believe that the right is well....right, and then decide that the left is actually "right" that's a big neurological cost. It's very disorienting. My whole identity could be in flux, all the ways I understood the world might need to change. I think it's possible we have a instinctual defense against those costs as well. Show nested quote +To go back to Simberto’s point, people give up trying to find middle grounds if they continue to hit brick walls.
As they also say, it’s somehow continuing to get even worse, like genuinely draining to deal with.
Sometimes you do hit that ‘hey, agree to disagree’ eventually, but they stage should NOT be over basic, incontrovertible facts. I shouldn’t just get a ‘nope’ if I bring up something Trump said on video like, that day or whatever
And the same folks will have the fucking gall to complain about ‘echo chambers’ and ‘nobody wants to have conversations anymore’
There’s sometimes lots of commonality across, I’d find it rather difficult to make an argument that the wider left have some of these issues.
The left will accept criticism of their leaders, indeed they may be the one leading the charge. Leftist infighting is a meme for a quite legitimate reason I agree if it's literally over the actual content of the video, but oftentimes the person is jumping to cutting of they guess at what you're reasoning for bringing up the clip was. I'd like to think most Trumpers wouldn't deny, say, that Trump mentioned guns being pointed at Cheney. But they might start objecting when they make a guess at where they think you are going and want to reframe to how they see it, or their assumptions (from their POV) about what Trump's meaning was beyond the statement. Fwiw, one of the reasons the dissident right never gets anywhere is because they have insane levels of infighting. They are absolutely all incredibly disagreeable individuals, and will absolute rip each other to shreds over the tiniest of details.
You aren’t really changing beliefs though, that’s the thing. Indeed in ways you may be reinforcing them. Changing real core beliefs can be hard indeed, and don’t tend to occur over a single conversation
Concede a point. One can be critical of one’s own tribe, especially if perhaps somebody transgresses one of your beliefs. I’m not exclusively talking about Trump, but he’s a pretty common lightning rod.
It’s why I don’t find it particularly hyperbolic to class the Trump phenomena as a cult of personality.
You were bemoaning the partisan, toxic divide yourself. It would help, even in some minor sense to not have to headbutt a brick wall engaging in certain topics
Hey, I’m just outright not engaging in politics chat if it takes that blood from a stone to get even by most minute concession of a point form. I suspect there’ll be rather a lot coming up
It’s my number one frustration on a personal level, not necessarily the sole or major cause of the wider problem IMO
|
On November 06 2024 22:30 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 22:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Trump's been president-elect for only a few hours, and we're already denying basic facts about nutrition.
Thanks, Obama. denying facts about nutrition has been going on long before Trump got elected though. Ultimately, its up to the individual to do their own research and create their own health plan. Personally, I started by taking a careful look at what my great grandparents who lived past 90 did and compared it to the general population.
Oh, of course. I was just being sarcastic about the connection between nutrition denial and Trump 
|
On November 06 2024 22:39 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 22:28 L_Master wrote:On November 06 2024 22:18 brian wrote:On November 06 2024 22:09 L_Master wrote:I would feel confident that 99/100 people would both feel worse and have worse blood markers (CBC, WBC, HDL/LDL/Trigs, etc.) in far less than five years. I would also wager the same for consistent soda consumption, especially if in a surplus of calories. because when i was a high schooler i sat in my room playing starcraft 24/7, and when i went away to school there was ample outdoor hiking opportunities. Makes sense to me. You made a major positive life change and saw some benefits. where does your confidence come from? and can you dumb down for me why you think smokers have decreased health markers? and i’m sure you’re missing the point intentionally, but in case not, the risk of results based analysis i’m highlighting here is obviously confusing correlation for causation. i could as easily convince myself drinking is the cause of my increased muscle mass. Descriptions in literature of what smoking tends to do to both the body from a physical perspective, as well as changes to biomarkers in literature which studies of far shorter duration than five years. Second point: Don't get it. Where did I mention causality? Are you arguing an imaginary demon? Or did I misspeak somewhere? I don't think I once said "I am certain this improved my health": 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. That's much different than saying something like: My health improved noticeably because I made vegetables a rare intake and focused on lots of red meat. If I had said that, I'd be following you better descriptions in literature is a crazy verbal gymnastic to avoid saying i trust the science when i agree with it, while you call out other ‘literatures’ as untrustworthy when it doesn’t align with your limited personal experience. i’m trying to highlight that results based analysis is intensely flawed. it leads to exactly this kind of anecdotal silliness. that you’re substituting ‘when’ for ‘because’ is either intensely semantic or specifically highlighting your propensity for seeing results as correlations. i’m not sure which but, i guess at least we got here together.
"I had fun because it was raining
"I had fun when it was raining"
First sentence is explicit causation. Second sentence does not imply any causation.
It's saying A happened, then B happened. Nothing that says the two events are linked.
descriptions in literature is a crazy verbal gymnastic to avoid saying i trust the science when i agree with it, while you call out other ‘literatures’ as untrustworthy when it doesn’t align with your limited personal experience. i’m trying to highlight that results based analysis is intensely flawed. it leads to exactly this kind of anecdotal silliness.
10x more obnoxious when you assume a bunch of unhinged stuff rather than say "It feels like you're doing this, am I reading you right"
|
My fellow Americans, our long national nightmare is over. Wow! What a result!
We have been unburdened by what has been. The American people have roundly rejected leftist division and extremism. Right now down 15m from Biden but at the end it will probably be closer to a 10 million drop in votes from the enthusiasm given to Biden/Harris the last time she ran.
I would ask my compatriots to remain calm and be made great again. Drumpf never wants his legacy to be that of Herbert Hoover for two reasons - Losing control of every branch of government, or causing a great depression, except in that of his enemies' minds.
The Rust President. How he can redraw the map this way is an absolute force of history. How can you get there twice with VA not even being close. Need to secede Northern Virginia to Maryland or something.
For the dynamism of your own party and our country make sure to come up with something besides "I'm not Drumpf" because in 4 years time everyone will be able to say that equally. Help us all get ways to make the country better because we're all on the same team.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On November 06 2024 22:40 Xan wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 22:30 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On November 06 2024 22:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Trump's been president-elect for only a few hours, and we're already denying basic facts about nutrition.
Thanks, Obama. denying facts about nutrition has been going on long before Trump got elected though. Ultimately, its up to the individual to do their own research and create their own health plan. Personally, I started by taking a careful look at what my great grandparents who lived past 90 did and compared it to the general population. While this is fine and dandy on apersonall level. It's pretty fucking horrible fallacy in any serious argument. "My father smoked everyday until he was 95 and never got sick a day in his life" you probably heared something like this before?
Let's assume that statement is true. Are you bothered when someone states a true statement?
(I could see an issue if you said something like my father never got sick a day in his life and he smoked till 95, so you should too.
But nobody is saying smoking is healthy. Nobody is saying you should eat a certain way.
So this makes no sense to me.)
|
On November 06 2024 22:32 Jockmcplop wrote:
The Guardian is characterizing this as 'fear winning over hope'.
If you watched Harris and that somehow gave you hope for something, I'm worried for you.
What hope was there with the Democrats anyway? Ooh I really hope everything stays kinda shit.
All the policies you and I just listed in our previous post(s) an hour or two ago... each of those would have moved things in the positive direction for families and quality of life.
On November 06 2024 22:31 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 22:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Trump's been president-elect for only a few hours, and we're already denying basic facts about nutrition.
Thanks, Obama. What basic facts do you perceive are being denied?
Sorry, don't mind me. I have nothing else to add to what everyone else is already saying to you.
|
On November 06 2024 22:47 oBlade wrote:My fellow Americans, our long national nightmare is over. Wow! What a result! We have been unburdened by what has been. The American people have roundly rejected leftist division and extremism. Right now down 15m from Biden but at the end it will probably be closer to a 10 million drop in votes from the enthusiasm given to Biden/Harris the last time she ran. I would ask my compatriots to remain calm and be made great again. Drumpf never wants his legacy to be that of Herbert Hoover for two reasons - Losing control of every branch of government, or causing a great depression, except in that of his enemies' minds. The Rust President. How he can redraw the map this way is an absolute force of history. How can you get there twice with VA not even being close. Need to secede Northern Virginia to Maryland or something. For the dynamism of your own party and our country make sure to come up with something besides "I'm not Drumpf" because in 4 years time everyone will be able to say that equally. Help us all get ways to make the country better because we're all on the same team. + Show Spoiler +
I feel like every single sentence in your post is subject to Poe's Law.
|
On November 06 2024 21:56 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 21:41 WombaT wrote:On November 06 2024 21:09 Simberto wrote: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. 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 21:06 L_Master wrote:On November 06 2024 20:39 WombaT wrote: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.) Thanks, interesting What I was really getting at is, why is it so difficult for many conservatives to just distance themselves, or draw a distinction to another group, rather than defend them reflexively? Not you specifically, more broadly. And really only as pronounced a trend in the Trump era One doesn’t have to defend Donald Trump on absolutely everything. One can just say ‘hey those folks are dicks but those aren’t my views’. Being very speculative here, I think a portion of it is territory. Similar to how you would likely defend yourself against an intruder in your home, or react reflexively to someone trying to get into your car. Words, verbal space, whatever...I see that as a form of territory and something that we have a reflexive nature to defend because failure to do so can carry real costs (loss of status, ostracization, even death). There is also a big "cost" in there with changing beliefs. If I believe that the right is well....right, and then decide that the left is actually "right" that's a big neurological cost. It's very disorienting. My whole identity could be in flux, all the ways I understood the world might need to change. I think it's possible we have a instinctual defense against those costs as well.
That is true, changing your core identity is not something people do lightly, and it is something that costs a lot.
But that isn't what politics should be about most of the time.
My ideal politics discussion would be "These are the facts, we both agree on them. This are the goals i think we should accomplish. This is what i want to do to accomplish those goals." "I disagree with those goals, i think these other goals are what we should strive for because Blah." or "I agree on those goals, but i think we should do Y to achieve them instead, because Z."
Discussions like that shouldn't touch your core identity most of the time, and are thus much easier to manage mentally, and more productive. It also makes it much easier to understand the opposition position and still disagree with it.
That was never really how politics worked, but we are moving ever further away from that. To get this level of politics back, we would need a common basis of bad behaviours which are completely unacceptable by politicians. We used to kinda have those, but they are just gone now, and Trump is a core reason for that. Making up bullshit should be completely disqualifying for a politician, because it breaks rational discourse. And that is something that is so incredibly obvious to me that i cannot understand how it apparently isn't a problem for other people.
I hate the whole idea of "must defend my team at all costs". It breaks everything.
And i know that we never had that ideal type of politics, either. That can clearly be seen by the massive amounts of election ads which are basically just a face of some person. But we are moving ever further away from it.
|
On November 06 2024 22:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 22:32 Jockmcplop wrote:
The Guardian is characterizing this as 'fear winning over hope'.
If you watched Harris and that somehow gave you hope for something, I'm worried for you.
What hope was there with the Democrats anyway? Ooh I really hope everything stays kinda shit. All the policies you and I just listed in our previous post(s) an hour or two ago... each of those would have moved things in the positive direction for families and quality of life. Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 22:31 L_Master wrote:On November 06 2024 22:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Trump's been president-elect for only a few hours, and we're already denying basic facts about nutrition.
Thanks, Obama. What basic facts do you perceive are being denied? Sorry, don't mind me. I have nothing else to add to what everyone else is already saying to you.
Well...nobody is saying anything to me.
Not one person has said:
"You said X, X is false".
Which is extra funny because I'm pretty damn sure everyone is more or less in agreement, unless people are REALLY reaching for implied "shoulds" in anything I've mentioned.
Like, no one has made an actual nutrition statement yet that I disagree with. Rather amusing
|
On November 06 2024 22:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 22:32 Jockmcplop wrote:
The Guardian is characterizing this as 'fear winning over hope'.
If you watched Harris and that somehow gave you hope for something, I'm worried for you.
What hope was there with the Democrats anyway? Ooh I really hope everything stays kinda shit. All the policies you and I just listed in our previous post(s) an hour or two ago... each of those would have moved things in the positive direction for families and quality of life. Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 22:31 L_Master wrote:On November 06 2024 22:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Trump's been president-elect for only a few hours, and we're already denying basic facts about nutrition.
Thanks, Obama. What basic facts do you perceive are being denied? Sorry, don't mind me. I have nothing else to add to what everyone else is already saying to you.
I mean...
Look at oblade's post above.
Sure, its 100% bullshit and made entirely of extremist far right propaganda, but these are the hopes and dreams people want.
"We're going to try and make housing cheaper" doesn't really cut it I'm afraid.
|
On November 06 2024 22:47 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 22:39 brian wrote:On November 06 2024 22:28 L_Master wrote:On November 06 2024 22:18 brian wrote:On November 06 2024 22:09 L_Master wrote:I would feel confident that 99/100 people would both feel worse and have worse blood markers (CBC, WBC, HDL/LDL/Trigs, etc.) in far less than five years. I would also wager the same for consistent soda consumption, especially if in a surplus of calories. because when i was a high schooler i sat in my room playing starcraft 24/7, and when i went away to school there was ample outdoor hiking opportunities. Makes sense to me. You made a major positive life change and saw some benefits. where does your confidence come from? and can you dumb down for me why you think smokers have decreased health markers? and i’m sure you’re missing the point intentionally, but in case not, the risk of results based analysis i’m highlighting here is obviously confusing correlation for causation. i could as easily convince myself drinking is the cause of my increased muscle mass. Descriptions in literature of what smoking tends to do to both the body from a physical perspective, as well as changes to biomarkers in literature which studies of far shorter duration than five years. Second point: Don't get it. Where did I mention causality? Are you arguing an imaginary demon? Or did I misspeak somewhere? I don't think I once said "I am certain this improved my health": 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. That's much different than saying something like: My health improved noticeably because I made vegetables a rare intake and focused on lots of red meat. If I had said that, I'd be following you better descriptions in literature is a crazy verbal gymnastic to avoid saying i trust the science when i agree with it, while you call out other ‘literatures’ as untrustworthy when it doesn’t align with your limited personal experience. i’m trying to highlight that results based analysis is intensely flawed. it leads to exactly this kind of anecdotal silliness. that you’re substituting ‘when’ for ‘because’ is either intensely semantic or specifically highlighting your propensity for seeing results as correlations. i’m not sure which but, i guess at least we got here together. "I had fun because it was raining "I had fun when it was raining" First sentence is explicit causation. Second sentence does not imply any causation. It's saying A happened, then B happened. Nothing that says the two events are linked. Show nested quote +descriptions in literature is a crazy verbal gymnastic to avoid saying i trust the science when i agree with it, while you call out other ‘literatures’ as untrustworthy when it doesn’t align with your limited personal experience. i’m trying to highlight that results based analysis is intensely flawed. it leads to exactly this kind of anecdotal silliness. 10x more obnoxious when you assume a bunch of unhinged stuff rather than say "It feels like you're doing this, am I reading you right"
sorry i’m not sure what you mean, which part of your quoted bit is obnoxious?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.ibb.co/44sgcNr/WOW.png)
