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.
Yeah, I have no doubts that if, given the choice, they'd sooner have redone everything they did in this election and lose to Trump again than have Bernie or anyone mildly interested in working class progress actually win.
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.
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.
Disclaimer: This is going to be a big block of text and it's barely relevant to the topic at hand (election), so if you're not interested in following this line of discussion, just scroll down now.
A lot of what I'm going to be writing about in this post is based on my experience in the field of psychology. While I absolutely think that research in psychology is usually a science (as in, adhering to the scientific method), there are also situations where I believe it is not a science so it may not be the best fit for this line of discussion opened by @Ender. However, enough people believe in the validity of the field without digging into whether a "consensus" is reached through scientific or unscientific means, and I will be providing some examples which apply to the sciences at large.
I would also like to disclose that I absolutely have a chip on my shoulder about how research is conducted in certain areas of psychology and how conclusions within those fields are arrived at, but I will try to present my position as objectively as possible.
Taking place over 2017 and 2018, their project entailed submitting bogus papers to academic journals on topics from the field of critical social theory such as cultural, queer, race, gender, fat, and sexuality studies to determine whether they would pass through peer review and be accepted for publication. Several of these papers were subsequently published, which the authors cited in support of their contention.
The Sokal affair, additionally known as the Sokal hoax,[1] was a demonstrative scholarly hoax performed by Alan Sokal, a physics professor at New York University and University College London. In 1996, Sokal submitted an article to Social Text, an academic journal of cultural studies. The submission was an experiment to test the journal's intellectual rigor, specifically to investigate whether "a leading North American journal of cultural studies—whose editorial collective includes such luminaries as Fredric Jameson and Andrew Ross—[would] publish an article liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the editors' ideological preconceptions."[2]
“I had no choice but to commit [research] misconduct,” admits a researcher at an elite Chinese university. The shocking revelation is documented in a collection of several dozen anonymous, in-depth interviews offering rare, first-hand accounts of researchers who engaged in unethical behaviour — and describing what tipped them over the edge. An article based on the interviews was published in April in the journal Research Ethics1.
Based on my personal experience, this issue is definitely not exclusive to China or Chinese researchers. I could speak about this topic at length but the TL;DR here is that there are situations where social, societal, hierarchical, professional, and financial pressures all lead to "bad" science. "Bad" science here being research done in bad faith, more specifically methods which reject data that goes against a hypothesis that is socially beneficial to espouse.
A US-based biophysicist who is one of the world’s most highly cited researchers has been removed from the editorial board of one journal and barred as a reviewer for another, after repeatedly manipulating the peer-review process to amass citations to his own work.
As mentioned above, there is a lot of politics and ego involved in science, because science is conducted by humans who are often bound by politics and ego. This isn't as egregious as submitting entirely fake research and having it published, but it is still a factor in terms of what gets published, who gets published, etc.
5. As Uldridge mentioned, there is also the Replication crisis, which basically infers that a lot of the research we have been relying on for decades has been tainted by the aforementioned "bad" science.
The replication crisis[a] is an ongoing methodological crisis in which the results of many scientific studies are difficult or impossible to reproduce. Because the reproducibility of empirical results is an essential part of the scientific method,[2] such failures undermine the credibility of theories building on them and potentially call into question substantial parts of scientific knowledge.
6. At this point I'll go into one of the areas of psychology/psychological research which I was most familiar with due to my work as a research assistant within it. It is also what exposed me to the aforementioned elements of politics, ego, personal sentiment, social pressures, etc. being involved in science.
This was shortly after the reclassification of Gender Identity Disorder (GID) into Gender Dysphoria (GD). I was conducting literature analysis on the presentation of GID and GD in new editions of textbooks in order to determine whether they have changed structurally in order to accommodate this reclassification. In short, my research was inspired by what I would consider to be a "pro"-trans position held by the head researcher, as it sought to evaluate whether the stigma of their condition being a "disorder" was appropriately being mitigated. This is something that I was on board with, because I believe that textbooks should present the most accurate and up-to-date information. For example, if one textbook simply changed the title and text of the subchapter GD without moving it out of the "Disorders" chapter, or if GD was squished firmly between the topics of drug addiction and gambling, then perhaps that publisher is not doing their best in understanding and presenting this change from GID to GD.
At some point, a question arose in my mind: "Why was this change made in the first place?" While the explanation offered by one of the people who was allegedly on the board* which made this decision does a great job of outlining the logic behind it, the under reason is even more simple reason: it offended people.
*I did some cursory research to try to see if I can conclusively place this person on the DSM panel which made this decision, but was unable to do so. However, this is because I'm not finding any comprehensive list anywhere. As it stands, I am inclined to believe that this person was indeed on this panel.
It should be noted that the person who posted this is transgender, which may present a conflict of interest, but it's not a claim I will try to argue here. For example, I'm not sure that we should bar people who have an anxiety disorder from doing research on anxiety disorders. However, when it comes to classification and the writing of definitions, I think that there may be a greater possibility of bias seeping in.
Anyway, from Natalie Walker's explanation, emphasis mine:
The reclassification from an identity issue to a dysphoric issue was a direct result of the stigma and psychological distress of the idea that being transgender was a type of psychiatric disorder, and it absolutely is not.
On the surface, this seems very much in line with the removal of homosexuality from the DSM back in 1973. I could discuss the differences between these two decisions, but this is not the crux of the issue for me. The crux of the issue for me is that because the old classifications offend people, they are changed. What were the studies conducted to support this outcome? I can't imagine that there were any real experiments being conducted (due to obvious ethical restraints). As such, I find this to be - within the context of this discussion - not scientific.
Yet, research within this field seems to be at least somewhat curated by the governing bodies that be. In other words, if your research goes against the grain of the consensus, that research might not be supported by your university, funded, or published. Even if it is published, it may then be removed or censored. In my personal experience, even broaching the topic of conducting research on what may be a sensitive topic for the transgender community can at the very least be heavily discouraged by your research advisors.
For an example beyond my own experience, this article was written by a researcher whose research was allegedly censored because it went against the narrative. Naturally, this is a first-hand source and is thus almost assuredly biased, but I wanted to provide one concrete example within this specific field of research.
I'm not saying that research on these topics doesn't happen. After all, there have been some incendiary studies published which report on the prevalent comorbidity of narcissism and GID, as well as some research looking into the hypothesis that there is a prevalent comorbidity with autism (and thus that autism may be a contributing factor to GID). My point is that this type of research is difficult to get off the ground, raises eyebrows, and can receive significant negative backlash. I believe it was Uldridge that mentioned that publishing certain kinds of research can end a person's career. There are many self-reported cases of "blackballing" in various fields of academia for this very reason.
I want to be clear that this is not exclusive to the hot button issue of GID and transgender rights. For example, studies on the performance of women vs. men in various disciplines are also affected. I can't find the article now, but one researcher had their research approved for publishing but then the governing body retracted it before publication, meaning that the researcher cannot publish it in a different journal and that no one can read it, either. The were then fired from their position at a western university, which they alleged was because female researchers at their university went on a warpath against them. Why? Because they went against the currently established narrative that women are equal to men in all ways, and thus any findings which purport that women might perform worse in math-related subjects is seen as actively harmful to women, and thus the research has effectively been sealed. I wish I could find this article but I have to head out soon and am running out of time; I'm sure I have it saved somewhere, so if I run into it later I will add it here.
Now, I'm not saying that I believe that men are superior to women in math. I just find it unscientific that research which supports this position doesn't see the light of day due to politics and individual feelings, while research supporting absolute equality is incredibly well-represented. Science, in my opinion, should not be constrained by optics.
Anyway, I'll circle back to ask: why is GID present in the most up-to-date DSM while something like Body Identity Dysphoria/body integrity identity disorder - roughly, the desire to have a limb amputated - is not? Why do we perform gender-affirming surgeries on people and give them hormone treatments, while the idea of operating on someone with BID/BIID generally dismissed? Representation, politics, and bias are almost certainly contributing factors - and this is almost assuredly the case in other areas of academia as well.
Definitely some disciplines are more vulnerable to bad actors than others, with psychology being a prime candidate. Likewise with high impact fields such as anything to do with medicine, where success leads to lots of research funding and even possibly fame, creating an environment where lying to succeed becomes, if not commonplace, uncomfortably common as was pointed out in the study that Uldridge linked and the more recent one I found. Nevertheless, you're still talking about less than 3% of total scientists, or, in other words, 97% of scientists are honest. That's a pretty big number.
I would argue that the fact that stuff like the reproducibility project has sprung up as a result of the 'reproducibility crisis' is the self-correcting nature of Science taking direct action. A bunch of researchers realised that a lot of the stuff couldn't be reproduced and was built on very shaky foundations, so they came up with new publishing standards and methodology to ensure that future publications are proofed against this. Again, it's an iterative process. It does not require everyone to get everything right all of the time.
Regarding the discussion about research into hot-button topics like "are men better than women" and "should trans people be classified as having a mental disorder": If you actually look at the literature, it is absolutely chock full of articles comparing men vs women in every imaginable combination of tasks, etc. with many finding differences. What is your contention?
I was mostly addressing the first half of your initial queation ("Do you have any evidence that modern science is being misled by these perverse incentives") more so than the latter (self-correction working). I agree with basically everything you've written here.
The only thing I'd reiterate is that even if there is published research which finds a hypothesis to be true (A) and there is research which finds the same hypothesis to not be true (B), that doesn't mean that they both had the same journey toward publication. A may have received generous funding, tons of support from the university, and was welcomed with open arms by a publisher. Meanwhile the researcher behind B lost support when it became evident that their research was going against the established belief, they were ridiculed by their colleagues and superiors, they had to apply to a different university to conduct research there instead, then they were stonewalled by the top journals and could only get published in a minor journal with little recognition and reach. In fact, the researcher behind B wasn't the first one to try, there were many others before them who for one reason or another didn't manage to or didn't want to overcome all of these obstacles. That in itself is the evidence of politics and bad actors in academic research, though I do agree with you that some fields are naturally more susceptible to this than others.
I'd also like to posit that improvement/revision in one field or on one topic does not necessarily imply that it happens everywhere and always, again due to the potential difficulty of even getting approval for research which goes against the grain, much less have it be objectively peer-reviewed and published.
This is very vague. You only get in high impact journals if the result is surprising or explains some major mechanism, I.e. you've contributed a major insight. Researcher B that you're describing has a better chance of getting into a high impact publication than researcher A to be perfectly honest, assuming the methodology is solid. The funding system is designed so the cost is paid upfront, so if you got the funding, you get to do the research. To do more research, you need to apply for more funding. You don't always get that funding.
While what you have written makes sense to me and I've known it to be true in some cases, what I wrote has been true in other cases, too. Limitations on funding may be systemic or prejudicial. There are some topics which may be the wrong kind of controversial and results which may be the wrong kind of revolutionary if accepted as the new gospel, so to speak.
I don't mean to assume too much but I suspect that we come from different academic backgrounds and thus anecdotal evidence is bound to be different, both first- and second-hand. In at least my case and the stories told to me by former colleagues, as well as articles written by disenfranchised, ostracized, and blackballed researchers in my former field of study, it seems that having world-upheaving, incendiary research often leads to your becoming a pariah rather than a celebrated revolutionary.
On November 07 2024 06:55 Gorsameth wrote: The EU wasn't not paying its part in NATO, the US didn't even want the EU to be doing their part. Because while the EU is completely reliant on the US military the US has complete control over where the West can cause and engage in conflicts.
If France for example were to decide they wanted to start a war they would need the US to back them because with a small military they cannot do so on their own. The stronger the EU is the more they can decide their own agenda and stir up trouble where the US doesn't want it.
Ofc present day Republicans seem to have decided that the US should no longer be the sole super power on the planet and that the immense preeminent position this has given the US is overrated.
NATO has a benchmark for its allies to spend at least 2% of its GDP on defense. Many countries were spending less than that and some still are. That’s literally not paying their part. Feel free to provide evidence for your claim that the US wanted them to not meet that benchmark.
On November 07 2024 04:05 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
WORSE! *sigh* SOOooo much worse... This is net 2020 vs 2024
Independents (or something else): +8 R Conservatives: +9 R Moderates: + 11 R
I can't emphasise enough how much the "we need to be more centrist" Democrats need to just be driven out of the party entirely if they can't shut the fuck up and fall in line behind the people that were shouted down by the people that backed Hillary and Biden to appeal to these mythical people that struggle choosing between Democrats and Trump.
This implies there are people to the left to pick up who are willing to vote.
Which might be right, but boy do they do a good job of hiding because I don't think we ever see them.
How can you expect to see them when Democrats exclusively try to pull Republicans, the people who are diametrically opposed to leftists in basically all ways?
If those 10s of millions of hidden American leftists existed, the 2016 and 2020 primaries would have been the time to come out.
They did in 2016 and 2020 and right-wing Democrats conspired to snuff them out.
A lot of the people that generally agree with Democrat's ostensible left oriented values aren't Democrats, especially those that don't typically vote. The US primary system isn't for them anyway.
They were outnumbered. The effort required to participate is minimal, that's exactly how Corbyn was voted in charge of Labour. A lot of people signed up specifically to elect him, membership increased by 50% leading up to the vote. Though we're talking much smaller party membership numbers overall there.
I don't think that bloc is as large as you want to believe it is, but I do think Bernie would have done better nationally. Not because of any left-right calculus, rather because he doesn't make stupid people feel stupid.
They weren't/aren't outnumbered though. The bloc, whatever size, was the "lesser evil" and one Democrats should have lined up behind.
Instead the leaders and most influential among them demanded everyone line up behind what would ultimately be a strategy to elect Donald Trump. Rank and file Democrats then fell in line behind them and shamed, blamed, scolded, threatened, etc anyone that didn't want to line up behind them.
That sounds plausible until we recall that he ran again in 2020 against another moderate establishment Democrat and lost harder.
If a couple million people that preferred Bernie over Hillary were duped by the narrative that Bernie would do worse against Trump and tactically voted for Hillary in the primary out of fear, that narrative went straight to the trash bin as soon as she lost, and there would have been no tactical calculus holding them back the next time.
Like I said, right-wing Democrats conspired to snuff them out (Remember who won Iowa?)
No, that narrative went right back to the top of their list of reasons to support Biden despite disagreeing with wide swaths of his policy prescriptions and record.
To quote Bush: "Fool me once, shame on.. shame on you. Fool me- you can't get fooled again".
2016 turned that argument from a difficult to predict hypothetical that I can understand being persuasive to some, to demonstrably wrong. I know it's not difficult to find excuses, but if the supposedly gargantuan American left wing crumbles to the lightest touch and weakest of arguments that would be on them. I think the simpler explanation is that they're fewer than we'd like.
On November 07 2024 04:05 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
WORSE! *sigh* SOOooo much worse... This is net 2020 vs 2024
Independents (or something else): +8 R Conservatives: +9 R Moderates: + 11 R
I can't emphasise enough how much the "we need to be more centrist" Democrats need to just be driven out of the party entirely if they can't shut the fuck up and fall in line behind the people that were shouted down by the people that backed Hillary and Biden to appeal to these mythical people that struggle choosing between Democrats and Trump.
This implies there are people to the left to pick up who are willing to vote.
Which might be right, but boy do they do a good job of hiding because I don't think we ever see them.
How can you expect to see them when Democrats exclusively try to pull Republicans, the people who are diametrically opposed to leftists in basically all ways?
If those 10s of millions of hidden American leftists existed, the 2016 and 2020 primaries would have been the time to come out.
They did in 2016 and 2020 and right-wing Democrats conspired to snuff them out.
A lot of the people that generally agree with Democrat's ostensible left oriented values aren't Democrats, especially those that don't typically vote. The US primary system isn't for them anyway.
They were outnumbered. The effort required to participate is minimal, that's exactly how Corbyn was voted in charge of Labour. A lot of people signed up specifically to elect him, membership increased by 50% leading up to the vote. Though we're talking much smaller party membership numbers overall there.
I don't think that bloc is as large as you want to believe it is, but I do think Bernie would have done better nationally. Not because of any left-right calculus, rather because he doesn't make stupid people feel stupid.
They weren't/aren't outnumbered though. The bloc, whatever size, was the "lesser evil" and one Democrats should have lined up behind.
Instead the leaders and most influential among them demanded everyone line up behind what would ultimately be a strategy to elect Donald Trump. Rank and file Democrats then fell in line behind them and shamed, blamed, scolded, threatened, etc anyone that didn't want to line up behind them.
That sounds plausible until we recall that he ran again in 2020 against another moderate establishment Democrat and lost harder.
If a couple million people that preferred Bernie over Hillary were duped by the narrative that Bernie would do worse against Trump and tactically voted for Hillary in the primary out of fear, that narrative went straight to the trash bin as soon as she lost, and there would have been no tactical calculus holding them back the next time.
It’s very difficult to quantify, I’d argue almost impossible. I think authoritative claims are ridiculous to make in this domain, and assessing their subsequent potential impact also.
I think it’s plausible that you had a ton of really enthused, in many cases new potential voters, folks putting a lot of themselves and their energy into Bernie’s first run, ending up disenchanted and saying fuck it and disengaging.
It’s also plausible that folks went back to the centre for reasons of pragmatism after being burned for their idealism last time.
Ultimately I think it’s asking the wrong questions.
Based on US sensibilities, hey I’d love it but I don’t think someone like Sanders can carry a general.
It’s less Clinton versus Sanders and more, if Clinton wins the primary, how does she keep the Sanders crowd on board.
The Democrats have to do this if their political opposition covers everything from respectable, principled centrists thru to cunts talking about Jewish space lazers, but somehow kinda all pull in the same direction.
If you can’t bring the left wing of the country along, you will lose that numbers game
In regards to someone like Bernie being able to pull of a general there's an interesting parallel here:
Turning Trump's racism/sexism against him was innefective largely because it was used so heavily against someone much more mild-mannered like Romney beforehand.
Similarly, Trump leaned heavily on radical left lunatics/communists against Kamala and Biden with AI pictures of her as Stalin and whatnot so if they exhaust all the anti-commie rhetoric on moderates they've got nothing extra in the tank against actual socialists.
If your tent is actual centrists thru fascists, keep em all on board. Trumps lot understand that and how to work it
If your tent is socialist leaning folks thru centrists, keep em all on board. Democrats apparently don’t
It’s not about purity, look if it was up to me it’s Bernie. But it’s not remotely about that
Look if we just arbitrarily draw a line in the spectrum and split it left and right.
The GOP basically hoover up everything to the right. The Democrats don’t do that to the left.
Which is the problem of the left apparently, but that’s another argument
This centrist, non-committal nonsense has lost twice in Presidential elections, and IMO would have lost the other time if CoVid wasn’t a thing
On November 07 2024 08:25 Zambrah wrote: Yeah, I have no doubts that if, given the choice, they'd sooner have redone everything they did in this election and lose to Trump again than have Bernie or anyone mildly interested in working class progress actually win.
It isn't that everyone demands Bernie or whoever is the man in front. It is they don't like this political game the DNC is playing. You can say a ton of things about republicans and Trump, but the man on their ticket is who had the most votes in a contested run. In the first showdown the DNC attempted to force Hillary into the #1 slot, and it wasn't that Bernie was going to win, but that they're attempting to tell the voters who already have less power than they should in their vote that they no longer get to chose who is running. Now they had Biden step down, so they could hand deliver it to Khamala without any input from the actual voters. It is fucking bullshit. And while it might not be the sole reason, it is a part of the reason why people to trust the democrats, sure some took Biden who was contested, and said well we don't like trump and Biden seems all right, but then when they're pulling the bait and switch, they're certainly not going to vote for Khamala. Biden might have actually stood a chance, but you're not getting people to convert when you're attempting to rig the race.
Yeah, without COVID Im actually pretty certain Trump would've beaten Biden too lmao
Keep up the centrism though, leftists dont exist and arent important, you'll win next time with all of those Republicans and moderates you'll totally get to vote for you!
On November 07 2024 08:25 Zambrah wrote: Yeah, I have no doubts that if, given the choice, they'd sooner have redone everything they did in this election and lose to Trump again than have Bernie or anyone mildly interested in working class progress actually win.
It isn't that everyone demands Bernie or whoever is the man in front. It is they don't like this political game the DNC is playing. You can say a ton of things about republicans and Trump, but the man on their ticket is who had the most votes in a contested run. In the first showdown the DNC attempted to force Hillary into the #1 slot, and it wasn't that Bernie was going to win, but that they're attempting to tell the voters who already have less power than they should in their vote that they no longer get to chose who is running. Now they had Biden step down, so they could hand deliver it to Khamala without any input from the actual voters. It is fucking bullshit. And while it might not be the sole reason, it is a part of the reason why people to trust the democrats, sure some took Biden who was contested, and said well we don't like trump and Biden seems all right, but then when they're pulling the bait and switch, they're certainly not going to vote for Khamala. Biden might have actually stood a chance, but you're not getting people to convert when you're attempting to rig the race.
I would argue that Kamala never having been popular and never having to have won a primary was certainly a thing that hurt her here yes, I will say though, even if she did win a primary and was chosen entirely organically that I dont think she would have won because Democrats aren't popular, lesser evilism and incremental "progress" isn't popular or effective, and Democrats have nothing to offer besides either of those things.
The working class suffers and Democrats aren't meaningfully willing or able to help them.
Or like in a super crude sense, is anyone going to argue with me that a Clinton/Sanders ticket would have done worse than Clinton/Kaine?
I think if you claim that you’re a genuinely insane person.
The US has a left, they’re not enough to solo carry an election as a left candidate, but it’s not an insignificant amount of people.
Run from the centre if it’s needed, shore up your left. It’s genuinely not a complicated calculus
If you’re continually making the argument that the nation is super polarised, but you don’t throw one of the poles a bone, you’ll fucking lose. As they did. Again
It doesn’t even have to be a Sanders, it can be someone less left leaning! Elizabeth Warren has some baggage, she’s a record on Wall Street bullshittery though. Quite progressive still, some record. Folks don’t really like Wall Street, you can’t say she doesn’t have a record in that topic
Instead their genius plan is to run a centrist, with a running mate who’s a centrist in an incredibly polarised political environment.
Wow. Truly inspiring shit and sensible political strategy
On November 07 2024 04:55 GreenHorizons wrote: Yeah, I'm working a line to Norway to live in Drone's closet but also I'm still kind of idealistic enough to want to fight the good fight rather than flee and hope to save myself (most likely only temporarily anyway).
Pretty sure Zam and others (like myself years ago lol) are right that global war is the way we're getting past this global fascist uprising and the factions aren't going to divide nicely along national lines.
living and working in more than 1 country is a good life time strat. NAFTA makes it possible to live any where in NA where you have a job. its even better to know multiple languages. guys like David Kim and Dan Stemkoski are doing it right.
my family moved around a lot. From 1 great grandparent branch they went Egypt/Germany/France/French Canada/ English Canada/Florida. From another it was Russia/Germany/ France / French Canada / English Canada / New York
People who try to live in only one country are leaving themselves wide open to getting fucked over.
I am optimistic for the future of the USA. Things are pretty good right now and I think they will get better. However, if things go bad I am leaving.
What are you optimistic about? Specifically
Kevin O'Leary outlined my reasons for optimism in the video i posted before the one to which you replied.
On November 07 2024 04:55 GreenHorizons wrote: Yeah, I'm working a line to Norway to live in Drone's closet but also I'm still kind of idealistic enough to want to fight the good fight rather than flee and hope to save myself (most likely only temporarily anyway).
Pretty sure Zam and others (like myself years ago lol) are right that global war is the way we're getting past this global fascist uprising and the factions aren't going to divide nicely along national lines.
living and working in more than 1 country is a good life time strat. NAFTA makes it possible to live any where in NA where you have a job. its even better to know multiple languages. guys like David Kim and Dan Stemkoski are doing it right.
my family moved around a lot. From 1 great grandparent branch they went Egypt/Germany/France/French Canada/ English Canada/Florida. From another it was Russia/Germany/ France / French Canada / English Canada / New York
People who try to live in only one country are leaving themselves wide open to getting fucked over.
I am optimistic for the future of the USA. Things are pretty good right now and I think they will get better. However, if things go bad I am leaving.
What are you optimistic about? Specifically
Kevin O'Leary outlined my reasons for optimism in the video i posted before the one to which you replied.
How about you bother to outline points you agree with from the video instead of trying to force people to watch through a weird cretin's video?
On November 07 2024 08:25 Zambrah wrote: Yeah, I have no doubts that if, given the choice, they'd sooner have redone everything they did in this election and lose to Trump again than have Bernie or anyone mildly interested in working class progress actually win.
It isn't that everyone demands Bernie or whoever is the man in front. It is they don't like this political game the DNC is playing. You can say a ton of things about republicans and Trump, but the man on their ticket is who had the most votes in a contested run. In the first showdown the DNC attempted to force Hillary into the #1 slot, and it wasn't that Bernie was going to win, but that they're attempting to tell the voters who already have less power than they should in their vote that they no longer get to chose who is running. Now they had Biden step down, so they could hand deliver it to Khamala without any input from the actual voters. It is fucking bullshit. And while it might not be the sole reason, it is a part of the reason why people to trust the democrats, sure some took Biden who was contested, and said well we don't like trump and Biden seems all right, but then when they're pulling the bait and switch, they're certainly not going to vote for Khamala. Biden might have actually stood a chance, but you're not getting people to convert when you're attempting to rig the race.
It’s this, 200%
The wise Democratic apparatus who have somehow managed to lose two Presidential elections to Donald fucking Trump, call the shots
Leave Bernie alone, let him do his thing. He’ll lose anyway. IMO stick him on that ticket but if you don’t want to do that, just leave it and he’ll lose the primary anyway. Just don’t dick with various processes
Maybe it’s not dementia, I’ve lost many grandparents to it and I don’t want to trivialise. Could just be regular age
Biden was fucking cooked as a viable candidate regardless
Instead the Dems thought it was a better idea to delay so long that an actual primary wasn’t realistic, not did Harris have much time to really build up the requisite rapport
But sure fuck what do I know? Although if one looks back my calls are remarkably accurate.
They managed to lose despite a repeal of Roe vs Wade moving from a decades long scare story to actual reality.
They managed to lose to a guy who in 2016 people thought claims of subverting democracy were ridiculous who subsequently actually legitimately did do that
On November 07 2024 04:55 GreenHorizons wrote: Yeah, I'm working a line to Norway to live in Drone's closet but also I'm still kind of idealistic enough to want to fight the good fight rather than flee and hope to save myself (most likely only temporarily anyway).
Pretty sure Zam and others (like myself years ago lol) are right that global war is the way we're getting past this global fascist uprising and the factions aren't going to divide nicely along national lines.
living and working in more than 1 country is a good life time strat. NAFTA makes it possible to live any where in NA where you have a job. its even better to know multiple languages. guys like David Kim and Dan Stemkoski are doing it right.
my family moved around a lot. From 1 great grandparent branch they went Egypt/Germany/France/French Canada/ English Canada/Florida. From another it was Russia/Germany/ France / French Canada / English Canada / New York
People who try to live in only one country are leaving themselves wide open to getting fucked over.
I am optimistic for the future of the USA. Things are pretty good right now and I think they will get better. However, if things go bad I am leaving.
"People who don't have the most privileged lives in the world sure are leaving themselves wide open to getting fucked over."
Thank you, I'm so glad someone finally mentioned this fact. And in the same post as Manchild Stemkoski, no less?! What a hero in these unwashed forums!
I'm optimistic that people who seriously think like this will go extinct or lose the rest of their ability to think logically in the next couple generations.
David Kim and Dan Stemkoski are 2 concrete examples familiar to these forums.
10s of millions of Canadians and Americans move to better places of better economic opportunity all the time. its been going on for decades. Also, NAFTA makes it easier to do so. I've been doing it. Most of my graduating class does it. Its not that big of a deal.
Mississauga, Ontario , Canada is filled with economic immigrants. Its not easy to learn a new culture and a new language. However, it is also not some rare act of unbelievable heroic bravery either.
Thinking you can just plop down in any one spot for 70+ years is a bad assumption.
On November 07 2024 04:55 GreenHorizons wrote: Yeah, I'm working a line to Norway to live in Drone's closet but also I'm still kind of idealistic enough to want to fight the good fight rather than flee and hope to save myself (most likely only temporarily anyway).
Pretty sure Zam and others (like myself years ago lol) are right that global war is the way we're getting past this global fascist uprising and the factions aren't going to divide nicely along national lines.
living and working in more than 1 country is a good life time strat. NAFTA makes it possible to live any where in NA where you have a job. its even better to know multiple languages. guys like David Kim and Dan Stemkoski are doing it right.
my family moved around a lot. From 1 great grandparent branch they went Egypt/Germany/France/French Canada/ English Canada/Florida. From another it was Russia/Germany/ France / French Canada / English Canada / New York
People who try to live in only one country are leaving themselves wide open to getting fucked over.
I am optimistic for the future of the USA. Things are pretty good right now and I think they will get better. However, if things go bad I am leaving.
What are you optimistic about? Specifically
Kevin O'Leary outlined my reasons for optimism in the video i posted before the one to which you replied.
I was asking you
Not being rude but I prefer to hear back from the folks directly, also my current life schedule suits dipping into a forum, not so much squeezing in video content
On November 07 2024 04:55 GreenHorizons wrote: Yeah, I'm working a line to Norway to live in Drone's closet but also I'm still kind of idealistic enough to want to fight the good fight rather than flee and hope to save myself (most likely only temporarily anyway).
Pretty sure Zam and others (like myself years ago lol) are right that global war is the way we're getting past this global fascist uprising and the factions aren't going to divide nicely along national lines.
living and working in more than 1 country is a good life time strat. NAFTA makes it possible to live any where in NA where you have a job. its even better to know multiple languages. guys like David Kim and Dan Stemkoski are doing it right.
my family moved around a lot. From 1 great grandparent branch they went Egypt/Germany/France/French Canada/ English Canada/Florida. From another it was Russia/Germany/ France / French Canada / English Canada / New York
People who try to live in only one country are leaving themselves wide open to getting fucked over.
I am optimistic for the future of the USA. Things are pretty good right now and I think they will get better. However, if things go bad I am leaving.
What are you optimistic about? Specifically
Kevin O'Leary outlined my reasons for optimism in the video i posted before the one to which you replied.
I was asking you
Not being rude but I prefer to hear back from the folks directly, also my current life schedule suits dipping into a forum, not so much squeezing in video content
The video is timed to hit his exact phrase and i time stamped it at 3:00 in my post.
Trump will increase energy supply thereby lowering the cost of hydro dramatically. If done right we can return to the hydro prices that upstate New York, Quebec, and Southern Ontario enjoyed before the Canadian government decided to "save the environment". I'm assuming prices adjusted to inflation of course.
On November 07 2024 04:55 GreenHorizons wrote: Yeah, I'm working a line to Norway to live in Drone's closet but also I'm still kind of idealistic enough to want to fight the good fight rather than flee and hope to save myself (most likely only temporarily anyway).
Pretty sure Zam and others (like myself years ago lol) are right that global war is the way we're getting past this global fascist uprising and the factions aren't going to divide nicely along national lines.
living and working in more than 1 country is a good life time strat. NAFTA makes it possible to live any where in NA where you have a job. its even better to know multiple languages. guys like David Kim and Dan Stemkoski are doing it right.
my family moved around a lot. From 1 great grandparent branch they went Egypt/Germany/France/French Canada/ English Canada/Florida. From another it was Russia/Germany/ France / French Canada / English Canada / New York
People who try to live in only one country are leaving themselves wide open to getting fucked over.
I am optimistic for the future of the USA. Things are pretty good right now and I think they will get better. However, if things go bad I am leaving.
"People who don't have the most privileged lives in the world sure are leaving themselves wide open to getting fucked over."
Thank you, I'm so glad someone finally mentioned this fact. And in the same post as Manchild Stemkoski, no less?! What a hero in these unwashed forums!
I'm optimistic that people who seriously think like this will go extinct or lose the rest of their ability to think logically in the next couple generations.
David Kim and Dan Stemkoski are 2 concrete examples familiar to these forums.
10s of millions of Canadians and Americans move to better places of better economic opportunity all the time. its been going on for decades. Also, NAFTA makes it easier to do so. I've been doing it. Most of my graduating class does it. Its not that big of a deal.
Mississauga, Ontario , Canada is filled with economic immigrants. Its not easy. It is also not some rare act of unbelievable heroic bravery either.
Thinking you can just plop down in any one spot for 70+ years is a bad assumption.
Artosis initially went to Korea on a wing and a prayer, off pure passion alone
He subsequently relocated for purely family reasons. Indeed he had to take a hit because he couldn’t do one of his regular gigs any longer
On November 07 2024 04:55 GreenHorizons wrote: Yeah, I'm working a line to Norway to live in Drone's closet but also I'm still kind of idealistic enough to want to fight the good fight rather than flee and hope to save myself (most likely only temporarily anyway).
Pretty sure Zam and others (like myself years ago lol) are right that global war is the way we're getting past this global fascist uprising and the factions aren't going to divide nicely along national lines.
living and working in more than 1 country is a good life time strat. NAFTA makes it possible to live any where in NA where you have a job. its even better to know multiple languages. guys like David Kim and Dan Stemkoski are doing it right.
my family moved around a lot. From 1 great grandparent branch they went Egypt/Germany/France/French Canada/ English Canada/Florida. From another it was Russia/Germany/ France / French Canada / English Canada / New York
People who try to live in only one country are leaving themselves wide open to getting fucked over.
I am optimistic for the future of the USA. Things are pretty good right now and I think they will get better. However, if things go bad I am leaving.
"People who don't have the most privileged lives in the world sure are leaving themselves wide open to getting fucked over."
Thank you, I'm so glad someone finally mentioned this fact. And in the same post as Manchild Stemkoski, no less?! What a hero in these unwashed forums!
I'm optimistic that people who seriously think like this will go extinct or lose the rest of their ability to think logically in the next couple generations.
David Kim and Dan Stemkoski are 2 concrete examples familiar to these forums.
10s of millions of Canadians and Americans move to better places of better economic opportunity all the time. its been going on for decades. Also, NAFTA makes it easier to do so. I've been doing it. Most of my graduating class does it. Its not that big of a deal.
Mississauga, Ontario , Canada is filled with economic immigrants. Its not easy. It is also not some rare act of unbelievable heroic bravery either.
Thinking you can just plop down in any one spot for 70+ years is a bad assumption.
Artosis initially went to Korea on a wing and a prayer, off pure passion alone
He subsequently relocated for purely family reasons. Indeed he had to take a hit because he couldn’t do one of his regular gigs any longer
He’s really not a very good example.
David Kim is Korean. He went to UBC in Canada. He worked at Relic in BC, Canada. He moved to the USA.
I went to a Canadian school filled with students who routinely move to the USA. NAFTA rules make it easy. Canada is filled with people who moved 1000s of KMs , learned 2 new languages and a new culture. It is definitely hard work. It is not like these people are landing a man on the moon though.
Imagine if all these people just plopped down wherever they were and didn't move for 70 years?
Jacques Parizeau blamed "the jews" for losing the 1995 referendum. Fuck that noise. It is fun watching Quebec circle the drain.
any one who just plops down wherever they were born and stays for 70 years leaves themselves vulnerable to the political whims of the majority population, to the whims of Donald Trump, to the whims of Justin Trudeau, or to the whims french terror groups like the FLQ. And again, NAFTA rules facilitates movement within NA. It is not like the USA is 1980 Soviet Union.
On November 06 2024 07:10 GreenHorizons wrote: Don't remember if I posted my thoughts or not but this is one example of something that's in the gray zone of "free and fair election".
Signature matching being used to disqualify high numbers of younger voters because the signature on their ballot doesn't match the digital one they made at the DMV on one of those shitty pads.
If it somehow came down to Nevada and we could definitively say the ballots disqualified this way would have swung the election in Harris' favor, would we still call it a "free and fair" election?
Add this to my long list of evidence why cursive should be abolished. It’s time to move on. We don’t need any of this shit
What will replace wet signatures in your view? They are still useful in some applications.
To be clear, I don't use cursive for anything aside from signatures.
digital signatures signature is replacing it a lot. Banks, insurance companies, other financial institutions, even some government documents. They also work in contracts. My signature is awful so whenever I use it I just one of their fonts, but you can make your own.
I agree electronic signatures can be useful in many places... but I don't see them as a 100% replacement. The claim was that we need to eliminate cursive entirely.
edit: I use electronic signatures to sign out formal government correspondence, so yes, confirm
edit 2: If I don't kiss the ring I may not be in a position to sign government correspondence anymore...?
On November 07 2024 04:55 GreenHorizons wrote: Yeah, I'm working a line to Norway to live in Drone's closet but also I'm still kind of idealistic enough to want to fight the good fight rather than flee and hope to save myself (most likely only temporarily anyway).
Pretty sure Zam and others (like myself years ago lol) are right that global war is the way we're getting past this global fascist uprising and the factions aren't going to divide nicely along national lines.
living and working in more than 1 country is a good life time strat. NAFTA makes it possible to live any where in NA where you have a job. its even better to know multiple languages. guys like David Kim and Dan Stemkoski are doing it right.
my family moved around a lot. From 1 great grandparent branch they went Egypt/Germany/France/French Canada/ English Canada/Florida. From another it was Russia/Germany/ France / French Canada / English Canada / New York
People who try to live in only one country are leaving themselves wide open to getting fucked over.
I am optimistic for the future of the USA. Things are pretty good right now and I think they will get better. However, if things go bad I am leaving.
"People who don't have the most privileged lives in the world sure are leaving themselves wide open to getting fucked over."
Thank you, I'm so glad someone finally mentioned this fact. And in the same post as Manchild Stemkoski, no less?! What a hero in these unwashed forums!
I'm optimistic that people who seriously think like this will go extinct or lose the rest of their ability to think logically in the next couple generations.
David Kim and Dan Stemkoski are 2 concrete examples familiar to these forums.
10s of millions of Canadians and Americans move to better places of better economic opportunity all the time. its been going on for decades. Also, NAFTA makes it easier to do so. I've been doing it. Most of my graduating class does it. Its not that big of a deal.
Mississauga, Ontario , Canada is filled with economic immigrants. Its not easy. It is also not some rare act of unbelievable heroic bravery either.
Thinking you can just plop down in any one spot for 70+ years is a bad assumption.
Artosis initially went to Korea on a wing and a prayer, off pure passion alone
He subsequently relocated for purely family reasons. Indeed he had to take a hit because he couldn’t do one of his regular gigs any longer
He’s really not a very good example.
David Kim is Korean. He went to UBC in Canada. He worked at Relic in BC, Canada. He moved to the USA.
I went to a Canadian school filled with students who routinely move to the USA. NAFTA rules make it easy. Canada is filled with people who moved 1000s of KMs , learned 2 new languages and a new culture. It is definitely hard work. It is not like these people are landing a man on the moon though.
Imagine if all these people just plopped down wherever they were and didn't move for 70 years?
Jacques Parizeau blamed "the jews" for losing the 1995 referendum. Fuck that noise. It is fun watching Quebec circle the drain.
Imagine a world where people could actualise their goals without drastically relocating
Artosis himself would disagree being roped in here. David Kim perhaps not
Artosis moved to Korea, not for the economic opportunities of the wider environment, but for a very specific thing.
I met him back in 2011, I asked him the question. I said man it must take some balls to move to Korea
To paraphrase as it’s been a while, he said ‘Partly big balls, partly a lack of a brain. I hadn’t really considered a career I just loved StarCraft. I didn’t really know anything about Korea and if this didn’t work out I’d be fucked as it’d take me some time to learn the language’
On November 06 2024 07:10 GreenHorizons wrote: Don't remember if I posted my thoughts or not but this is one example of something that's in the gray zone of "free and fair election".
Signature matching being used to disqualify high numbers of younger voters because the signature on their ballot doesn't match the digital one they made at the DMV on one of those shitty pads.
If it somehow came down to Nevada and we could definitively say the ballots disqualified this way would have swung the election in Harris' favor, would we still call it a "free and fair" election?
Add this to my long list of evidence why cursive should be abolished. It’s time to move on. We don’t need any of this shit
What will replace wet signatures in your view? They are still useful in some applications.
To be clear, I don't use cursive for anything aside from signatures.
digital signatures signature is replacing it a lot. Banks, insurance companies, other financial institutions, even some government documents. They also work in contracts. My signature is awful so whenever I use it I just one of their fonts, but you can make your own.
I agree electronic signatures can be useful in many places... but I don't see them as a 100% replacement. The claim was that we need to eliminate cursive entirely.
edit: I use electronic signatures to sign out formal government correspondence, so yes, confirm
edit 2: If I don't kiss the ring I may not be in a position to sign government correspondence anymore...?
I think 100% replacement for anything is difficult, I received a fax last week for example! Maybe when we move to the tech of bio scan?
Lets hope it does not come to your edit 2, but it may. That being said with government you will probably get a great golden parachute and then hopefully new and exciting opportunities will open else where.
Despite some weird anti Canadian propaganda showing up here, I would say it is a lovely though imperfect place to live. Many of the US's problems, but most are smaller. So if you get an opportunity north I would strongly recommend taking the plunge. All the expats I know personally are happier here and have no plans to leave, small sample size of course.
EPT
