|
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 June 08 2026 00:43 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2026 00:19 KwarK wrote:On June 08 2026 00:03 Vivax wrote:On June 07 2026 23:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 07 2026 23:21 Vivax wrote:On June 07 2026 23:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 07 2026 22:50 Vivax wrote:On June 07 2026 22:47 Simberto wrote:
Obviously it isn't just Darwin, Darwin lived in the 19th century, and afaik didn't even know about genes. A lot of science has happened between 1871 and 2026. And a bunch of additional science will happen.
As far as i (not being a biologist) understand, there are a bunch of open questions in biology. But evolution being a core mechanic of the development of life is incredibly well supported by evidence. I don't think anyone would complain about an approach of "this is what we know, why we think we know it, and potential alternative explanations and why we don't think they fit very well, but these are some open questions and current ideas on what may fill them, and how to investigate it."
After all, that is how science works, and it has been how basically all of my science education has worked.
But once you start using "God did it, the bible says so" as an argument, you can't really do any legitimate science anymore. And teaching something like that as a legitimate opinion that warrants taking as seriously as centuries of scientific study and experimental evidence is simply not something a competent science educator should be willing to do. If you always view religious texts as literal rather than guidelines, sure. Don't see why fiat lux is different from the big bang theory, depending on which entity you assume behind it. A spiritual one or a giant processor. Just to avoid confusion and disappointment, this is satire right? No. It's the same idea behind it or at least similar. Some random event propelled light and mass outwards. Is it random or isn't it. It's not necessarily scientific just because you have to assume it's random not knowing what the alternative is. At that point it's up to you what you believe. Apparently I have a twin somewhere, must be the evil one. There is simply no way you've studied big bang cosmology if you think that it's "the same idea" as, "or at least similar" to, Supernatural Deity Declared "Let There Be Light". Start with this introduction, and read the entire entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang Please note that the Wiki's countless scientific references, sources, and citations are significantly more in depth than just a one-liner from an ancient, historically inaccurate, scientifically inaccurate religious text. Yes. It's a theory. It says it right at the top. Not something proven. I'm not here to argue for a particular religion either way. Just to argue that the thought behind it is similar. Light out of god/the unknown. Who knows. It's just outside the scope of the provable, at least right now. Religious experiences are only subjective and not empirically provable anyway. And we're probably shitting up the thread with it. Subjectively I feel like I'm living on top of a hellgate or something which doesn't necessarily imply I believe in hell. But I guess I'm not getting torn up by a guy with a chainsaw so it's all good. You’re using the word theory wrong. It doesn’t apply a lack of proof. Things that are proven by science are still theories. I think the only area where one can truly prove stuff is maths. Everything else could always just haven been random chance every time something happened in the past. Sure, every time in the past when i let go of a ball, it accelerated downwards. But maybe that was just random chance, and next time it will move upwards. But obviously that isn't really a sensible way to approach things. The core question is "how good does statistical proof need to be for us to accept something as true." At some point, we need to accept some things as "true enough" if there is overwhelming past evidence that things do seem to work like that. And most accepted scientific theories are way beyond the level that a normal person would view as "overwhelming evidence". I fucking hate the stupid "it's just a theory" discussion that is based on nothing but people not knowing what words actually mean. The whole thing is such a silly standard cliché that i honestly didn't expect someone to seriously say that. What is next? "Bro, what if, like, the universe is like, woah man, you know?" stoner cosmology?
If it's unproven, then it's just a theory.
You don't hate that it's just a theory, you probably just hate that someone considers the simpler spiritual one as equally possible (two unproven theories are still a zero in fact checking but you can ramp up the approximation) because you gave up on believing that religion holds any value.
Can I prove that some chemical structure is going to relieve you of pain just by looking at it? I can just test it. You can't test the big bang.
Pi probably just exists to troll mathematicians with supercomputers.
|
On June 07 2026 17:20 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2026 15:23 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 13:16 Billyboy wrote:On June 07 2026 07:53 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 05:39 Introvert wrote:
I said if he's a fascist Dems should have been willing to make steep compromises. Their unwillingness belies their rhetoric. But I still say if one was trying to defeat a fascist they would soften they policy stances to try and prevent said fascist from winning. That might be the most stark example of being a "moderate." It's a fair point, and one of the aspects I hope the Democrats use to win in 2028. If the country is crashing down, and through this country the world, then almost any compromise to pick up more in the middle is Priority #1. If this is politics as usual, and you want a bigger victory through unabashed support for numbers 1 through 20 of progressive policy goals (a win and a mandate), then continue acting as I observe. I want Trump gone and (likely) Vance defeated, and I want Democrats to moderate in order to make that a resounding victory. Sorry if you think it's just so unfair to pivot for an election win. You're dealing with the electorate that exists, not the one you think you deserve. What do you specifically mean by moderate though? Like what was Harris doing that was so wild? She was basically going to be more Biden, who was famously moderate, often making deals with the Republicans to the chagrin of the American Leftist. What, other than right wing media yelling about it, made Harris radical? I'd really ask you if you know what compromise means, and if you can observe the tension that I'm pointing out in the post. You'll notice that you're bringing Kamala to the discussion, not I. And perhaps you meant to reply to a post about Kamala and radicalism. I am not trying to sound snarky here, have you thought that If you truly want Trump and Vance gone, maybe it's about time you start compromising.? That's precisely the point of my post. You're unwilling to compromise on the progressive agenda to defeat Trump, so you are happy enough to see Trump's VP elected. I'm saying run honestly on progressive positions regarding the economy, trade, and parts of foreign policy, but take positions against much of the rest. I'll vote for that, merely because it would be worth stopping Trump-populism in the form of Vance. You haven't identified any compromise you're willing to entertain, so perhaps you are just asking that in others and getting ready to blame that in others.
|
On June 08 2026 00:58 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2026 00:43 Simberto wrote:On June 08 2026 00:19 KwarK wrote:On June 08 2026 00:03 Vivax wrote:On June 07 2026 23:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 07 2026 23:21 Vivax wrote:On June 07 2026 23:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 07 2026 22:50 Vivax wrote:On June 07 2026 22:47 Simberto wrote:
Obviously it isn't just Darwin, Darwin lived in the 19th century, and afaik didn't even know about genes. A lot of science has happened between 1871 and 2026. And a bunch of additional science will happen.
As far as i (not being a biologist) understand, there are a bunch of open questions in biology. But evolution being a core mechanic of the development of life is incredibly well supported by evidence. I don't think anyone would complain about an approach of "this is what we know, why we think we know it, and potential alternative explanations and why we don't think they fit very well, but these are some open questions and current ideas on what may fill them, and how to investigate it."
After all, that is how science works, and it has been how basically all of my science education has worked.
But once you start using "God did it, the bible says so" as an argument, you can't really do any legitimate science anymore. And teaching something like that as a legitimate opinion that warrants taking as seriously as centuries of scientific study and experimental evidence is simply not something a competent science educator should be willing to do. If you always view religious texts as literal rather than guidelines, sure. Don't see why fiat lux is different from the big bang theory, depending on which entity you assume behind it. A spiritual one or a giant processor. Just to avoid confusion and disappointment, this is satire right? No. It's the same idea behind it or at least similar. Some random event propelled light and mass outwards. Is it random or isn't it. It's not necessarily scientific just because you have to assume it's random not knowing what the alternative is. At that point it's up to you what you believe. Apparently I have a twin somewhere, must be the evil one. There is simply no way you've studied big bang cosmology if you think that it's "the same idea" as, "or at least similar" to, Supernatural Deity Declared "Let There Be Light". Start with this introduction, and read the entire entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang Please note that the Wiki's countless scientific references, sources, and citations are significantly more in depth than just a one-liner from an ancient, historically inaccurate, scientifically inaccurate religious text. Yes. It's a theory. It says it right at the top. Not something proven. I'm not here to argue for a particular religion either way. Just to argue that the thought behind it is similar. Light out of god/the unknown. Who knows. It's just outside the scope of the provable, at least right now. Religious experiences are only subjective and not empirically provable anyway. And we're probably shitting up the thread with it. Subjectively I feel like I'm living on top of a hellgate or something which doesn't necessarily imply I believe in hell. But I guess I'm not getting torn up by a guy with a chainsaw so it's all good. You’re using the word theory wrong. It doesn’t apply a lack of proof. Things that are proven by science are still theories. I think the only area where one can truly prove stuff is maths. Everything else could always just haven been random chance every time something happened in the past. Sure, every time in the past when i let go of a ball, it accelerated downwards. But maybe that was just random chance, and next time it will move upwards. But obviously that isn't really a sensible way to approach things. The core question is "how good does statistical proof need to be for us to accept something as true." At some point, we need to accept some things as "true enough" if there is overwhelming past evidence that things do seem to work like that. And most accepted scientific theories are way beyond the level that a normal person would view as "overwhelming evidence". I fucking hate the stupid "it's just a theory" discussion that is based on nothing but people not knowing what words actually mean. The whole thing is such a silly standard cliché that i honestly didn't expect someone to seriously say that. What is next? "Bro, what if, like, the universe is like, woah man, you know?" stoner cosmology? If it's unproven, then it's just a theory. You don't hate that it's just a theory, you probably just hate that someone considers the simpler spiritual one as equally possible (two unproven theories are still a zero in fact checking but you can ramp up the approximation) because you gave up on believing that religion holds any value. Can I prove that some chemical structure is going to relieve you of pain just by looking at it? I can just test it. You can't test the big bang.
No, i hate the just in "just a theory". People who use "just a theory" like that have no idea about what the word (scientific) theory means, and use it to mean "meh, could be true, could be wrong". Because a lot of people in everyday speak use "theory" to mean "vague guess". And that is the "just a theory" that is being used here. The basic meaning is something like "the theory of evolution is basically just a vague guess and completely unproven, that is what "theory" means after all.
But in science, "theory" doesn't mean that. And if you don't know this, you probably shouldn't try judging the validity of scientific statements because you lack so much background that it will take you years to get on a level of understanding where you can start discussing this stuff. And you don't even recognize that you miss that knowledge, and assume you got this amazingly smart gotcha with "it's just a theory", while the people you are talking you are facepalming because not only is that an incredibly stupid statement, it is also really, really not that new. A lot of people have said the exact same stupid gotcha before, and it was stupid every time.
Also, you cannot prove that a chemical compound does anything. You can maybe prove that it did that a few times in the past (even that is questionable, try proving that the past actually exists...), and then assume that it will do the same thing in the future. But that is not a proof. It is just some evidence and statistics. Most things in life a fundamentally impossible to "completely" prove.
Real science has far harder standards of evidence than your "test to prove that a chemical structure will relieve you of pain", and yet you assume that this would be a way to prove something, while claiming that lots of things with far stronger prove towards their veracity are basically unknowable.
|
On June 08 2026 01:05 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2026 17:20 Godwrath wrote:On June 07 2026 15:23 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 13:16 Billyboy wrote:On June 07 2026 07:53 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 05:39 Introvert wrote:
I said if he's a fascist Dems should have been willing to make steep compromises. Their unwillingness belies their rhetoric. But I still say if one was trying to defeat a fascist they would soften they policy stances to try and prevent said fascist from winning. That might be the most stark example of being a "moderate." It's a fair point, and one of the aspects I hope the Democrats use to win in 2028. If the country is crashing down, and through this country the world, then almost any compromise to pick up more in the middle is Priority #1. If this is politics as usual, and you want a bigger victory through unabashed support for numbers 1 through 20 of progressive policy goals (a win and a mandate), then continue acting as I observe. I want Trump gone and (likely) Vance defeated, and I want Democrats to moderate in order to make that a resounding victory. Sorry if you think it's just so unfair to pivot for an election win. You're dealing with the electorate that exists, not the one you think you deserve. What do you specifically mean by moderate though? Like what was Harris doing that was so wild? She was basically going to be more Biden, who was famously moderate, often making deals with the Republicans to the chagrin of the American Leftist. What, other than right wing media yelling about it, made Harris radical? I'd really ask you if you know what compromise means, and if you can observe the tension that I'm pointing out in the post. You'll notice that you're bringing Kamala to the discussion, not I. And perhaps you meant to reply to a post about Kamala and radicalism. I am not trying to sound snarky here, have you thought that If you truly want Trump and Vance gone, maybe it's about time you start compromising.? That's precisely the point of my post. You're unwilling to compromise on the progressive agenda to defeat Trump, so you are happy enough to see Trump's VP elected. I'm saying run honestly on progressive positions regarding the economy, trade, and parts of foreign policy, but take positions against much of the rest. I'll vote for that, merely because it would be worth stopping Trump-populism in the form of Vance. You haven't identified any compromise you're willing to entertain, so perhaps you are just asking that in others and getting ready to blame that in others.
Harris was a moderate candidate and willing to compromise all sorts of progressive positions. Your point is just completely wrong. The Dems and Republicans are very different.
|
On June 08 2026 00:43 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2026 00:19 KwarK wrote:On June 08 2026 00:03 Vivax wrote:On June 07 2026 23:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 07 2026 23:21 Vivax wrote:On June 07 2026 23:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 07 2026 22:50 Vivax wrote:On June 07 2026 22:47 Simberto wrote:
Obviously it isn't just Darwin, Darwin lived in the 19th century, and afaik didn't even know about genes. A lot of science has happened between 1871 and 2026. And a bunch of additional science will happen.
As far as i (not being a biologist) understand, there are a bunch of open questions in biology. But evolution being a core mechanic of the development of life is incredibly well supported by evidence. I don't think anyone would complain about an approach of "this is what we know, why we think we know it, and potential alternative explanations and why we don't think they fit very well, but these are some open questions and current ideas on what may fill them, and how to investigate it."
After all, that is how science works, and it has been how basically all of my science education has worked.
But once you start using "God did it, the bible says so" as an argument, you can't really do any legitimate science anymore. And teaching something like that as a legitimate opinion that warrants taking as seriously as centuries of scientific study and experimental evidence is simply not something a competent science educator should be willing to do. If you always view religious texts as literal rather than guidelines, sure. Don't see why fiat lux is different from the big bang theory, depending on which entity you assume behind it. A spiritual one or a giant processor. Just to avoid confusion and disappointment, this is satire right? No. It's the same idea behind it or at least similar. Some random event propelled light and mass outwards. Is it random or isn't it. It's not necessarily scientific just because you have to assume it's random not knowing what the alternative is. At that point it's up to you what you believe. Apparently I have a twin somewhere, must be the evil one. There is simply no way you've studied big bang cosmology if you think that it's "the same idea" as, "or at least similar" to, Supernatural Deity Declared "Let There Be Light". Start with this introduction, and read the entire entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang Please note that the Wiki's countless scientific references, sources, and citations are significantly more in depth than just a one-liner from an ancient, historically inaccurate, scientifically inaccurate religious text. Yes. It's a theory. It says it right at the top. Not something proven. I'm not here to argue for a particular religion either way. Just to argue that the thought behind it is similar. Light out of god/the unknown. Who knows. It's just outside the scope of the provable, at least right now. Religious experiences are only subjective and not empirically provable anyway. And we're probably shitting up the thread with it. Subjectively I feel like I'm living on top of a hellgate or something which doesn't necessarily imply I believe in hell. But I guess I'm not getting torn up by a guy with a chainsaw so it's all good. You’re using the word theory wrong. It doesn’t apply a lack of proof. Things that are proven by science are still theories. + Show Spoiler +
I think the only area where one can truly prove stuff is maths.
Everything else could always just haven been random chance every time something happened in the past. Sure, every time in the past when i let go of a ball, it accelerated downwards. But maybe that was just random chance, and next time it will move upwards. But obviously that isn't really a sensible way to approach things.
The core question is "how good does statistical proof need to be for us to accept something as true." At some point, we need to accept some things as "true enough" if there is overwhelming past evidence that things do seem to work like that. And most accepted scientific theories are way beyond the level that a normal person would view as "overwhelming evidence".
I fucking hate the stupid "it's just a theory" discussion that is based on nothing but people not knowing what words actually mean. The whole thing is such a silly standard cliché that i honestly didn't expect someone to seriously say that
. What is next? "Bro, what if, like, the universe is like, woah man, you know?" stoner cosmology?
I dunno, I like the Alan Watts quote: “You are a function of what the whole universe is doing in the same way that a wave is a function of what the whole ocean is doing.”
|
On June 08 2026 00:58 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2026 00:43 Simberto wrote:On June 08 2026 00:19 KwarK wrote:On June 08 2026 00:03 Vivax wrote:On June 07 2026 23:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 07 2026 23:21 Vivax wrote:On June 07 2026 23:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 07 2026 22:50 Vivax wrote:On June 07 2026 22:47 Simberto wrote:
Obviously it isn't just Darwin, Darwin lived in the 19th century, and afaik didn't even know about genes. A lot of science has happened between 1871 and 2026. And a bunch of additional science will happen.
As far as i (not being a biologist) understand, there are a bunch of open questions in biology. But evolution being a core mechanic of the development of life is incredibly well supported by evidence. I don't think anyone would complain about an approach of "this is what we know, why we think we know it, and potential alternative explanations and why we don't think they fit very well, but these are some open questions and current ideas on what may fill them, and how to investigate it."
After all, that is how science works, and it has been how basically all of my science education has worked.
But once you start using "God did it, the bible says so" as an argument, you can't really do any legitimate science anymore. And teaching something like that as a legitimate opinion that warrants taking as seriously as centuries of scientific study and experimental evidence is simply not something a competent science educator should be willing to do. If you always view religious texts as literal rather than guidelines, sure. Don't see why fiat lux is different from the big bang theory, depending on which entity you assume behind it. A spiritual one or a giant processor. Just to avoid confusion and disappointment, this is satire right? No. It's the same idea behind it or at least similar. Some random event propelled light and mass outwards. Is it random or isn't it. It's not necessarily scientific just because you have to assume it's random not knowing what the alternative is. At that point it's up to you what you believe. Apparently I have a twin somewhere, must be the evil one. There is simply no way you've studied big bang cosmology if you think that it's "the same idea" as, "or at least similar" to, Supernatural Deity Declared "Let There Be Light". Start with this introduction, and read the entire entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang Please note that the Wiki's countless scientific references, sources, and citations are significantly more in depth than just a one-liner from an ancient, historically inaccurate, scientifically inaccurate religious text. Yes. It's a theory. It says it right at the top. Not something proven. I'm not here to argue for a particular religion either way. Just to argue that the thought behind it is similar. Light out of god/the unknown. Who knows. It's just outside the scope of the provable, at least right now. Religious experiences are only subjective and not empirically provable anyway. And we're probably shitting up the thread with it. Subjectively I feel like I'm living on top of a hellgate or something which doesn't necessarily imply I believe in hell. But I guess I'm not getting torn up by a guy with a chainsaw so it's all good. You’re using the word theory wrong. It doesn’t apply a lack of proof. Things that are proven by science are still theories. I think the only area where one can truly prove stuff is maths. Everything else could always just haven been random chance every time something happened in the past. Sure, every time in the past when i let go of a ball, it accelerated downwards. But maybe that was just random chance, and next time it will move upwards. But obviously that isn't really a sensible way to approach things. The core question is "how good does statistical proof need to be for us to accept something as true." At some point, we need to accept some things as "true enough" if there is overwhelming past evidence that things do seem to work like that. And most accepted scientific theories are way beyond the level that a normal person would view as "overwhelming evidence". I fucking hate the stupid "it's just a theory" discussion that is based on nothing but people not knowing what words actually mean. The whole thing is such a silly standard cliché that i honestly didn't expect someone to seriously say that. What is next? "Bro, what if, like, the universe is like, woah man, you know?" stoner cosmology? If it's unproven, then it's just a theory. You don't hate that it's just a theory, you probably just hate that someone considers the simpler spiritual one as equally possible (two unproven theories are still a zero in fact checking but you can ramp up the approximation) because you gave up on believing that religion holds any value. Can I prove that some chemical structure is going to relieve you of pain just by looking at it? I can just test it. You can't test the big bang. Pi probably just exists to troll mathematicians with supercomputers.
You are confusing the word hypothesis with the word theory.
|
On June 08 2026 01:29 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2026 01:05 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 17:20 Godwrath wrote:On June 07 2026 15:23 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 13:16 Billyboy wrote:On June 07 2026 07:53 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 05:39 Introvert wrote:
I said if he's a fascist Dems should have been willing to make steep compromises. Their unwillingness belies their rhetoric. But I still say if one was trying to defeat a fascist they would soften they policy stances to try and prevent said fascist from winning. That might be the most stark example of being a "moderate." It's a fair point, and one of the aspects I hope the Democrats use to win in 2028. If the country is crashing down, and through this country the world, then almost any compromise to pick up more in the middle is Priority #1. If this is politics as usual, and you want a bigger victory through unabashed support for numbers 1 through 20 of progressive policy goals (a win and a mandate), then continue acting as I observe. I want Trump gone and (likely) Vance defeated, and I want Democrats to moderate in order to make that a resounding victory. Sorry if you think it's just so unfair to pivot for an election win. You're dealing with the electorate that exists, not the one you think you deserve. What do you specifically mean by moderate though? Like what was Harris doing that was so wild? She was basically going to be more Biden, who was famously moderate, often making deals with the Republicans to the chagrin of the American Leftist. What, other than right wing media yelling about it, made Harris radical? I'd really ask you if you know what compromise means, and if you can observe the tension that I'm pointing out in the post. You'll notice that you're bringing Kamala to the discussion, not I. And perhaps you meant to reply to a post about Kamala and radicalism. I am not trying to sound snarky here, have you thought that If you truly want Trump and Vance gone, maybe it's about time you start compromising.? That's precisely the point of my post. You're unwilling to compromise on the progressive agenda to defeat Trump, so you are happy enough to see Trump's VP elected. I'm saying run honestly on progressive positions regarding the economy, trade, and parts of foreign policy, but take positions against much of the rest. I'll vote for that, merely because it would be worth stopping Trump-populism in the form of Vance. You haven't identified any compromise you're willing to entertain, so perhaps you are just asking that in others and getting ready to blame that in others. Harris was a moderate candidate and willing to compromise all sorts of progressive positions. Your point is just completely wrong. The Dems and Republicans are very different. Are you guaranteeing to me that she's the candidate in 2028? I'm aware of the argument that voters should bank on her decision to not actively campaign on issues that were so important to her in the 2020 Democratic Primary. That's tangent to my argument, so I can only assume that you want to see the state of 2024 moderation again in 2028.
|
On June 08 2026 00:03 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2026 23:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 07 2026 23:21 Vivax wrote:On June 07 2026 23:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 07 2026 22:50 Vivax wrote:On June 07 2026 22:47 Simberto wrote:
Obviously it isn't just Darwin, Darwin lived in the 19th century, and afaik didn't even know about genes. A lot of science has happened between 1871 and 2026. And a bunch of additional science will happen.
As far as i (not being a biologist) understand, there are a bunch of open questions in biology. But evolution being a core mechanic of the development of life is incredibly well supported by evidence. I don't think anyone would complain about an approach of "this is what we know, why we think we know it, and potential alternative explanations and why we don't think they fit very well, but these are some open questions and current ideas on what may fill them, and how to investigate it."
After all, that is how science works, and it has been how basically all of my science education has worked.
But once you start using "God did it, the bible says so" as an argument, you can't really do any legitimate science anymore. And teaching something like that as a legitimate opinion that warrants taking as seriously as centuries of scientific study and experimental evidence is simply not something a competent science educator should be willing to do. If you always view religious texts as literal rather than guidelines, sure. Don't see why fiat lux is different from the big bang theory, depending on which entity you assume behind it. A spiritual one or a giant processor. Just to avoid confusion and disappointment, this is satire right? No. It's the same idea behind it or at least similar. Some random event propelled light and mass outwards. Is it random or isn't it. It's not necessarily scientific just because you have to assume it's random not knowing what the alternative is. At that point it's up to you what you believe. Apparently I have a twin somewhere, must be the evil one. There is simply no way you've studied big bang cosmology if you think that it's "the same idea" as, "or at least similar" to, Supernatural Deity Declared "Let There Be Light". Start with this introduction, and read the entire entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang Please note that the Wiki's countless scientific references, sources, and citations are significantly more in depth than just a one-liner from an ancient, historically inaccurate, scientifically inaccurate religious text. Yes. It's a theory. It says it right at the top. Not something proven.I'm not here to argue for a particular religion either way. Just to argue that the thought behind it is similar. Light out of god/the unknown. Who knows. It's just outside the scope of the provable, at least right now. Religious experiences are only subjective and not empirically provable anyway. And we're probably shitting up the thread with it. Subjectively I feel like I'm living on top of a hellgate or something which doesn't necessarily imply I believe in hell. But I guess I'm not getting torn up by a guy with a chainsaw so it's all good.
On June 08 2026 00:39 Vivax wrote:
Whatever. I'm not here to argue about proving or disproving religion or the big bang. I just found the thought process similar between that phrase and what exists as a still unproven theory.
You can intuitively know or at least accurately guess things without material proof, sometimes. Not a fan of pure materialism either way.
On June 08 2026 00:58 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2026 00:43 Simberto wrote:On June 08 2026 00:19 KwarK wrote:On June 08 2026 00:03 Vivax wrote:On June 07 2026 23:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 07 2026 23:21 Vivax wrote:On June 07 2026 23:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 07 2026 22:50 Vivax wrote:On June 07 2026 22:47 Simberto wrote:
Obviously it isn't just Darwin, Darwin lived in the 19th century, and afaik didn't even know about genes. A lot of science has happened between 1871 and 2026. And a bunch of additional science will happen.
As far as i (not being a biologist) understand, there are a bunch of open questions in biology. But evolution being a core mechanic of the development of life is incredibly well supported by evidence. I don't think anyone would complain about an approach of "this is what we know, why we think we know it, and potential alternative explanations and why we don't think they fit very well, but these are some open questions and current ideas on what may fill them, and how to investigate it."
After all, that is how science works, and it has been how basically all of my science education has worked.
But once you start using "God did it, the bible says so" as an argument, you can't really do any legitimate science anymore. And teaching something like that as a legitimate opinion that warrants taking as seriously as centuries of scientific study and experimental evidence is simply not something a competent science educator should be willing to do. If you always view religious texts as literal rather than guidelines, sure. Don't see why fiat lux is different from the big bang theory, depending on which entity you assume behind it. A spiritual one or a giant processor. Just to avoid confusion and disappointment, this is satire right? No. It's the same idea behind it or at least similar. Some random event propelled light and mass outwards. Is it random or isn't it. It's not necessarily scientific just because you have to assume it's random not knowing what the alternative is. At that point it's up to you what you believe. Apparently I have a twin somewhere, must be the evil one. There is simply no way you've studied big bang cosmology if you think that it's "the same idea" as, "or at least similar" to, Supernatural Deity Declared "Let There Be Light". Start with this introduction, and read the entire entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang Please note that the Wiki's countless scientific references, sources, and citations are significantly more in depth than just a one-liner from an ancient, historically inaccurate, scientifically inaccurate religious text. Yes. It's a theory. It says it right at the top. Not something proven. I'm not here to argue for a particular religion either way. Just to argue that the thought behind it is similar. Light out of god/the unknown. Who knows. It's just outside the scope of the provable, at least right now. Religious experiences are only subjective and not empirically provable anyway. And we're probably shitting up the thread with it. Subjectively I feel like I'm living on top of a hellgate or something which doesn't necessarily imply I believe in hell. But I guess I'm not getting torn up by a guy with a chainsaw so it's all good. You’re using the word theory wrong. It doesn’t apply a lack of proof. Things that are proven by science are still theories. I think the only area where one can truly prove stuff is maths. Everything else could always just haven been random chance every time something happened in the past. Sure, every time in the past when i let go of a ball, it accelerated downwards. But maybe that was just random chance, and next time it will move upwards. But obviously that isn't really a sensible way to approach things. The core question is "how good does statistical proof need to be for us to accept something as true." At some point, we need to accept some things as "true enough" if there is overwhelming past evidence that things do seem to work like that. And most accepted scientific theories are way beyond the level that a normal person would view as "overwhelming evidence". I fucking hate the stupid "it's just a theory" discussion that is based on nothing but people not knowing what words actually mean. The whole thing is such a silly standard cliché that i honestly didn't expect someone to seriously say that. What is next? "Bro, what if, like, the universe is like, woah man, you know?" stoner cosmology? If it's unproven, then it's just a theory.You don't hate that it's just a theory, you probably just hate that someone considers the simpler spiritual one as equally possible (two unproven theories are still a zero in fact checking but you can ramp up the approximation) because you gave up on believing that religion holds any value. Can I prove that some chemical structure is going to relieve you of pain just by looking at it? I can just test it. You can't test the big bang. Pi probably just exists to troll mathematicians with supercomputers.
A "scientific theory" is the gold standard of explanatory and predictive power. There is nothing better or more accurate or more empirically supported than a scientific theory for a given set of phenomena, observations, data, laws, and mathematics that are about a specific topic.
Atomic theory - the scientific framework stating that all matter is composed of tiny, discrete building blocks called atoms - is a scientific theory. It's not "just a theory"; it has earned the right to be crowned a scientific theory.
Gravitational theory - the explanation of how objects with mass attract one another - is also a scientific theory. So is evolutionary theory. So is the big bang theory. So is the germ theory of disease. So is the theory of plate tectonics.
These are the best of the best of the best possible explanations we have to describe our universe, thanks to science. These have gone through countless bouts of peer review, have been measured against data time and time again, and have consistently been updated as past opposing hypotheses have ultimately been disproven.
A scientific theory is not the same thing as how a person might casually say "I have a theory about something" or "I have a hypothesis about something" in everyday, colloquial language. This is why I asked you to read the Wiki on big bang cosmology - to see just how well established, well supported, predictive, and powerful that explanation is for the origin of our universe. The big bang happened. Evolution happened and is still happening. Germs and atoms both exist. Gravity and plate tectonics are real. These are facts integrated alongside millions of other facts, and wrapped in the ultimate explanatory, predictive category of science: The Scientific Theory.
For more reading on that topic, which has nothing to do with religion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
Do not ever compare the accuracy or reasonableness of scientific theories to that of religious / supernatural explanations.
Also, you said "Pi probably just exists to troll mathematicians with supercomputers." Pi is just defined as the ratio between any circle's circumference and its diameter. Measure the distance around a circle using a piece of string, then measure the distance from one side of the circle to the opposite side (passing through the center). Divide those 2 numbers. Boom. Pi.
|
On June 08 2026 00:58 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2026 00:43 Simberto wrote:On June 08 2026 00:19 KwarK wrote:On June 08 2026 00:03 Vivax wrote:On June 07 2026 23:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 07 2026 23:21 Vivax wrote:On June 07 2026 23:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 07 2026 22:50 Vivax wrote:On June 07 2026 22:47 Simberto wrote:
Obviously it isn't just Darwin, Darwin lived in the 19th century, and afaik didn't even know about genes. A lot of science has happened between 1871 and 2026. And a bunch of additional science will happen.
As far as i (not being a biologist) understand, there are a bunch of open questions in biology. But evolution being a core mechanic of the development of life is incredibly well supported by evidence. I don't think anyone would complain about an approach of "this is what we know, why we think we know it, and potential alternative explanations and why we don't think they fit very well, but these are some open questions and current ideas on what may fill them, and how to investigate it."
After all, that is how science works, and it has been how basically all of my science education has worked.
But once you start using "God did it, the bible says so" as an argument, you can't really do any legitimate science anymore. And teaching something like that as a legitimate opinion that warrants taking as seriously as centuries of scientific study and experimental evidence is simply not something a competent science educator should be willing to do. If you always view religious texts as literal rather than guidelines, sure. Don't see why fiat lux is different from the big bang theory, depending on which entity you assume behind it. A spiritual one or a giant processor. Just to avoid confusion and disappointment, this is satire right? No. It's the same idea behind it or at least similar. Some random event propelled light and mass outwards. Is it random or isn't it. It's not necessarily scientific just because you have to assume it's random not knowing what the alternative is. At that point it's up to you what you believe. Apparently I have a twin somewhere, must be the evil one. There is simply no way you've studied big bang cosmology if you think that it's "the same idea" as, "or at least similar" to, Supernatural Deity Declared "Let There Be Light". Start with this introduction, and read the entire entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang Please note that the Wiki's countless scientific references, sources, and citations are significantly more in depth than just a one-liner from an ancient, historically inaccurate, scientifically inaccurate religious text. Yes. It's a theory. It says it right at the top. Not something proven. I'm not here to argue for a particular religion either way. Just to argue that the thought behind it is similar. Light out of god/the unknown. Who knows. It's just outside the scope of the provable, at least right now. Religious experiences are only subjective and not empirically provable anyway. And we're probably shitting up the thread with it. Subjectively I feel like I'm living on top of a hellgate or something which doesn't necessarily imply I believe in hell. But I guess I'm not getting torn up by a guy with a chainsaw so it's all good. You’re using the word theory wrong. It doesn’t apply a lack of proof. Things that are proven by science are still theories. I think the only area where one can truly prove stuff is maths. Everything else could always just haven been random chance every time something happened in the past. Sure, every time in the past when i let go of a ball, it accelerated downwards. But maybe that was just random chance, and next time it will move upwards. But obviously that isn't really a sensible way to approach things. The core question is "how good does statistical proof need to be for us to accept something as true." At some point, we need to accept some things as "true enough" if there is overwhelming past evidence that things do seem to work like that. And most accepted scientific theories are way beyond the level that a normal person would view as "overwhelming evidence". I fucking hate the stupid "it's just a theory" discussion that is based on nothing but people not knowing what words actually mean. The whole thing is such a silly standard cliché that i honestly didn't expect someone to seriously say that. What is next? "Bro, what if, like, the universe is like, woah man, you know?" stoner cosmology? If it's unproven, then it's just a theory. You don't hate that it's just a theory, you probably just hate that someone considers the simpler spiritual one as equally possible (two unproven theories are still a zero in fact checking but you can ramp up the approximation) because you gave up on believing that religion holds any value. Can I prove that some chemical structure is going to relieve you of pain just by looking at it? I can just test it. You can't test the big bang. Pi probably just exists to troll mathematicians with supercomputers.
You're confusing theory with hypothesis. Relativity is a theory and it's very much proven, as in some of our tech just wouldn't work without satellites accounting for relativity.
You can test the big bang, you can make empirical observations that confirm it and we have. It's not just an idea some dude thought up and everyone else went "huh, that sounds likely". We can study the past by looking far away, we can detect radiation emitted from shortly after the big bang, it happened.
But that's only the mechanism by which matter was created from densely packed energy and propagated to form the universe as we know it. It doesn't solve the question of why any energy was there to begin with. That's where the hypotheses come in, and you can freely muse about an external creator, or a cyclical universe, or a simulation, and a million other philosophical explanations that we can't test at the moment (or ever for most of them). So I don't understand why you're even taking an issue with this.
|
On June 08 2026 01:52 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2026 00:58 Vivax wrote:On June 08 2026 00:43 Simberto wrote:On June 08 2026 00:19 KwarK wrote:On June 08 2026 00:03 Vivax wrote:On June 07 2026 23:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 07 2026 23:21 Vivax wrote:On June 07 2026 23:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 07 2026 22:50 Vivax wrote:On June 07 2026 22:47 Simberto wrote:
Obviously it isn't just Darwin, Darwin lived in the 19th century, and afaik didn't even know about genes. A lot of science has happened between 1871 and 2026. And a bunch of additional science will happen.
As far as i (not being a biologist) understand, there are a bunch of open questions in biology. But evolution being a core mechanic of the development of life is incredibly well supported by evidence. I don't think anyone would complain about an approach of "this is what we know, why we think we know it, and potential alternative explanations and why we don't think they fit very well, but these are some open questions and current ideas on what may fill them, and how to investigate it."
After all, that is how science works, and it has been how basically all of my science education has worked.
But once you start using "God did it, the bible says so" as an argument, you can't really do any legitimate science anymore. And teaching something like that as a legitimate opinion that warrants taking as seriously as centuries of scientific study and experimental evidence is simply not something a competent science educator should be willing to do. If you always view religious texts as literal rather than guidelines, sure. Don't see why fiat lux is different from the big bang theory, depending on which entity you assume behind it. A spiritual one or a giant processor. Just to avoid confusion and disappointment, this is satire right? No. It's the same idea behind it or at least similar. Some random event propelled light and mass outwards. Is it random or isn't it. It's not necessarily scientific just because you have to assume it's random not knowing what the alternative is. At that point it's up to you what you believe. Apparently I have a twin somewhere, must be the evil one. There is simply no way you've studied big bang cosmology if you think that it's "the same idea" as, "or at least similar" to, Supernatural Deity Declared "Let There Be Light". Start with this introduction, and read the entire entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang Please note that the Wiki's countless scientific references, sources, and citations are significantly more in depth than just a one-liner from an ancient, historically inaccurate, scientifically inaccurate religious text. Yes. It's a theory. It says it right at the top. Not something proven. I'm not here to argue for a particular religion either way. Just to argue that the thought behind it is similar. Light out of god/the unknown. Who knows. It's just outside the scope of the provable, at least right now. Religious experiences are only subjective and not empirically provable anyway. And we're probably shitting up the thread with it. Subjectively I feel like I'm living on top of a hellgate or something which doesn't necessarily imply I believe in hell. But I guess I'm not getting torn up by a guy with a chainsaw so it's all good. You’re using the word theory wrong. It doesn’t apply a lack of proof. Things that are proven by science are still theories. I think the only area where one can truly prove stuff is maths. Everything else could always just haven been random chance every time something happened in the past. Sure, every time in the past when i let go of a ball, it accelerated downwards. But maybe that was just random chance, and next time it will move upwards. But obviously that isn't really a sensible way to approach things. The core question is "how good does statistical proof need to be for us to accept something as true." At some point, we need to accept some things as "true enough" if there is overwhelming past evidence that things do seem to work like that. And most accepted scientific theories are way beyond the level that a normal person would view as "overwhelming evidence". I fucking hate the stupid "it's just a theory" discussion that is based on nothing but people not knowing what words actually mean. The whole thing is such a silly standard cliché that i honestly didn't expect someone to seriously say that. What is next? "Bro, what if, like, the universe is like, woah man, you know?" stoner cosmology? If it's unproven, then it's just a theory. You don't hate that it's just a theory, you probably just hate that someone considers the simpler spiritual one as equally possible (two unproven theories are still a zero in fact checking but you can ramp up the approximation) because you gave up on believing that religion holds any value. Can I prove that some chemical structure is going to relieve you of pain just by looking at it? I can just test it. You can't test the big bang. Pi probably just exists to troll mathematicians with supercomputers. You are confusing the word hypothesis with the word theory.
Gonna concede that.
Grumpy climate around today, even locally.
Who's out there making people mad again?
|
Canada11607 Posts
On June 08 2026 01:55 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2026 01:29 Billyboy wrote:On June 08 2026 01:05 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 17:20 Godwrath wrote:On June 07 2026 15:23 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 13:16 Billyboy wrote:On June 07 2026 07:53 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 05:39 Introvert wrote:
I said if he's a fascist Dems should have been willing to make steep compromises. Their unwillingness belies their rhetoric. But I still say if one was trying to defeat a fascist they would soften they policy stances to try and prevent said fascist from winning. That might be the most stark example of being a "moderate." It's a fair point, and one of the aspects I hope the Democrats use to win in 2028. If the country is crashing down, and through this country the world, then almost any compromise to pick up more in the middle is Priority #1. If this is politics as usual, and you want a bigger victory through unabashed support for numbers 1 through 20 of progressive policy goals (a win and a mandate), then continue acting as I observe. I want Trump gone and (likely) Vance defeated, and I want Democrats to moderate in order to make that a resounding victory. Sorry if you think it's just so unfair to pivot for an election win. You're dealing with the electorate that exists, not the one you think you deserve. What do you specifically mean by moderate though? Like what was Harris doing that was so wild? She was basically going to be more Biden, who was famously moderate, often making deals with the Republicans to the chagrin of the American Leftist. What, other than right wing media yelling about it, made Harris radical? I'd really ask you if you know what compromise means, and if you can observe the tension that I'm pointing out in the post. You'll notice that you're bringing Kamala to the discussion, not I. And perhaps you meant to reply to a post about Kamala and radicalism. I am not trying to sound snarky here, have you thought that If you truly want Trump and Vance gone, maybe it's about time you start compromising.? That's precisely the point of my post. You're unwilling to compromise on the progressive agenda to defeat Trump, so you are happy enough to see Trump's VP elected. I'm saying run honestly on progressive positions regarding the economy, trade, and parts of foreign policy, but take positions against much of the rest. I'll vote for that, merely because it would be worth stopping Trump-populism in the form of Vance. You haven't identified any compromise you're willing to entertain, so perhaps you are just asking that in others and getting ready to blame that in others. Harris was a moderate candidate and willing to compromise all sorts of progressive positions. Your point is just completely wrong. The Dems and Republicans are very different. Are you guaranteeing to me that she's the candidate in 2028? I'm aware of the argument that voters should bank on her decision to not actively campaign on issues that were so important to her in the 2020 Democratic Primary. That's tangent to my argument, so I can only assume that you want to see the state of 2024 moderation again in 2028.
I think you are likely to see a fighting liberal win the Democrat primary. A progressive will not because while they are very noisy online, and very good at sabotaging their own party by purity testing mayoral! candidates solely on their position on Israel-Palestine! (Mayors are well known to have jurisdiction over foreign policy) they otherwise are not very capable of bringing policy forward that has a hope of passing or building coalitions. So I fully expect a candidate who is a moderate politically within the liberal wing of the party, but a fighter by personality to win--- if the Democrats are smart.
Trump ran on trans issues because it plays. Harris did not. Trump ran on border issues because he told the Republicans to spike the border bill to guarantee he could run on it. Exacerbate the problem so you can win on it. But she wasn't enough of a fighter to parry the attacks. 2008 Biden could have and that's basically what they need (minus the verbal gaffs).
|
United States44383 Posts
On June 08 2026 01:29 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2026 01:05 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 17:20 Godwrath wrote:On June 07 2026 15:23 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 13:16 Billyboy wrote:On June 07 2026 07:53 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 05:39 Introvert wrote:
I said if he's a fascist Dems should have been willing to make steep compromises. Their unwillingness belies their rhetoric. But I still say if one was trying to defeat a fascist they would soften they policy stances to try and prevent said fascist from winning. That might be the most stark example of being a "moderate." It's a fair point, and one of the aspects I hope the Democrats use to win in 2028. If the country is crashing down, and through this country the world, then almost any compromise to pick up more in the middle is Priority #1. If this is politics as usual, and you want a bigger victory through unabashed support for numbers 1 through 20 of progressive policy goals (a win and a mandate), then continue acting as I observe. I want Trump gone and (likely) Vance defeated, and I want Democrats to moderate in order to make that a resounding victory. Sorry if you think it's just so unfair to pivot for an election win. You're dealing with the electorate that exists, not the one you think you deserve. What do you specifically mean by moderate though? Like what was Harris doing that was so wild? She was basically going to be more Biden, who was famously moderate, often making deals with the Republicans to the chagrin of the American Leftist. What, other than right wing media yelling about it, made Harris radical? I'd really ask you if you know what compromise means, and if you can observe the tension that I'm pointing out in the post. You'll notice that you're bringing Kamala to the discussion, not I. And perhaps you meant to reply to a post about Kamala and radicalism. I am not trying to sound snarky here, have you thought that If you truly want Trump and Vance gone, maybe it's about time you start compromising.? That's precisely the point of my post. You're unwilling to compromise on the progressive agenda to defeat Trump, so you are happy enough to see Trump's VP elected. I'm saying run honestly on progressive positions regarding the economy, trade, and parts of foreign policy, but take positions against much of the rest. I'll vote for that, merely because it would be worth stopping Trump-populism in the form of Vance. You haven't identified any compromise you're willing to entertain, so perhaps you are just asking that in others and getting ready to blame that in others. Harris was a moderate candidate and willing to compromise all sorts of progressive positions. Your point is just completely wrong. The Dems and Republicans are very different.
Then why was Harris working for and getting endorsements from extreme leftists like Dick Cheney? Why was she unwilling to bridge the divide?
|
On June 08 2026 02:14 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2026 01:29 Billyboy wrote:On June 08 2026 01:05 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 17:20 Godwrath wrote:On June 07 2026 15:23 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 13:16 Billyboy wrote:On June 07 2026 07:53 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 05:39 Introvert wrote:
I said if he's a fascist Dems should have been willing to make steep compromises. Their unwillingness belies their rhetoric. But I still say if one was trying to defeat a fascist they would soften they policy stances to try and prevent said fascist from winning. That might be the most stark example of being a "moderate." It's a fair point, and one of the aspects I hope the Democrats use to win in 2028. If the country is crashing down, and through this country the world, then almost any compromise to pick up more in the middle is Priority #1. If this is politics as usual, and you want a bigger victory through unabashed support for numbers 1 through 20 of progressive policy goals (a win and a mandate), then continue acting as I observe. I want Trump gone and (likely) Vance defeated, and I want Democrats to moderate in order to make that a resounding victory. Sorry if you think it's just so unfair to pivot for an election win. You're dealing with the electorate that exists, not the one you think you deserve. What do you specifically mean by moderate though? Like what was Harris doing that was so wild? She was basically going to be more Biden, who was famously moderate, often making deals with the Republicans to the chagrin of the American Leftist. What, other than right wing media yelling about it, made Harris radical? I'd really ask you if you know what compromise means, and if you can observe the tension that I'm pointing out in the post. You'll notice that you're bringing Kamala to the discussion, not I. And perhaps you meant to reply to a post about Kamala and radicalism. I am not trying to sound snarky here, have you thought that If you truly want Trump and Vance gone, maybe it's about time you start compromising.? That's precisely the point of my post. You're unwilling to compromise on the progressive agenda to defeat Trump, so you are happy enough to see Trump's VP elected. I'm saying run honestly on progressive positions regarding the economy, trade, and parts of foreign policy, but take positions against much of the rest. I'll vote for that, merely because it would be worth stopping Trump-populism in the form of Vance. You haven't identified any compromise you're willing to entertain, so perhaps you are just asking that in others and getting ready to blame that in others. Harris was a moderate candidate and willing to compromise all sorts of progressive positions. Your point is just completely wrong. The Dems and Republicans are very different. Then why was Harris working for and getting endorsements from extreme leftists like Dick Cheney? Why was she unwilling to bridge the divide?
She should probably have aligned herself more with some historical moderates like Josef Stalin or Adolf Hitler.
|
Northern Ireland27464 Posts
On June 08 2026 02:18 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2026 02:14 KwarK wrote:On June 08 2026 01:29 Billyboy wrote:On June 08 2026 01:05 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 17:20 Godwrath wrote:On June 07 2026 15:23 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 13:16 Billyboy wrote:On June 07 2026 07:53 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 05:39 Introvert wrote:
I said if he's a fascist Dems should have been willing to make steep compromises. Their unwillingness belies their rhetoric. But I still say if one was trying to defeat a fascist they would soften they policy stances to try and prevent said fascist from winning. That might be the most stark example of being a "moderate." It's a fair point, and one of the aspects I hope the Democrats use to win in 2028. If the country is crashing down, and through this country the world, then almost any compromise to pick up more in the middle is Priority #1. If this is politics as usual, and you want a bigger victory through unabashed support for numbers 1 through 20 of progressive policy goals (a win and a mandate), then continue acting as I observe. I want Trump gone and (likely) Vance defeated, and I want Democrats to moderate in order to make that a resounding victory. Sorry if you think it's just so unfair to pivot for an election win. You're dealing with the electorate that exists, not the one you think you deserve. What do you specifically mean by moderate though? Like what was Harris doing that was so wild? She was basically going to be more Biden, who was famously moderate, often making deals with the Republicans to the chagrin of the American Leftist. What, other than right wing media yelling about it, made Harris radical? I'd really ask you if you know what compromise means, and if you can observe the tension that I'm pointing out in the post. You'll notice that you're bringing Kamala to the discussion, not I. And perhaps you meant to reply to a post about Kamala and radicalism. I am not trying to sound snarky here, have you thought that If you truly want Trump and Vance gone, maybe it's about time you start compromising.? That's precisely the point of my post. You're unwilling to compromise on the progressive agenda to defeat Trump, so you are happy enough to see Trump's VP elected. I'm saying run honestly on progressive positions regarding the economy, trade, and parts of foreign policy, but take positions against much of the rest. I'll vote for that, merely because it would be worth stopping Trump-populism in the form of Vance. You haven't identified any compromise you're willing to entertain, so perhaps you are just asking that in others and getting ready to blame that in others. Harris was a moderate candidate and willing to compromise all sorts of progressive positions. Your point is just completely wrong. The Dems and Republicans are very different. Then why was Harris working for and getting endorsements from extreme leftists like Dick Cheney? Why was she unwilling to bridge the divide? She should probably have aligned herself more with some historical moderates like Josef Stalin or Adolf Hitler.
Well technically Hitler was a moderate as his party had some popular support and he liked animals or something. He wasn’t as loony lefty as that mental lass Rosa Luxemburg anyway.
I mean sure what he said, how he said it and what he did wasn’t exactly moderate, but I think those are unfair metrics by which to judge public figures.
|
On June 08 2026 02:12 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2026 01:55 dyhb wrote:On June 08 2026 01:29 Billyboy wrote:On June 08 2026 01:05 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 17:20 Godwrath wrote:On June 07 2026 15:23 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 13:16 Billyboy wrote:On June 07 2026 07:53 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 05:39 Introvert wrote:
I said if he's a fascist Dems should have been willing to make steep compromises. Their unwillingness belies their rhetoric. But I still say if one was trying to defeat a fascist they would soften they policy stances to try and prevent said fascist from winning. That might be the most stark example of being a "moderate." It's a fair point, and one of the aspects I hope the Democrats use to win in 2028. If the country is crashing down, and through this country the world, then almost any compromise to pick up more in the middle is Priority #1. If this is politics as usual, and you want a bigger victory through unabashed support for numbers 1 through 20 of progressive policy goals (a win and a mandate), then continue acting as I observe. I want Trump gone and (likely) Vance defeated, and I want Democrats to moderate in order to make that a resounding victory. Sorry if you think it's just so unfair to pivot for an election win. You're dealing with the electorate that exists, not the one you think you deserve. What do you specifically mean by moderate though? Like what was Harris doing that was so wild? She was basically going to be more Biden, who was famously moderate, often making deals with the Republicans to the chagrin of the American Leftist. What, other than right wing media yelling about it, made Harris radical? I'd really ask you if you know what compromise means, and if you can observe the tension that I'm pointing out in the post. You'll notice that you're bringing Kamala to the discussion, not I. And perhaps you meant to reply to a post about Kamala and radicalism. I am not trying to sound snarky here, have you thought that If you truly want Trump and Vance gone, maybe it's about time you start compromising.? That's precisely the point of my post. You're unwilling to compromise on the progressive agenda to defeat Trump, so you are happy enough to see Trump's VP elected. I'm saying run honestly on progressive positions regarding the economy, trade, and parts of foreign policy, but take positions against much of the rest. I'll vote for that, merely because it would be worth stopping Trump-populism in the form of Vance. You haven't identified any compromise you're willing to entertain, so perhaps you are just asking that in others and getting ready to blame that in others. Harris was a moderate candidate and willing to compromise all sorts of progressive positions. Your point is just completely wrong. The Dems and Republicans are very different. Are you guaranteeing to me that she's the candidate in 2028? I'm aware of the argument that voters should bank on her decision to not actively campaign on issues that were so important to her in the 2020 Democratic Primary. That's tangent to my argument, so I can only assume that you want to see the state of 2024 moderation again in 2028. I think you are likely to see a fighting liberal win the Democrat primary. A progressive will not because while they are very noisy online, and very good at sabotaging their own party by purity testing mayoral! candidates solely on their position on their position on Israel-Palestine! (Mayors are well known to have jurisdiction over foreign policy) they otherwise are not very capable of bringing policy forward or building coalitions. So I fully expect a candidate who is a moderate politically within the liberal wing of the party, but a fighter by personality to win--- if the Democrats are smart. Israel-Palestine is actually a good example of what needs to happen. The progressive wing of the Democratic party has been making receipt of campaign funds from AIPAC tantamount to a Trump ally and reason to lose your primary (despite however unsuitable the other major candidate is generally). The Democratic party should be about coalition building without litmus tests like AIPAC or "Stop The Genocide" or BDS. There are a ton of other positions to take on this, like Israel has to spend its own money if it wants American weapons, or extracting diplomatic concessions regarding the West Bank and Gaza in order to play ball.
Trump ran on trans issues because it plays. Harris did not. Trump ran on border issues because he told the Republicans to spike the border bill to guarantee he could run on it. Exacerbate the problem so you can win on it. But she wasn't enough of a fighter to parry the attacks. 2008 Biden could have and that's basically what they need (minus the verbal gaffs). If you get a fighter that knows how to fight back against accusations of extremism, Dems win. And it's not enough to simply not campaign on a topic that you previously spoke on as if it was a core civil rights issue. That leaves you vulnerable to attack. What changed on this civil rights issue, and can you craft a believable/convincing story on what changed? If Biden could drop border crossing to ~30% of previous on June 4th, 2024 (by executive authority, and not through Congress), why was that only done after 8 million peoples-worth of policy failure over his term and his last full year in office? What would you do differently?
2008 Biden could have done it and 2016 Biden could have done it too. But he didn't run in 2016 (I've heard a billion competing theories on that). By 2024, he couldn't debate. Kamala's ... how do I put this gently ... style of rhetoric is not conducive to fighting back on attacks that erode the moderate wing of her base. If she's the nominee, she needs to hone it. And she still might run and win simply based on the weakness of her opponent! I want a better horse in the race.
I'm interested, Falling, if you read the investigations prior to the 2024 campaign "she refuses to take responsibility for delicate issues and blames staffers for the negative results that ensue ... the VP herself also bears responsibility for the way her office is run. It all starts at the top", 92% staff turnover. And then some of the 2024 campaign post-mortems, like Hey, nobody has come to our neighborhood. The campaign doesn’t care about us... The covert operations, many of them led by Black organizers, represented extraordinary acts of insubordination against the Harris campaign. I'm not going to link all of them. They were diverse enough, and sourced enough, to make me think there was a problem with Harris as an administrator and director of her own campaign, and not just disgruntled campaign operatives beefing about the direction. NYT, Politico, etc reported.
|
Northern Ireland27464 Posts
On June 08 2026 01:05 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2026 17:20 Godwrath wrote:On June 07 2026 15:23 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 13:16 Billyboy wrote:On June 07 2026 07:53 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 05:39 Introvert wrote:
I said if he's a fascist Dems should have been willing to make steep compromises. Their unwillingness belies their rhetoric. But I still say if one was trying to defeat a fascist they would soften they policy stances to try and prevent said fascist from winning. That might be the most stark example of being a "moderate." It's a fair point, and one of the aspects I hope the Democrats use to win in 2028. If the country is crashing down, and through this country the world, then almost any compromise to pick up more in the middle is Priority #1. If this is politics as usual, and you want a bigger victory through unabashed support for numbers 1 through 20 of progressive policy goals (a win and a mandate), then continue acting as I observe. I want Trump gone and (likely) Vance defeated, and I want Democrats to moderate in order to make that a resounding victory. Sorry if you think it's just so unfair to pivot for an election win. You're dealing with the electorate that exists, not the one you think you deserve. What do you specifically mean by moderate though? Like what was Harris doing that was so wild? She was basically going to be more Biden, who was famously moderate, often making deals with the Republicans to the chagrin of the American Leftist. What, other than right wing media yelling about it, made Harris radical? I'd really ask you if you know what compromise means, and if you can observe the tension that I'm pointing out in the post. You'll notice that you're bringing Kamala to the discussion, not I. And perhaps you meant to reply to a post about Kamala and radicalism. I am not trying to sound snarky here, have you thought that If you truly want Trump and Vance gone, maybe it's about time you start compromising.? That's precisely the point of my post. You're unwilling to compromise on the progressive agenda to defeat Trump, so you are happy enough to see Trump's VP elected. I'm saying run honestly on progressive positions regarding the economy, trade, and parts of foreign policy, but take positions against much of the rest. I'll vote for that, merely because it would be worth stopping Trump-populism in the form of Vance. You haven't identified any compromise you're willing to entertain, so perhaps you are just asking that in others and getting ready to blame that in others.
What is the compromise?
What is the thing that if only that olive branch was proffered, people who were happy to vote for Trump thrice as he proverbially kicks various vulnerable groups in the balls, would decide hey maybe let’s change course on that?
I’m sure it’s boring I keep up bringing up Keir Starmer but he and his administration did some of those things, these supposed things to consolidate around the centre and gate out the extremes. As compromised (in the sake of compromising) a government as you can pretty much get
Ain’t worked. Now this doesn’t mean such an approach can’t work, but what are these compromises that apparently need made, and how do they not just tank the faith of said party’s traditional base by making them?
Snarkily formed perhaps, but an entirely genuine question
|
On June 08 2026 02:57 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2026 01:05 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 17:20 Godwrath wrote:On June 07 2026 15:23 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 13:16 Billyboy wrote:On June 07 2026 07:53 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 05:39 Introvert wrote:
I said if he's a fascist Dems should have been willing to make steep compromises. Their unwillingness belies their rhetoric. But I still say if one was trying to defeat a fascist they would soften they policy stances to try and prevent said fascist from winning. That might be the most stark example of being a "moderate." It's a fair point, and one of the aspects I hope the Democrats use to win in 2028. If the country is crashing down, and through this country the world, then almost any compromise to pick up more in the middle is Priority #1. If this is politics as usual, and you want a bigger victory through unabashed support for numbers 1 through 20 of progressive policy goals (a win and a mandate), then continue acting as I observe. I want Trump gone and (likely) Vance defeated, and I want Democrats to moderate in order to make that a resounding victory. Sorry if you think it's just so unfair to pivot for an election win. You're dealing with the electorate that exists, not the one you think you deserve. What do you specifically mean by moderate though? Like what was Harris doing that was so wild? She was basically going to be more Biden, who was famously moderate, often making deals with the Republicans to the chagrin of the American Leftist. What, other than right wing media yelling about it, made Harris radical? I'd really ask you if you know what compromise means, and if you can observe the tension that I'm pointing out in the post. You'll notice that you're bringing Kamala to the discussion, not I. And perhaps you meant to reply to a post about Kamala and radicalism. I am not trying to sound snarky here, have you thought that If you truly want Trump and Vance gone, maybe it's about time you start compromising.? That's precisely the point of my post. You're unwilling to compromise on the progressive agenda to defeat Trump, so you are happy enough to see Trump's VP elected. I'm saying run honestly on progressive positions regarding the economy, trade, and parts of foreign policy, but take positions against much of the rest. I'll vote for that, merely because it would be worth stopping Trump-populism in the form of Vance. You haven't identified any compromise you're willing to entertain, so perhaps you are just asking that in others and getting ready to blame that in others. + Show Spoiler +What is the compromise?
What is the thing that if only that olive branch was proffered, people who were happy to vote for Trump thrice as he proverbially kicks various vulnerable groups in the balls, would decide hey maybe let’s change course on that?
I’m sure it’s boring I keep up bringing up Keir Starmer but he and his administration did some of those things, these supposed things to consolidate around the centre and gate out the extremes. As compromised (in the sake of compromising) a government as you can pretty much get
Ain’t worked. Now this doesn’t mean such an approach can’t work, but what are these compromises that apparently need made, and how do they not just tank the faith of said party’s traditional base by making them? Snarkily formed perhaps, but an entirely genuine question
Typically by explaining lesser evilism and the necessity of unwavering devotion to it. Think about it. What's a compromise Democrats could make with Republicans that would actually be too far to support Democrats still under lesser evilism?
|
United States44383 Posts
WombaT keeps pointing out the Starmer situation and how it is a case study in what the self identifying moderates are talking about but people don't seem to care.
Labour tried appealing to the old school socialists with Corbyn but was defeated in the election and the result was the most incompetent right wing mismanagement in the history of the UK, peaking with Liz Truss and her declaration that government economic policy would be to borrow and never repay (borrow from who Liz? You announced that you weren't going to repay before you got the loan!). The scandals of Conservative rule were truly breathtaking and unforgivable, ministers in charge of providing PPE to frontline NHS workers during the pandemic giving contracts to their mates knowing the PPE was defective, telling people they couldn't go into the hospital to say goodbye to their dying parents because of social distancing while they themselves threw fucking parties. The British right wing's incompetence at the day to day administration of government was only matched by their lack of basic ethics.
Starmer got in as a moderate and has set about doing the things that people have been begging for. For over a decade one of the most important issues for voters has been migrants entering on small boats and every right wing administration that has pledged to deal with it has campaigned on it and then allowed it to get worse, only to be voted back in on the same issue. For the first time the numbers are going down under Starmer. He's actually doing the thing. And the voters who say that that is their most important issue hate him and want to vote back in even more extremist right wingers.
It's an extremely important case study on the "why not meet the 'centrists' where they're at" approach and wombat keeps bringing it up and it keeps getting ignored.
|
On June 08 2026 02:45 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2026 02:18 Simberto wrote:On June 08 2026 02:14 KwarK wrote:On June 08 2026 01:29 Billyboy wrote:On June 08 2026 01:05 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 17:20 Godwrath wrote:On June 07 2026 15:23 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 13:16 Billyboy wrote:On June 07 2026 07:53 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 05:39 Introvert wrote:
I said if he's a fascist Dems should have been willing to make steep compromises. Their unwillingness belies their rhetoric. But I still say if one was trying to defeat a fascist they would soften they policy stances to try and prevent said fascist from winning. That might be the most stark example of being a "moderate." It's a fair point, and one of the aspects I hope the Democrats use to win in 2028. If the country is crashing down, and through this country the world, then almost any compromise to pick up more in the middle is Priority #1. If this is politics as usual, and you want a bigger victory through unabashed support for numbers 1 through 20 of progressive policy goals (a win and a mandate), then continue acting as I observe. I want Trump gone and (likely) Vance defeated, and I want Democrats to moderate in order to make that a resounding victory. Sorry if you think it's just so unfair to pivot for an election win. You're dealing with the electorate that exists, not the one you think you deserve. What do you specifically mean by moderate though? Like what was Harris doing that was so wild? She was basically going to be more Biden, who was famously moderate, often making deals with the Republicans to the chagrin of the American Leftist. What, other than right wing media yelling about it, made Harris radical? I'd really ask you if you know what compromise means, and if you can observe the tension that I'm pointing out in the post. You'll notice that you're bringing Kamala to the discussion, not I. And perhaps you meant to reply to a post about Kamala and radicalism. I am not trying to sound snarky here, have you thought that If you truly want Trump and Vance gone, maybe it's about time you start compromising.? That's precisely the point of my post. You're unwilling to compromise on the progressive agenda to defeat Trump, so you are happy enough to see Trump's VP elected. I'm saying run honestly on progressive positions regarding the economy, trade, and parts of foreign policy, but take positions against much of the rest. I'll vote for that, merely because it would be worth stopping Trump-populism in the form of Vance. You haven't identified any compromise you're willing to entertain, so perhaps you are just asking that in others and getting ready to blame that in others. Harris was a moderate candidate and willing to compromise all sorts of progressive positions. Your point is just completely wrong. The Dems and Republicans are very different. Then why was Harris working for and getting endorsements from extreme leftists like Dick Cheney? Why was she unwilling to bridge the divide? She should probably have aligned herself more with some historical moderates like Josef Stalin or Adolf Hitler. Well technically Hitler was a moderate as his party had some popular support and he liked animals or something. He wasn’t as loony lefty as that mental lass Rosa Luxemburg anyway. I mean sure what he said, how he said it and what he did wasn’t exactly moderate, but I think those are unfair metrics by which to judge public figures.
It is also mentioning that within his party, Hitler really wasn't extreme. He was basically right in the center of the NSDAP. Which is the typical hallmark of a moderate really.
|
On June 08 2026 01:55 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2026 01:29 Billyboy wrote:On June 08 2026 01:05 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 17:20 Godwrath wrote:On June 07 2026 15:23 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 13:16 Billyboy wrote:On June 07 2026 07:53 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 05:39 Introvert wrote:
I said if he's a fascist Dems should have been willing to make steep compromises. Their unwillingness belies their rhetoric. But I still say if one was trying to defeat a fascist they would soften they policy stances to try and prevent said fascist from winning. That might be the most stark example of being a "moderate." It's a fair point, and one of the aspects I hope the Democrats use to win in 2028. If the country is crashing down, and through this country the world, then almost any compromise to pick up more in the middle is Priority #1. If this is politics as usual, and you want a bigger victory through unabashed support for numbers 1 through 20 of progressive policy goals (a win and a mandate), then continue acting as I observe. I want Trump gone and (likely) Vance defeated, and I want Democrats to moderate in order to make that a resounding victory. Sorry if you think it's just so unfair to pivot for an election win. You're dealing with the electorate that exists, not the one you think you deserve. What do you specifically mean by moderate though? Like what was Harris doing that was so wild? She was basically going to be more Biden, who was famously moderate, often making deals with the Republicans to the chagrin of the American Leftist. What, other than right wing media yelling about it, made Harris radical? I'd really ask you if you know what compromise means, and if you can observe the tension that I'm pointing out in the post. You'll notice that you're bringing Kamala to the discussion, not I. And perhaps you meant to reply to a post about Kamala and radicalism. I am not trying to sound snarky here, have you thought that If you truly want Trump and Vance gone, maybe it's about time you start compromising.? That's precisely the point of my post. You're unwilling to compromise on the progressive agenda to defeat Trump, so you are happy enough to see Trump's VP elected. I'm saying run honestly on progressive positions regarding the economy, trade, and parts of foreign policy, but take positions against much of the rest. I'll vote for that, merely because it would be worth stopping Trump-populism in the form of Vance. You haven't identified any compromise you're willing to entertain, so perhaps you are just asking that in others and getting ready to blame that in others. Harris was a moderate candidate and willing to compromise all sorts of progressive positions. Your point is just completely wrong. The Dems and Republicans are very different. Are you guaranteeing to me that she's the candidate in 2028? I'm aware of the argument that voters should bank on her decision to not actively campaign on issues that were so important to her in the 2020 Democratic Primary. That's tangent to my argument, so I can only assume that you want to see the state of 2024 moderation again in 2028.
No, I’m suggesting it didn’t work, because it didn’t work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
