|
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 October 15 2018 00:16 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2018 20:54 iamthedave wrote:On October 14 2018 20:44 Liquid`Drone wrote:
And scientists aren't. They give a bunch of likely scenarios based on percentages followed by possible consequences of those scenarios, and then journalists make a headline touting that possible consequence.
But even acknowledging that, we know with almost certainty that some regions will be affected in absolutely disastrous ways in the next 20-50 years, that a whole lot of people live in those regions, and that a lot of people from other regions don't want all the people living in those disastrously affected regions to move to the places where 'the consequences might not be all that dire'. Even in my lifetime things have changed. There weren't yearly hurricanes hitting the US and threatening the UK when I was a kid. Now it's normal. Uh... that is anecdotal evidence if I ever saw it. The only tropical storm to hit Ireland did so in 1961. The problem with hurricanes is that we haven't observed them long enough to even know what "normal" is. I look forward to the day when we stop blaming human climate change for all weather we don't like. The science of climate change is about trying to predict the future, which makes it very different from most other sciences. The norm so far has been: -Our models tell us this terrible thing can happen! -Oh, it turned out to be much less dramatic, but the tendency was spot on! -Our new models tell us it can still be terrible! -Oh.. etc
It's accurate enough to guarantee it will be terrible, even the less dramatic possibilities are terrifying.
Is it some sort of anti climate change propaganda you have in countries living from oil?
|
Arguing whether climate scientists are 100% right is a deflection as far as decision making goes. They don't have to be 100% right for it to be +EV to make decisions based on their predictions, and them being wrong some percentage of the time does not make it +EV to do the OPPOSITE of what they recommend. Even with a relatively low probability of some very terrible thing happening, making some minor-to-moderate policy changes in order to avert that very terrible thing still yields a positive expected outcome, and doing nothing can still yield a negative expected outcome even if you're relatively skeptical of climate science and believe that the predicted outcomes aren't that likely.
Anti-science positions like climate change denial and anti-vaxxers fixate on the lack of 100% certainty in science when you don't have to be 100% certain for something to positively drive your decision making. If there's a 51% chance that doing something will lead to a positive outcome, and 49% chance that it won't, and the positive outcome (not getting polio, not making half the planet uninhabitable) is on a similar order of magnitude to the negative outcome, you should be taking that 51%. You don't need to be 100% sure for that choice to have positive expected value, and it's still the rational choice even if you get burned a little less than half the time.
|
One of the main things you learn in STEM overall is that there is no such thing as being 100% certain, or 100% safe. It doesn't exist. When people manufacture the cars you drive, for instance, they use a statistical model based on materials testing data to design a certain likelihood of failure into it, because nothing lasts forever, and there may be random elements that impact its life in a significant way. Or it may adhere relatively close to the ideal, they don't know. The point is, even in fields that demand 'precise' technical knowledge and skill, these things still aren't 100% certain.
And all of this is to say that whenever someone tries to dismiss science as being "not 100% certain", they usually have some kind of BS agenda they can't further without making that sound like a major problem.
|
On October 15 2018 00:44 nojok wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2018 00:16 Slydie wrote:On October 14 2018 20:54 iamthedave wrote:On October 14 2018 20:44 Liquid`Drone wrote:
And scientists aren't. They give a bunch of likely scenarios based on percentages followed by possible consequences of those scenarios, and then journalists make a headline touting that possible consequence.
But even acknowledging that, we know with almost certainty that some regions will be affected in absolutely disastrous ways in the next 20-50 years, that a whole lot of people live in those regions, and that a lot of people from other regions don't want all the people living in those disastrously affected regions to move to the places where 'the consequences might not be all that dire'. Even in my lifetime things have changed. There weren't yearly hurricanes hitting the US and threatening the UK when I was a kid. Now it's normal. Uh... that is anecdotal evidence if I ever saw it. The only tropical storm to hit Ireland did so in 1961. The problem with hurricanes is that we haven't observed them long enough to even know what "normal" is. I look forward to the day when we stop blaming human climate change for all weather we don't like. The science of climate change is about trying to predict the future, which makes it very different from most other sciences. The norm so far has been: -Our models tell us this terrible thing can happen! -Oh, it turned out to be much less dramatic, but the tendency was spot on! -Our new models tell us it can still be terrible! -Oh.. etc It's accurate enough to guarantee it will be terrible, even the less dramatic possibilities are terrifying. Is it some sort of anti climate change propaganda you have in countries living from oil?
Not at all! I should remove that, as I don't live there, and it keeps getting brought up.
I am happy that the giant climate hipocricy we are all part of is finally being talked about. Did the most violent climate activist I have ever talked to fly to South Africa for a gig? Of course he did! Once we are asked to change things that really matter to us, potential future risks we can't do much about anyway quickly disappear to the far back of our minds. Norway is a terrible country in that regard, being no. 2 in Europe in emissions, but they feel great about their waterdams and love to point fingers at coal plants abroad.
Science or not, it reminds me most of the "sin and punsihment" rhetoric the church has used to control the European population for centuries. It is still deep in our culture.
I prefer not to worry about it.
|
On October 15 2018 00:16 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2018 20:54 iamthedave wrote:On October 14 2018 20:44 Liquid`Drone wrote:
And scientists aren't. They give a bunch of likely scenarios based on percentages followed by possible consequences of those scenarios, and then journalists make a headline touting that possible consequence.
But even acknowledging that, we know with almost certainty that some regions will be affected in absolutely disastrous ways in the next 20-50 years, that a whole lot of people live in those regions, and that a lot of people from other regions don't want all the people living in those disastrously affected regions to move to the places where 'the consequences might not be all that dire'. Even in my lifetime things have changed. There weren't yearly hurricanes hitting the US and threatening the UK when I was a kid. Now it's normal. Uh... that is anecdotal evidence if I ever saw it. The only tropical storm to hit Ireland did so in 1961. The problem with hurricanes is that we haven't observed them long enough to even know what "normal" is. I look forward to the day when we stop blaming human climate change for all weather we don't like. The science of climate change is about trying to predict the future, which makes it very different from most other sciences. The norm so far has been: -Our models tell us this terrible thing can happen! -Oh, it turned out to be much less dramatic, but the tendency was spot on! -Our new models tell us it can still be terrible! -Oh.. etc
That's not really much different from other sciences imo. The power and importance of any well-supported scientific theory is that it has explanatory and predictive power. Scientists try and make reasonable predictions for the future all the time in medicine, genetics, astrophysics, climate science, etc.
|
On October 15 2018 02:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2018 00:16 Slydie wrote:On October 14 2018 20:54 iamthedave wrote:On October 14 2018 20:44 Liquid`Drone wrote:
And scientists aren't. They give a bunch of likely scenarios based on percentages followed by possible consequences of those scenarios, and then journalists make a headline touting that possible consequence.
But even acknowledging that, we know with almost certainty that some regions will be affected in absolutely disastrous ways in the next 20-50 years, that a whole lot of people live in those regions, and that a lot of people from other regions don't want all the people living in those disastrously affected regions to move to the places where 'the consequences might not be all that dire'. Even in my lifetime things have changed. There weren't yearly hurricanes hitting the US and threatening the UK when I was a kid. Now it's normal. Uh... that is anecdotal evidence if I ever saw it. The only tropical storm to hit Ireland did so in 1961. The problem with hurricanes is that we haven't observed them long enough to even know what "normal" is. I look forward to the day when we stop blaming human climate change for all weather we don't like. The science of climate change is about trying to predict the future, which makes it very different from most other sciences. The norm so far has been: -Our models tell us this terrible thing can happen! -Oh, it turned out to be much less dramatic, but the tendency was spot on! -Our new models tell us it can still be terrible! -Oh.. etc That's not really much different from other sciences imo. The power and importance of any well-supported scientific theory is that it has explanatory and predictive power. Scientists try and make reasonable predictions for the future all the time in medicine, genetics, astrophysics, climate science, etc.
Thank you.
Science is always about predicting the future. That is exactly the point of science. The big thing about science is that it is simply better at that than reading entrails or stuff like that. This starts at basic stuff you learn in school, like mechanics. "If i throw a ball at this speed and this angle, where will it land" is predicting the future. "If i cross this pea plant with that pea plant, will the resulting peas be rumply or smooth" is predicting the future. "If i put this much energy into a cup of water, what temperature will it have?" is predicting the future.
Sometimes this future has error bars on it, if the system is more complex and/or you are uncertain of the starting conditions. Or there might be two or more different discrete results with probabilities to each of them.
The problem Slydie has with climate science is less based on climate science, and more based on the reporting thereof. Journalists tend to present the most extreme possible results, rather than the most likely, as the most prominent.
|
On October 15 2018 01:21 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2018 00:44 nojok wrote:On October 15 2018 00:16 Slydie wrote:On October 14 2018 20:54 iamthedave wrote:On October 14 2018 20:44 Liquid`Drone wrote:
And scientists aren't. They give a bunch of likely scenarios based on percentages followed by possible consequences of those scenarios, and then journalists make a headline touting that possible consequence.
But even acknowledging that, we know with almost certainty that some regions will be affected in absolutely disastrous ways in the next 20-50 years, that a whole lot of people live in those regions, and that a lot of people from other regions don't want all the people living in those disastrously affected regions to move to the places where 'the consequences might not be all that dire'. Even in my lifetime things have changed. There weren't yearly hurricanes hitting the US and threatening the UK when I was a kid. Now it's normal. Uh... that is anecdotal evidence if I ever saw it. The only tropical storm to hit Ireland did so in 1961. The problem with hurricanes is that we haven't observed them long enough to even know what "normal" is. I look forward to the day when we stop blaming human climate change for all weather we don't like. The science of climate change is about trying to predict the future, which makes it very different from most other sciences. The norm so far has been: -Our models tell us this terrible thing can happen! -Oh, it turned out to be much less dramatic, but the tendency was spot on! -Our new models tell us it can still be terrible! -Oh.. etc It's accurate enough to guarantee it will be terrible, even the less dramatic possibilities are terrifying. Is it some sort of anti climate change propaganda you have in countries living from oil? Not at all! I should remove that, as I don't live there, and it keeps getting brought up. I am happy that the giant climate hipocricy we are all part of is finally being talked about. Did the most violent climate activist I have ever talked to fly to South Africa for a gig? Of course he did! Once we are asked to change things that really matter to us, potential future risks we can't do much about anyway quickly disappear to the far back of our minds. Norway is a terrible country in that regard, being no. 2 in Europe in emissions, but they feel great about their waterdams and love to point fingers at coal plants abroad. Science or not, it reminds me most of the "sin and punsihment" rhetoric the church has used to control the European population for centuries. It is still deep in our culture. I prefer not to worry about it.
The problem with your "prefer not to worry" is that if you're wrong, the world is literally going to shits while you're not worrying. That in itself is something to worry about...
|
Meanwhile, as we debate if 100% certainty is necessary to make decisions, the proud boys descended on NYC at the invitation of the GOP. It ended in the street brawl you would expect.
They also preformed a re-enactment of far left candidate getting murdered, for reasons. The local GOP asked for this, or something?
|
Norway28873 Posts
On October 15 2018 00:44 nojok wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2018 00:16 Slydie wrote:On October 14 2018 20:54 iamthedave wrote:On October 14 2018 20:44 Liquid`Drone wrote:
And scientists aren't. They give a bunch of likely scenarios based on percentages followed by possible consequences of those scenarios, and then journalists make a headline touting that possible consequence.
But even acknowledging that, we know with almost certainty that some regions will be affected in absolutely disastrous ways in the next 20-50 years, that a whole lot of people live in those regions, and that a lot of people from other regions don't want all the people living in those disastrously affected regions to move to the places where 'the consequences might not be all that dire'. Even in my lifetime things have changed. There weren't yearly hurricanes hitting the US and threatening the UK when I was a kid. Now it's normal. Uh... that is anecdotal evidence if I ever saw it. The only tropical storm to hit Ireland did so in 1961. The problem with hurricanes is that we haven't observed them long enough to even know what "normal" is. I look forward to the day when we stop blaming human climate change for all weather we don't like. The science of climate change is about trying to predict the future, which makes it very different from most other sciences. The norm so far has been: -Our models tell us this terrible thing can happen! -Oh, it turned out to be much less dramatic, but the tendency was spot on! -Our new models tell us it can still be terrible! -Oh.. etc It's accurate enough to guarantee it will be terrible, even the less dramatic possibilities are terrifying. Is it some sort of anti climate change propaganda you have in countries living from oil?
Naw I learned about global warming as a consequence of CO2 emissions back in elementary school. (I'm 34). Us Norwegians are as guilty as anybody else (and more than most) in terms of ecological footprint but ignorance isn't the reason. Or at the very least, propaganda isn't the reason for individual ignorance. 
|
On October 15 2018 06:08 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2018 00:44 nojok wrote:On October 15 2018 00:16 Slydie wrote:On October 14 2018 20:54 iamthedave wrote:On October 14 2018 20:44 Liquid`Drone wrote:
And scientists aren't. They give a bunch of likely scenarios based on percentages followed by possible consequences of those scenarios, and then journalists make a headline touting that possible consequence.
But even acknowledging that, we know with almost certainty that some regions will be affected in absolutely disastrous ways in the next 20-50 years, that a whole lot of people live in those regions, and that a lot of people from other regions don't want all the people living in those disastrously affected regions to move to the places where 'the consequences might not be all that dire'. Even in my lifetime things have changed. There weren't yearly hurricanes hitting the US and threatening the UK when I was a kid. Now it's normal. Uh... that is anecdotal evidence if I ever saw it. The only tropical storm to hit Ireland did so in 1961. The problem with hurricanes is that we haven't observed them long enough to even know what "normal" is. I look forward to the day when we stop blaming human climate change for all weather we don't like. The science of climate change is about trying to predict the future, which makes it very different from most other sciences. The norm so far has been: -Our models tell us this terrible thing can happen! -Oh, it turned out to be much less dramatic, but the tendency was spot on! -Our new models tell us it can still be terrible! -Oh.. etc It's accurate enough to guarantee it will be terrible, even the less dramatic possibilities are terrifying. Is it some sort of anti climate change propaganda you have in countries living from oil? Naw I learned about global warming as a consequence of CO2 emissions back in elementary school. (I'm 34). Us Norwegians are as guilty as anybody else (and more than most) in terms of ecological footprint but ignorance isn't the reason. Or at the very least, propaganda isn't the reason for individual ignorance.
We're surprisingly well educated in the field considering we're an oil nation. You'd think there would be more propaganda against it. Not many people outright refuse to believe it any more (ignoring my dad, who also proclaimed "Who gives a shit I'll be dead by then anyways!" last we spoke of it). That doesn't mean there isn't people against taking any kind of action towards fixing it tho, but most of them seem to argue based on "we're such a small country, we don't really impact anything anyways. And why should we be first? Think China cares about how green Norway is?" (Completely oblivious to the fact that China is working hard, and has already done leaps and bounds to fix their environmental impact)
|
On October 15 2018 06:36 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2018 06:08 Liquid`Drone wrote:On October 15 2018 00:44 nojok wrote:On October 15 2018 00:16 Slydie wrote:On October 14 2018 20:54 iamthedave wrote:On October 14 2018 20:44 Liquid`Drone wrote:
And scientists aren't. They give a bunch of likely scenarios based on percentages followed by possible consequences of those scenarios, and then journalists make a headline touting that possible consequence.
But even acknowledging that, we know with almost certainty that some regions will be affected in absolutely disastrous ways in the next 20-50 years, that a whole lot of people live in those regions, and that a lot of people from other regions don't want all the people living in those disastrously affected regions to move to the places where 'the consequences might not be all that dire'. Even in my lifetime things have changed. There weren't yearly hurricanes hitting the US and threatening the UK when I was a kid. Now it's normal. Uh... that is anecdotal evidence if I ever saw it. The only tropical storm to hit Ireland did so in 1961. The problem with hurricanes is that we haven't observed them long enough to even know what "normal" is. I look forward to the day when we stop blaming human climate change for all weather we don't like. The science of climate change is about trying to predict the future, which makes it very different from most other sciences. The norm so far has been: -Our models tell us this terrible thing can happen! -Oh, it turned out to be much less dramatic, but the tendency was spot on! -Our new models tell us it can still be terrible! -Oh.. etc It's accurate enough to guarantee it will be terrible, even the less dramatic possibilities are terrifying. Is it some sort of anti climate change propaganda you have in countries living from oil? Naw I learned about global warming as a consequence of CO2 emissions back in elementary school. (I'm 34). Us Norwegians are as guilty as anybody else (and more than most) in terms of ecological footprint but ignorance isn't the reason. Or at the very least, propaganda isn't the reason for individual ignorance. We're surprisingly well educated in the field considering we're an oil nation. You'd think there would be more propaganda against it. Not many people outright refuse to believe it any more (ignoring my dad, who also proclaimed "Who gives a shit I'll be dead by then anyways!" last we spoke of it). That doesn't mean there isn't people against taking any kind of action towards fixing it tho, but most of them seem to argue based on "we're such a small country, we don't really impact anything anyways. And why should we be first? Think China cares about how green Norway is?" (Completely oblivious to the fact that China is working hard, and has already done leaps and bounds to fix their environmental impact)
This is probably one of the best practical arguments against the general concept of nationalism in today's world
|
On October 15 2018 03:20 Plansix wrote:
Meanwhile, as we debate if 100% certainty is necessary to make decisions, the proud boys descended on NYC at the invitation of the GOP. It ended in the street brawl you would expect.
They also preformed a re-enactment of far left candidate getting murdered, for reasons. The local GOP asked for this, or something?
It's the beginning of what you see in most societies when the social order begins to break down into two mutually exclusive and opposing camps. These are the brown-shirts to the Left's Antifa.
The Japanese thing is a big deal among hard-right youth, especially on places like 4-chan. They see it as heroic action of youth against communism left-wing "degeneracy".
|
On October 15 2018 03:20 Plansix wrote:Meanwhile, as we debate if 100% certainty is necessary to make decisions, the proud boys descended on NYC at the invitation of the GOP. It ended in the street brawl you would expect. They also preformed a re-enactment of far left candidate getting murdered, for reasons. The local GOP asked for this, or something? https://twitter.com/metasynthie/status/1051520835117375488
Let them try that shit in Brooklyn or the Bronx lol... Of course, Upper East Side, where there's literally not many people who care about what goes on around them.
|
On October 15 2018 09:11 ReditusSum wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2018 03:20 Plansix wrote:
Meanwhile, as we debate if 100% certainty is necessary to make decisions, the proud boys descended on NYC at the invitation of the GOP. It ended in the street brawl you would expect.
They also preformed a re-enactment of far left candidate getting murdered, for reasons. The local GOP asked for this, or something?
It's the beginning of what you see in most societies when the social order begins to break down into two mutually exclusive and opposing camps. These are the brown-shirts to the Left's Antifa. The Japanese thing is a big deal among hard-right youth, especially on places like 4-chan. They see it as heroic action of youth against communism left-wing "degeneracy".
Looking forward to the natural conclusion of the obsession when they try to kill someone during g a live debate.
|
United States44203 Posts
This is just the weirdest timeline. As far as I can tell Proud Boys are an offshoot of the /r/nofap community who believe that online porn is a gateway drug to communism. I was trying to think of a rhetorical more absurd group who could be next in line to gain conservative political relevance but I'm honestly not sure there is one. We might have peaked.
|
On October 15 2018 14:09 KwarK wrote:
This is just the weirdest timeline. As far as I can tell Proud Boys are an offshoot of the /r/nofap community who believe that online porn is a gateway drug to communism. I was trying to think of a rhetorical more absurd group who could be next in line to gain conservative political relevance but I'm honestly not sure there is one. We might have peaked.
/r/incels..? Judging entierly by how republican leadership are treating wome, I'm not sure they're far off.
|
On October 15 2018 14:09 KwarK wrote:
This is just the weirdest timeline. As far as I can tell Proud Boys are an offshoot of the /r/nofap community who believe that online porn is a gateway drug to communism. I was trying to think of a rhetorical more absurd group who could be next in line to gain conservative political relevance but I'm honestly not sure there is one. We might have peaked.
Goddamn it Kwark. You've done it now.
|
On October 15 2018 16:10 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2018 14:09 KwarK wrote:
This is just the weirdest timeline. As far as I can tell Proud Boys are an offshoot of the /r/nofap community who believe that online porn is a gateway drug to communism. I was trying to think of a rhetorical more absurd group who could be next in line to gain conservative political relevance but I'm honestly not sure there is one. We might have peaked. /r/incels..? Judging entierly by how republican leadership are treating wome, I'm not sure they're far off.
There are some very fine incels I'm sure.
|
Wow. Never heard of incels before this morning but if there’s ever been a group that desperately needs to be NSA’ed, it’s that one.
|
Elizabeth Warren is an idiot if she thinks this dna test helps her case at all. The entire idea of "you may think I'm not native American, but jokes on you. I'm 3% native American " just makes her look desperate to be a minority.
I was willing to give her a chance, but now she can just fuck right off. This sort of thing is not compatible with our voters. Not when Trump is the guy you are running against. This plays her right into a bad side to be on with this current culture war we have going on. Lots of people will roll their eyes and never take her seriously at this point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
