Now That Trump's President... (not any more!)

  On 1/30/2019 at 5:07 AM, Tricone RC said:

 yet, those same people have told me before about how much they hate the idea of a carbon tax

 

Worked really well in France late 2018. Poor people have bottom lines too.

Im no good w phootshop but Ive always wanted to add a realistic "DADDY" over the top of Roger Stone's Nixon tattoo. Also had another version where underneath it would say "FUCKED ME"

  On 1/30/2019 at 7:44 AM, goDel said:

Tiny WTF moment now Chris Christie has come out of his cave and released a book. Yes, another book of a quasi trump loyalist. And still many more to come. As they seem to think they can vindicate themselves. Which is fair. They need to. But they are implying they can. Which is a bit thick.

Anyways, about that tiny WTF: Christies account got some people thinking about timelines and what did trump know when and what did he do.

 

Check this:

que Trump showing him where his private jet is. lol.

  Quote

 

 

Being outside. Having actual face to face conversations. Interacting with people who do not immediately fit in your specific bubble, but have vastly different opinions. And interacting with them without any problem at all. No triggers or safe spaces. And no pseudo pathologies where anything which differs from the norm is related to some kind of mental disease. People used to be way more open and understanding to individual differences, imo. Nowadays, we're all a bunch of stereotypical ideologists being triggered when being exposed to different ideologies.

I mostly agree. There are many alternate news streams catering to said ideologies. To the point where I wonder how affected I am due to my chosen 'news stream'. It's kind of like religion to me. How sure are you of your chosen religion if there are many alternate ones with just as dense lore/requirement of faith. BTW I'm just using it as an analogy not attacking anything. Sometimes I feel overwhelmed by the sheer chaos of all the different information shooting this and that way, that I know I just have to be wrong about various things, even aspects pertaining to people like Trump.

It needs to be possible to be 'wrong' and not be looked down on for it. When we're young we're taught to argue all the way and to stick to our guns and not let up because you are "stupid" if you look wrong, but knowledge requires constant re-examining. A conversation needs to go from " I'm right, you're wrong, and you're stupid for it" to "let's pool our knowledge and change our mind with the relevant facts". That way knowledge grows instead of just branching off into lots of irrelevant paths.

As what happens is that everyone talks like they know everything, and the second someone pokes a hole in your logic you have to defend it no matter what. Otherwise everyone will just fall further into said ideologies as knowledge becomes about what 'feels right' and not what is right no matter how you feel.

Long story short: Debates of ideology have become strictly about defending your ego and NOT trying to become a better/more knowledgeable person.

  On 1/30/2019 at 7:58 PM, Brisbot said:

 

  Quote

 

 

Being outside. Having actual face to face conversations. Interacting with people who do not immediately fit in your specific bubble, but have vastly different opinions. And interacting with them without any problem at all. No triggers or safe spaces. And no pseudo pathologies where anything which differs from the norm is related to some kind of mental disease. People used to be way more open and understanding to individual differences, imo. Nowadays, we're all a bunch of stereotypical ideologists being triggered when being exposed to different ideologies.

I mostly agree. There are many alternate news streams catering to said ideologies. To the point where I wonder how affected I am due to my chosen 'news stream'. It's kind of like religion to me. How sure are you of your chosen religion if there are many alternate ones with just as dense lore/requirement of faith. BTW I'm just using it as an analogy not attacking anything. Sometimes I feel overwhelmed by the sheer chaos of all the different information shooting this and that way, that I know I just have to be wrong about various things, even aspects pertaining to people like Trump.

 

It needs to be possible to be 'wrong' and not be looked down on for it. When we're young we're taught to argue all the way and to stick to our guns and not let up because you are "stupid" if you look wrong, but knowledge requires constant re-examining. A conversation needs to go from " I'm right, you're wrong, and you're stupid for it" to "let's pool our knowledge and change our mind with the relevant facts". That way knowledge grows instead of just branching off into lots of irrelevant paths.

 

 

As what happens is that everyone talks like they know everything, and the second someone pokes a hole in your logic you have to defend it no matter what. Otherwise everyone will just fall further into said ideologies as knowledge becomes about what 'feels right' and not what is right no matter how you feel.

 

Long story short: Debates of ideology have become strictly about defending your ego and NOT trying to become a better/more knowledgeable person.

 

 

on that note

yeah I guess I'm just arguing for an ideology about whether you're right or wrong not being attached to ego. Ideology is just how humans work. We aren't machines (yet).

  On 1/30/2019 at 7:58 PM, Brisbot said:

It needs to be possible to be 'wrong' and not be looked down on for it. When we're young we're taught to argue all the way and to stick to our guns and not let up because you are "stupid" if you look wrong, but knowledge requires constant re-examining. A conversation needs to go from " I'm right, you're wrong, and you're stupid for it" to "let's pool our knowledge and change our mind with the relevant facts". That way knowledge grows instead of just branching off into lots of irrelevant paths.

^ that paradigm only works when people are committed to acting in good faith. when they don't, all the niceties and civilities of debate and rational argument start to become useless and abortive. for example, it's hard to argue that someone should be allowed to spread hateful/destructive beliefs against some "other" whilst knowing deep down the wrongness of what they're doing, and still deserve not to be looked down upon. they do deserve it.

take the Alex Jones problem: he deserved to get deplatformed and fucked off, and the free speech argument rings hollow when you realise that the guy knows exactly what he's doing and doesn't care about the consequences. he doesn't believe any of the horseshit he's spouting, so why would anyone else (non-followers) entertain them in the name of defending free speech?

yet, I can also see the logic of not necessarily giving those sorts of people what they may well deserve and instead countering with peaceful measures/civility/taking the high road, which in the long run could be more effective than engaging in outright conflict. idk. but it that may not work when you consider the mass effects and the net bad for society. it's a complicated, blurry line.

what America really needs right now is Judge Holden & the Glanton gang to ride rough-shod through the whole failed experiment, regeneration through violence, taking scalps, only carion for the vultures

better the devil you know than incurable corporate sclerosis of the collective psyche, at least this way there may be a ray of a god forced to select through something other than self-defeating structural biases

sorry, 2nd bourbon in a looooooong time

also, older people are worse with internet/devices/social media than younger people and are far more easily swayed/less critical of all the politically-motivated information operations going on all the time, as should be well-evidenced by now (Trump, Brexit). younger people certainly do need a healthier balance in terms of real life experience and getting out of their comfort zone to learn things, especially kids growing up. but all that shite about them being zombified by screens while older folk retain the true wisdom of life (including any stubborn outmoded prejudices they may have) is just that: shite.

  Quote

 

 

I could not agree more. The sincere pursuit of understanding is not zero-sum. The best working relationships I've had have always been rooted in an ego-free attitude of genuine curiosity.

Yeah and life is easier for everyone because no one has to defend anything because being wrong doesn't come with any penalty. If only that attitude could extend over to political discussions and the like. But it becomes an issue because, taking conservatives as an example, if you question their beliefs, you're attacking their way of life. It's very deeply rooted in ego and identity and family etc etc.

Attacking say.. guns with facts becomes ineffective because there's a lot of unstated ego baggage at stake. It can feel like you're just pointing out some very surface level things but really you are questioning their way of life... them as people. And so here comes irrationality and leaps of logic to protect their identity/ego. It's about preserving their way of life because REALLY it's worked for them up to that point.

I mean conservatives don't necessarily have bad lives. Their beliefs serve them just fine but affects other people due to their effect on politics. Also they don't get to see it because conservatives and liberals are pretty much segregated.

And I'm sure the same applies to liberals though I'd say on average liberals are more loose with that kind of stuff. If you try to base your opinions on facts and not beliefs it's easier to change how you live your life or perceive the world.

  Quote

 

 

that paradigm only works when people are committed to acting in good faith. when they don't, all the niceties and civilities of debate and rational argument start to become useless and abortive. for example, it's hard to argue that someone should be allowed to spread hateful/destructive beliefs against some "other" whilst knowing deep down the wrongness of what they're doing, and still deserve not to be looked down upon. they do deserve it.

Yep I agree. This attitude is something you see in scientific circles where if they don't know about a certain aspect of the field they study they will immediately defer to someone more knowledgeable and admit their shortcomings. There's this understanding that no one scientist knows, or is right about everything and so when one is proven wrong they bow out respectfully.

But about your point, if people were taught from a young age to put aside ego and worry more about the truth of reality then I think they'd be much less susceptible to charlatans.

  Quote

 

 

take the Alex Jones problem: he deserved to get deplatformed and fucked off, and the free speech argument rings hollow when you realise that the guy knows exactly what he's doing and doesn't care about the consequences. he doesn't believe any of the horseshit he's spouting, so why would anyone else (non-followers) entertain them in the name of defending free speech?

This is something I'm curious about. I don't know much about him but I've seen how he uses his platform to push crap products like virility serum. How do you know for sure he doesn't believe it though? I've been wondering that about him myself, is that just a feeling you have or has he come out and said he talks about a bunch of nonsense? I saw him on Joe Rogan and he's not nearly as insane as he appears on his show.

one of the undocumented workers fired by trump's country club was invited by a congress person to be her guest at the state of the union address :)

  On 1/31/2019 at 4:39 AM, Brisbot said:

 

  Quote

that paradigm only works when people are committed to acting in good faith. when they don't, all the niceties and civilities of debate and rational argument start to become useless and abortive. for example, it's hard to argue that someone should be allowed to spread hateful/destructive beliefs against some "other" whilst knowing deep down the wrongness of what they're doing, and still deserve not to be looked down upon. they do deserve it.

Yep I agree. This attitude is something you see in scientific circles where if they don't know about a certain aspect of the field they study they will immediately defer to someone more knowledgeable and admit their shortcomings. There's this understanding that no one scientist knows, or is right about everything and so when one is proven wrong they bow out respectfully.

 

But about your point, if people were taught from a young age to put aside ego and worry more about the truth of reality then I think they'd be much less susceptible to charlatans.

 

some fings:

- I agree that searching for the truth of things should be the prime focus rather than just cleaving to the kind of thing you'd like to hear

- scientists are still susceptible to kneejerk irrationality and prideful pissing contests (because they're humans), what you're describing is the ideal situation rather than the real one necessarily

- I think there is some scope to continue to speak and debate in good faith with people who have been persuaded by charlatans (depends how rabid they are), but not with the charlatans themselves. a "charlatan" is self-knowing and pushes their line in spite of knowing, or at least suspecting, that it's a crock. there's no room for debate with those types, it's self-defeating polemical circlejerking that just helps them make money. I believe people like Sam Harris and JBP sit squarely in this camp.

  Quote

 

  Quote

take the Alex Jones problem: he deserved to get deplatformed and fucked off, and the free speech argument rings hollow when you realise that the guy knows exactly what he's doing and doesn't care about the consequences. he doesn't believe any of the horseshit he's spouting, so why would anyone else (non-followers) entertain them in the name of defending free speech?

This is something I'm curious about. I don't know much about him but I've seen how he uses his platform to push crap products like virility serum. How do you know for sure he doesn't believe it though? I've been wondering that about him myself, is that just a feeling you have or has he come out and said he talks about a bunch of nonsense? I saw him on Joe Rogan and he's not nearly as insane as he appears on his show.

 

crap product advertising might be how he makes much of his money but his bread and butter is selling insane conspiracy theories and outrage designed to act as red rags for people on the right, and to suck them far beyond the sensible edge of the right and into pure looney-land. (btw every person on this board who believed in Pizzagate should submit themselves for sterilisation - it's no coincidence some of them don't post here anymore). I do believe he knowingly dupes his audience, and his main motivation is just one of practical greed, amassing money, power and influence.

I think his appearance on Rogan actually supports this as well, because his relatively calm demeanour there demonstrates a calculated restraint over when and how far to turn the lever from "guy rationally discussing some out-there theories" to "insane hellfire preacher". he knows his audience and his context. he knew he couldn't do that shit on Rogan and be taken seriously, whereas a guy who earnestly believed in all that shit wouldn't care to restrain himself cos in his mind he'd be speaking the truth.

  On 1/31/2019 at 4:53 AM, ignatius said:

one of the undocumented workers fired by trump's country club was invited by a congress person to be her guest at the state of the union address :)

Good. Hope they show up. Donnie needs to be taught that his actions have consequences - something that should've been done decades ago.

^^ donnie has nothing to worry about because god wanted him to be president. i swear, god works in mysterious ways sometimes

https://youtu.be/CqdEI3NNpGc

Remember when George W. Bush said God told him to invade Iraq?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bush-god-told-me-to-invade-iraq-6262644.html%3famp

  On 1/31/2019 at 2:33 AM, cwmbrancity said:

what America really needs right now is Judge Holden & the Glanton gang to ride rough-shod through the whole failed experiment, regeneration through violence, taking scalps, only carion for the vultures

 

better the devil you know than incurable corporate sclerosis of the collective psyche, at least this way there may be a ray of a god forced to select through something other than self-defeating structural biases

 

The devil was in league with death. Holden sought to triumph over death, a fallen angel of a different stripe: "Your heart yearns to be told some mystery. The only mystery is that there is no mystery." Ah, a man after my own heart! All joking aside, I wonder what Judge Holden's first act as secretary of defense would be . . . ?

People saying anything is “God’s plan” don’t possibly see how that could be turned against them. Like yeah gods plan for you was to get your ass kicked by me, who are you to disagree?

Somebody push McConnell off a cliff. Trump and Bolton too, while we're at it.

well, it's friday

trump withdraws US from nuclear arms control treaty

of course it's russia. were you even wondering?

how does it make you feel that trump has decided to let russia expand their already vulgar nuclear arsenal?

have a nice weekend

I have more faith in Russia than in trump

  On 2/2/2019 at 4:09 AM, very honest said:

well, it's friday

 

trump withdraws US from nuclear arms control treaty

 

of course it's russia. were you even wondering?

 

how does it make you feel that trump has decided to let russia expand their already vulgar nuclear arsenal?

 

have a nice weekend

https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/USNuclearModernization 

also from friday night

https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/vbwv74/don-jr-and-jared-kushners-congressional-testimonies-are-finally-going-to-mueller?utm_source=reddit.com

  Quote

Don Jr. and Jared Kushner’s congressional testimonies are finally going to Mueller

 

hopefully this means grand jury indictments