Discussion of the recent unfolding of history.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Serendipper wrote:Yes and because he's so trusting of his colleagues, he's said things like:

Noam Chomsky: Republican Party is the most dangerous organisation in human history
Was this meant to show that he should trust his intuition? I'm wondering how it relates to my post.

I'm not sure if he's trusting his intuition, but I'm pretty sure he's trusting his colleagues.
Serendipper
Philosopher

Posts: 1773
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Gloominary wrote:Do urban people tend to understand the economy better than rural people because they tend to be more academically educated?

Yes. I think the training in the tools of logic and mathematical problem solving in general would better-equip someone to then proceed to study economics. Someone shielded from such practicing and consequent neural development because they had to drop out of school in order to work would not have the mechanisms in place to understand economic nuances.

And if so, what does that mean, should rural people be barred from voting in federal, or all elections, even municipal?

My emotional response is "hell yeah!" but no, it wouldn't be democratic. The solution is education, but most of the rural people are too smart to learn anything, so "science progresses funeral by funeral." Wait for them to die and do a better job educating the next generation.

Btw I'm rural. Mom's a hillbilly who raised me in Pentecostal churches... you know.. the speaking in tongues and that. Holy Rollers. I know the words to 100s of country songs: "my long hair just can't cover my red neck", I can run a trotline, skin a buck, catch catfish and haven't tried making wine, but I make pickles. I have a shotgun, four wheel drive truck and atv. I'm a high-tech redneck: Mayberry meets Star Trek.

I don't think so, rather, I think urban people tend to have a better understanding of, well, urban, top-down economics, whereas rural people tend to have a better understanding of, rural, bottom-up economics, where things happen organically, like how an ant contributes to the welfare of the colony without knowing how exactly or being told what to do, just by taking care of her own needs and the needs of her neighbors.

But even if they understood how the economy works less, even their own local ones, they still need a say in them, because they can't expect urbanites to care about ruralites as much as ruralites care about themselves.

It's more about hate and arrogance on the part of the ruralites than anything noble.
Serendipper
Philosopher

Posts: 1773
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Serendipper wrote:
Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Serendipper wrote:Yes and because he's so trusting of his colleagues, he's said things like:

Noam Chomsky: Republican Party is the most dangerous organisation in human history
Was this meant to show that he should trust his intuition? I'm wondering how it relates to my post.

I'm not sure if he's trusting his intuition, but I'm pretty sure he's trusting his colleagues.
Which is a form of intuition. I am not denigrating it, just categorizing it.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher

Posts: 1307
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Serendipper wrote:What about these people who think all the Jews of the world are conspiring? I've given this a lot of consideration and can't reconcile how all the Jews of the world would meet in backrooms to formulate their plans for world domination. People who think that is possible haven't given it good thought, imo. The Jews are smarter and that explains what otherwise seems a conspiracy.
That's just cherry picking. You are dismissing a category based on what is relevent to only parts of it.

The elites are conspiring. The globalists are conspiring. Mass shootings are false flags. Everything is a conspiracy to the uneducated demographic. Fluoride in water to feminize men to further globalist agenda. It's a disconnect with reality.
Well, a lot of countries, based on science reject flouride. And humorously enough there is evidence that it may affect male sexuality.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27154732
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23654100

Personally I just think it is generally toxic, and so does, for example, the EU. And the evidence that it helps do what it is supposed to do is weak at best.

So on this issue your smugness in relation to the uneducated masses was a disconnect from reality.

As for the rest, you're just generalizing. Further there are many well educated people who get classified as conspiracy theorist. Engineers and architects for truth about 9/11 is one group.

As long as you keep your 'rebuttal' at this vague general level, toss in pan-ad hom dismissals of the conspiracy theorist you are basically doing the same thing you are criticising.

And for what it's worth, I am well educated and I'm a conspiracy theorist by the mainstream estimation. And I don't have anti-semitic theories, not do I like Trump.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher

Posts: 1307
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:Which is a form of intuition. I am not denigrating it, just categorizing it.

My intuition is you're wrong, but I'll defer to your expertise I think that is what Noam is doing (not that his intuition is that climate change is correct, but that his intuition is irrelevant).

You're saying his intuition is to defer to the authority of those purported to know and maybe you're right, but it could be that he's following a mechanistic logic designed to keep intuitions out of it.

Intuition = what my gut says, right?

The scientific types don't have any choice in the matter because if they are scientists, they have to trust the reported science because if they don't, then they've undermined their own work. That's why each claim is substantiated with a citation (scienceguy et al 2019)
Serendipper
Philosopher

Posts: 1773
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Serendipper wrote:What about these people who think all the Jews of the world are conspiring? I've given this a lot of consideration and can't reconcile how all the Jews of the world would meet in backrooms to formulate their plans for world domination. People who think that is possible haven't given it good thought, imo. The Jews are smarter and that explains what otherwise seems a conspiracy.
That's just cherry picking. You are dismissing a category based on what is relevent to only parts of it.

It's just an example. It's not cherry picking as if most examples were opposite but I cherry-picked the one I need.

The elites are conspiring. The globalists are conspiring. Mass shootings are false flags. Everything is a conspiracy to the uneducated demographic. Fluoride in water to feminize men to further globalist agenda. It's a disconnect with reality.
Well, a lot of countries, based on science reject flouride. And humorously enough there is evidence that it may affect male sexuality.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27154732
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23654100

Personally I just think it is generally toxic, and so does, for example, the EU. And the evidence that it helps do what it is supposed to do is weak at best.

Yes, me too. I don't need science to tell me Fl is a highly reactive ion. But, they've associated it with enamel strength, right? (By whatever mechanism)

So on this issue your smugness in relation to the uneducated masses was a disconnect from reality.

Where am I disconnected?

As for the rest, you're just generalizing. Further there are many well educated people who get classified as conspiracy theorist. Engineers and architects for truth about 9/11 is one group.

Of course I'm generalizing. If I said asian people are generally shorter, then you point out that one of them played basketball and accuse me of generalizing doesn't mean my generalization was wrong or that I'm intellectually dishonest.

As long as you keep your 'rebuttal' at this vague general level, toss in pan-ad hom dismissals of the conspiracy theorist you are basically doing the same thing you are criticising.

I don't know why it's hard for you to accept that conspiracy theorists aren't generally that educated. Sure, exceptions exist.

One time I left my door unlocked and didn't get robbed. Does that mean it's generally a good idea to leave doors unlocked?
I went outside in the cold and didn't get sick. Does that mean it's generally a good idea to be cold?

And for what it's worth, I am well educated and I'm a conspiracy theorist by the mainstream estimation. And I don't have anti-semitic theories, not do I like Trump.

If you're perceptive enough to discern real conspiracies then that's good, but I don't think you're predisposed to see everything as a conspiracy. I've seen no evidence of that from you. On the contrary actually... you always question everything and that's a hallmark of intelligence. You're really sharp and I'm glad you're here and I don't want it to be construed otherwise.
Serendipper
Philosopher

Posts: 1773
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Serendipper wrote:It's just an example. It's not cherry picking as if most examples were opposite but I cherry-picked the one I need.
Again, there are groups that are not anti-semitic and are well educated. So, one can with broad brushes dismiss a whole class of claims in an ad hom manner, but then the motivations to do this seem poor to me.

Yes, me too. I don't need science to tell me Fl is a highly reactive ion. But, they've associated it with enamel strength, right? (By whatever mechanism)
I think they used to claim it prevent decay and cavities. But in any case, it is not crazy to think it is damaging male sexuality. I think it was on the loopy side to think it was a communist plot, which was the rage for a time.

So on this issue your smugness in relation to the uneducated masses was a disconnect from reality.

Where am I disconnected?
You gave an example of conspiracy theory thinking. But in fact the position is supported by science. That was a disconnection.

Of course I'm generalizing. If I said asian people are generally shorter, then you point out that one of them played basketball and accuse me of generalizing doesn't mean my generalization was wrong or that I'm intellectually dishonest.
WEll, 1) you were wrong about fluouride. 2) you are not generalizing in the way one generalizes about racial heights. You did not say 'generally' X. You dismissed the entire category. No qualifications about tendencies, most, many whatever. You just categorically dismissed them.

I don't know why it's hard for you to accept that conspiracy theorists aren't generally that educated. Sure, exceptions exist.
I don't think I argued against that assertion. I think argued against other assertions.

If you're perceptive enough to discern real conspiracies then that's good, but I don't think you're predisposed to see everything as a conspiracy. I've seen no evidence of that from you. On the contrary actually... you always question everything and that's a hallmark of intelligence. You're really sharp and I'm glad you're here and I don't want it to be construed otherwise.
Thank you, and no I didn't take your way of describing conspiracy theorists as an unwitting attack on me, nor do I think you don't appreciate me. And given how tough and cranky I am, I should add that I appreciate your presence also, especially when you run into certain personalities I just don't have the energy to point out their leaps and loopiness. I can only assume you are retired or work as a security guard in the middle of the desert or something.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher

Posts: 1307
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Serendipper wrote:It's just an example. It's not cherry picking as if most examples were opposite but I cherry-picked the one I need.
Again, there are groups that are not anti-semitic and are well educated. So, one can with broad brushes dismiss a whole class of claims in an ad hom manner, but then the motivations to do this seem poor to me.

What I mean is the jews, when taken as a group, have an average iq higher than any other group and are only rivaled by the asians, so that's a more plausible explanation for their seeming to control everything than backroom deals and conspiracy. Now if they were no smarter than anyone else, perhaps the conspiracy theory would seem a more probable explanation.

Yes, me too. I don't need science to tell me Fl is a highly reactive ion. But, they've associated it with enamel strength, right? (By whatever mechanism)
I think they used to claim it prevent decay and cavities. But in any case, it is not crazy to think it is damaging male sexuality. I think it was on the loopy side to think it was a communist plot, which was the rage for a time.

My toothpaste tube says "with sugar acid protection**" and then in smaller letters "from fluoride." Then the ** signifies "With sugar acid protection provided by fluoride, which strengthens enamel, creating a shield that protects the tooth surface against sugar acid attack."

Sodium Fluoride 0.25% (0.15% w/v fluoride ion)

Then it goes on to describe it as a poison and recommends seeking immediate medical attention if swallowed.

I have no idea if any of that is true.

So on this issue your smugness in relation to the uneducated masses was a disconnect from reality.

Where am I disconnected?
You gave an example of conspiracy theory thinking. But in fact the position is supported by science. That was a disconnection.

I'm not suggesting that the dummies are conspiring, but that they are prone to believing conspiracies.

Of course I'm generalizing. If I said asian people are generally shorter, then you point out that one of them played basketball and accuse me of generalizing doesn't mean my generalization was wrong or that I'm intellectually dishonest.
WEll, 1) you were wrong about fluouride.

I've not taken a position on Fl, so how could I be wrong? I have absolutely no clue whether Fl is beneficial or not (when not swallowed).

2) you are not generalizing in the way one generalizes about racial heights. You did not say 'generally' X. You dismissed the entire category. No qualifications about tendencies, most, many whatever. You just categorically dismissed them.

You'll have to provide a concrete example since I'm not seeing my error via the claims you're making.

I am asserting that if we categorize everyone into two groups: the educated and the uneducated, that the uneducated group will contain the vast majority of the conspiracy theorists. Obviously exceptions apply.

I could also assert that if we categorize everyone into two groups: the asians and non-asians, that the asian group will contain the vast majority of short people. Exceptions apply.

Where is my error? I am more than happy to learn from my mistakes, but first I have to see the mistake I made.

If you're perceptive enough to discern real conspiracies then that's good, but I don't think you're predisposed to see everything as a conspiracy. I've seen no evidence of that from you. On the contrary actually... you always question everything and that's a hallmark of intelligence. You're really sharp and I'm glad you're here and I don't want it to be construed otherwise.
Thank you, and no I didn't take your way of describing conspiracy theorists as an unwitting attack on me, nor do I think you don't appreciate me. And given how tough and cranky I am, I should add that I appreciate your presence also, especially when you run into certain personalities I just don't have the energy to point out their leaps and loopiness. I can only assume you are retired or work as a security guard in the middle of the desert or something.

lol, no, I just don't have the neural energy to put into conveying connotations that would better describe my tone and tenor. If there is a scarcity of glucose, my left hemisphere monopolizes it and I talk robotically which could make me seem gruff. And there is almost always a glucose scarcity since I'm OCD as hell. I burn the candle at both ends, plus a torch in the middle while the whole thing rests in a blast furnace lol! I'm probably won't live to retirement
Serendipper
Philosopher

Posts: 1773
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

@Serendipper

Definitely not. 3 people have more wealth than half the population and all 3 are liberals (Buffett, Gates, Bezos).

Silicon valley, hollywood, academia have more money than anyone.

2 3rds of Trump voters had annual household incomes above the median, which's about 50 grand.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/06/05/its-time-to-bust-the-myth-most-trump-voters-were-not-working-class/?utm_term=.3a811ab6ffbf

Talent for acting, talent for writing code, talent for comedy, talent for teaching, etc = liberal bias. Talented brains come to liberal conclusions and a brainscan could predict with 82.9% accuracy whether one is republican or democrat. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/artic...ne.0052970

Corroborating study here https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3092984/

I was unable to access the first link.

The second link just said conservatives tend to feel more fear and disgust, not that they're talentless.

Maybe liberals are good with artsy and nerdy things, and conservatives are good with their hands and socializing.

I don't believe conservatives are some kind of lower life form.

Yes, me too, but how do you get a narcissist to realize he's wrong? The way I do it is to exhaustively associate him with dummies to such extent that he appears completely foolish to even the most moronic imbeciles.

Well I don't think I'm a narcissist and it won't work on me, because I base my beliefs on my research, reason, experience and gut.

What a, b or c group thinks and how smart they (supposedly) are is of quinary importance.

Only when the capitalists get into the gov: the fox guards the henhouse.

Government is perfectly capable of being corrupt on its own, without the influence of private corporations, see the Soviet Union, altho megacorporations certainly don't help things.

While democracy can help keep government in check, only if the people vote smart, which they seldom do, and the votes are tallied correctly, which they may seldom be.

Sure I suppose so, but if there's a group of smart people here and a group of dummies there, which are you going to hang with?

All other things being equal or unknown, the smarties.

Yes and they're stupid for doing it as it's completely transparent what they're up to.

History is full of conspiracy, people, especially the wealthy and powerful, always plot and scheme, but maybe that's just my paranoid-conservative brain talking, maybe we should just have global dictatorship, things will work out.

Hell I thought it was "common sense" lol. I could probably dig up some data, but check out the followers of Alex Jones or even Rush because the whole premise is a conspiracy that the "globalists" are taking over.

Here, I thought of you when I read this:

Furthermore, compared with liberals, individuals who
endorse right-wing ideologies are more fearful and anxious that
out-groups will cause the disintegration of societal moral standards
and traditions (Altemeyer, 1996; Jost et al., 2003; Sibley
& Duckitt, 2008).

You're always on about destruction of society through erosion of traditions and immigration.

And the title of the paper: Lower Cognitive Ability Predicts Greater Prejudice Through Right-Wing Ideologies https://scottbarrykaufman.com/wp-conten ... 421206.pdf

I'm not saying you're stupid because you're clearly not, and I was once conservative myself. But, dummies gravitate to the right, so long as they're white, since black or brown dummies do not. And old. Young dummies tend left. The arrogance of old, white, uneducated men is what's causing hatred of white people. They think because they can hunt and fish that it qualifies them to proclaim things they have never studied as "common sense"... or because some cigar-sucking fatass said so.

You're right, my common sense barometer must need adjusting.

Overall, conservatives probably fear more.

Liberals and conservatives probably differ in what they fear too.

I don't identify as conservative...not that there's anything wrong with fear, it's situational, like anything.

I'm conservative on some things, liberal on some things, and libertarian on others, I don't follow groups, I don't try to fit in, if anything I'd rather stand out.

For example when it comes to abortion and the environment, I'm very liberal, when it comes to big business, I'm very liberal, but when it comes to small business, I'm very libertarian, I'd like to see more regulation of big business and less of small.

I wonder how else conservatives and liberals differ emotionally, and cognitively?

Are conservatives also more angry, is that why they're tougher on crime?

Are they labelers, are they more discriminating?
Last edited by Gloominary on Thu Jan 24, 2019 5:10 am, edited 1 time in total.

Gloominary
Philosopher

Posts: 1306
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Dislocated

But for people who supposedly fear less, liberals are sure willing to sacrifice their liberty for security.

I'm not sure how much stock I put in these brain scans.

Gloominary
Philosopher

Posts: 1306
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Dislocated

@Serendipper

Yes. I think the training in the tools of logic and mathematical problem solving in general would better-equip someone to then proceed to study economics. Someone shielded from such practicing and consequent neural development because they had to drop out of school in order to work would not have the mechanisms in place to understand economic nuances.

Ants aren't so good with facts, figures and hierarchy, yet they seem to be pretty good economists.

Atomized, semi-autistic, liberal urbanites have to be told what to do by some authority, according to government or some corporation's elaborate, central plan, but conservative ruralites on the other hand have other means of organizing themselves, taking care of one another and redistributing wealth and resources where need be.

Conservative ruralites have larger, extended families they can turn to for material, mental and emotional support.

They also talk with their friends and neighbors more.

They attend church services more regularly.

They join more clubs and participate in community events.

Mom tends to stay home, and homeschools the kids.

They rely on homemade remedies for what ails them.

More of them are self employed.

They form militias.

And again they know how to live off the land, make their own this and that, barter.

Where do liberal urbanites look to for support?

To the state, their psychiatrist, or they go online.

Conservative ruralites look to themselves and their communities.

Rural, conservative networking would look more like a spider web structure, whereas urban, liberal networking would look more like a pyramid.

Unfortunately these two demographics have miserably failed to understand each other, yet they have to share the same federal and state governments.

I propose instead of having to vie for dominance, imposing their alien values and way of life on each other, the federal government stays out of local affairs, and state lines are redrawn, so urbanites can have their own states, and ruralites theirs.

My emotional response is "hell yeah!" but no, it wouldn't be democratic. The solution is education, but most of the rural people are too smart to learn anything, so "science progresses funeral by funeral." Wait for them to die and do a better job educating the next generation.

The trend, the last several centuries especially/particularly, has been increasing urbanization, so you may get your wish, their way of life has been dying out for some time.

However, in light of growing environmental challenges, I suspect this trend will reverse itself soon in all likelihood.

Humanity will have to relocalize, for globalization requires vast sums of resources, resources we no longer have.

Gloominary
Philosopher

Posts: 1306
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Dislocated

It seems to me, white liberals have become as fearful of their own ingroup as conservatives used to be about outgroups.

Gloominary
Philosopher

Posts: 1306
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Dislocated

Serendipper wrote:I've not taken a position on Fl, so how could I be wrong? I have absolutely no clue whether Fl is beneficial or not (when not swallowed).
I just looked back at the original quote.
Fluoride in water to feminize men to further globalist agenda
And I haven't countered that. I did point out that it is damaging to men's sexual potency and testosterone. So one part of the idea is correct. IOW someone reading what you wrote would likely think it's just a silly idea as a whole. The issue of whether is part of an agenda, yes, I haven't shown that. And I suppose I am agnostic. There is so much evidence that fluoride is damaging and still it is used ends up being a kind of passive conspiracy at a minimum. But that is, yes, still a distance from an agenda based decision. I didn't remember you having the part about the agenda.

2) you are not generalizing in the way one generalizes about racial heights. You did not say 'generally' X. You dismissed the entire category. No qualifications about tendencies, most, many whatever. You just categorically dismissed them.

You'll have to provide a concrete example since I'm not seeing my error via the claims you're making.

Well, it's the context. And I just looked at the work I would have to do. REquote Gloominary's post, your response, my response in a couple of posts. And I am too lazy.

Let me put it this way, setting aside the issue of whether you have presented something false there.

When people talk about the uneducated or cognitive biases, the implicit logic in the former accusation, is that if more educated people believe something, it is the case. I think that depends on the kind of fact it is, and it is an argument we cannot draw any conclusions on in any specific case. So the argument functions as a general dismissal, when it should not. It is ad hom, so it is not relevent to any specific case.

The second accusation, that it has to do with cognitive biases, certainly has merit, in certain kinds of patterns of belief, but again it is ad hom. It is focussing on the believers and not the specific arguments and best proponents. But further it assumes that not believing in a specific conspiracy theory is bias free. There is tremendous cognitive dissonence around noticing when there are systematic problems - at least for those for whom that creates cognitive dissonence, which is many people.

Further everyone believes in conspiracies, and every group has believed in fake ones. Not all members, but the groups as a whole.

You may not have meant it as I took it.

I read your psychologizing of the issue and class-judging the issue as an ad hom dismissal of both the believers and the theories. IOW look at the group in general, evaluate THEM, dismiss the specific conspiracies (alone with anyone who believes in CTs not accepted or promoted by mainstream media)

That may not have been a fair read.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher

Posts: 1307
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Gloominary wrote:But for people who supposedly fear less, liberals are sure willing to sacrifice their liberty for security.
I think this kind of discussion has to get into sub-groups. Conservatives have often been very mixed about liberty. Often they are for greater law enforcement, less rights for criminals - which ends up meaning less rights for people considered by the police to be criminals - that is suspects. They have often been very pro-wars on drugs, wars on terrorism, that have had as part of them reductions in liberty. I would guess more of the left of center was skeptical about the Patriot Act than the right of center. Of course it was Bush,so some of that may have been knee jerk, but still.

To me there is a massive center that has been manipulated to give up liberty. Then you have on the right people who could be broadly classed as libertarians or share something with that label and on the left anarchists or people who share much of their skepticism about both government and industry...These people are actually trying to determine who has power, how did they get it, what does it mean about citizen power, privacy, liberty, etc. Unfortunately the two groups tend to have strong cultural differences and have not been able to unify to at least create a significant minority faction.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher

Posts: 1307
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Serendipper wrote:My intuition is you're wrong, but I'll defer to your expertise I think that is what Noam is doing (not that his intuition is that climate change is correct, but that his intuition is irrelevant).

You're saying his intuition is to defer to the authority of those purported to know and maybe you're right, but it could be that he's following a mechanistic logic designed to keep intuitions out of it.

Intuition = what my gut says, right?
Intuition is black boxed. One tends not to go through careful deductive reasoning. Many of the steps are leaps. I doubt he went and checked their research in the way experts are supposed to for publication in Nature, for example. I doubt he looked at objections by dissenting scientists, then dug into the research to see how scientists concluding global warming is caused by humans, and not say, solar activity, sunspots, other factors, set up protocols to eliminate this. I would guess he did what most people do with is assumed that there could not be protocol and paradigmatic factors confusing large humers of his colleagues and that any political/money interests financing the research also have not skewed the results. IOW he went on black boxed estimates of probabilities. It's a decent heuristic. Sometimes it is wrong, but most of the time it will work, in the course of one's lifetime. But it is not analytical research and it is not empirical research.

The scientific types don't have any choice in the matter because if they are scientists, they have to trust the reported science because if they don't, then they've undermined their own work. That's why each claim is substantiated with a citation (scienceguy et al 2019)

Sure, but sometimes they fuck up. Rogue waves is a nice example. When paradigmatic issues are at stake and where money or politics is a factor, there can be serious weaknesses, and despite their educations, they can be as stubborn as anyone else.

And by the way, I am not saying he's wrong. I have been lazy - notice the pattern - about global warming. I could get in there, look at the best opposition's papers and arguments, then look at the research for global warming and spend a lot of time on it. I have done that with certain conspiracy theories, for example. But they tend to be on more interesting events. This would be a multidisciplinary science research project. Snore. I did that shit in college. I still read about neuroscience and some other specific areas of science, but this would be like preparing a thesis. No thanks. So I am not arguing that he has fooled himself. I use intuition on a vast number of things. We have to.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher

Posts: 1307
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Gloominary wrote:@Serendipper

Definitely not. 3 people have more wealth than half the population and all 3 are liberals (Buffett, Gates, Bezos).

Silicon valley, hollywood, academia have more money than anyone.

2 3rds of Trump voters had annual household incomes above the median, which's about 50 grand.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/06/05/its-time-to-bust-the-myth-most-trump-voters-were-not-working-class/?utm_term=.3a811ab6ffbf

Explain the election map being blue where money is and red in the country. The NBC poll was obviously wrong.

Look at careers and party affiliation: the high paying jobs favor liberals.

Look at the military: officers are more liberal than enlisted men.

Talent for acting, talent for writing code, talent for comedy, talent for teaching, etc = liberal bias. Talented brains come to liberal conclusions and a brainscan could predict with 82.9% accuracy whether one is republican or democrat. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/artic...ne.0052970

Corroborating study here https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3092984/

I was unable to access the first link.

I pasted it wrong. Try this one: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/artic ... ne.0052970

The second link just said conservatives tend to feel more fear and disgust, not that they're talentless.

The point is that neurological differences exist and correlate 83%.

Maybe liberals are good with artsy and nerdy things, and conservatives are good with their hands and socializing.

I don't believe conservatives are some kind of lower life form.

Brain-damaged humans resulting from stress of poverty which favors overdevelopment of the amygdala relative to the insula. The fear that conservatives are more prone to feel is a direct result of exercising the amygdala while leaving the insula to atrophy. Whereas coddled liberals aren't in constant survival mode which leaves time and energy to develop other neural areas.

Yes, me too, but how do you get a narcissist to realize he's wrong? The way I do it is to exhaustively associate him with dummies to such extent that he appears completely foolish to even the most moronic imbeciles.

Well I don't think I'm a narcissist and it won't work on me,

Only a narcissist is bulletproof.

because I base my beliefs on my research, reason, experience and gut.

Ah the science of gut feelings lol. I gave you 27 points of research, so research it.

What a, b or c group thinks and how smart they (supposedly) are is of quinary importance.

Man, you ain't gettin it. Conservative's central mantra is professors are stupid; that intelligence is inversely proportional to education and complex issues are common sense.

Only when the capitalists get into the gov: the fox guards the henhouse.

Government is perfectly capable of being corrupt on its own,

Not if it represents the people instead of the people with money.

While democracy can help keep government in check, only if the people vote smart, which they seldom do,

Where is the evidence for that? Hillary was elected, but the moron was selected and that happened before, with Bush and Gore. Why it is the guy with the lowest iq and the least votes who wins?

and the votes are tallied correctly, which they may seldom be.

They studied that specifically and there is no evidence to support voter fraud.

Yes and they're stupid for doing it as it's completely transparent what they're up to.

History is full of conspiracy, people, especially the wealthy and powerful, always plot and scheme, but maybe that's just my paranoid-conservative brain talking, maybe we should just have global dictatorship, things will work out.

Conspiracies do happen.

I wonder how else conservatives and liberals differ emotionally, and cognitively?

Are conservatives also more angry, is that why they're tougher on crime?

Are they labelers, are they more discriminating?

I'd research the insula and amygdala to answer those questions.
Serendipper
Philosopher

Posts: 1773
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Gloominary wrote:But for people who supposedly fear less, liberals are sure willing to sacrifice their liberty for security.

I'm not sure how much stock I put in these brain scans.

I imagine you're referring to guns, but most liberals don't use guns so it's not a sacrifice of liberty. Voting liberal advocates the liberty of deciding which drugs to ingest, the freedom to stick your tallywacker in more places, get married to more people, change your gender, the freedom to collect fatter paychecks or welfare, the freedom to use a credit card to get out of jail instead of having to come up with cash. Conservatives are authoritarian: Thou shalt not _________!
Serendipper
Philosopher

Posts: 1773
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Gloominary wrote:@Serendipper

Yes. I think the training in the tools of logic and mathematical problem solving in general would better-equip someone to then proceed to study economics. Someone shielded from such practicing and consequent neural development because they had to drop out of school in order to work would not have the mechanisms in place to understand economic nuances.

Ants aren't so good with facts, figures and hierarchy, yet they seem to be pretty good economists.

Ants are good economists?

Atomized, semi-autistic, liberal urbanites have to be told what to do by some authority, according to government or some corporation's elaborate, central plan, but conservative ruralites on the other hand have other means of organizing themselves, taking care of one another and redistributing wealth and resources where need be.

It amazes me that poor people would rather support their own deadbeat family members rather than letting the gov steal some of Bezos' money to do it for them.

Conservative ruralites have larger, extended families they can turn to for material, mental and emotional support.

Should they get a medal or was that luck?

Where do liberal urbanites look to for support?

To the state, their psychiatrist, or they go online.

What are their options?

Unfortunately these two demographics have miserably failed to understand each other, yet they have to share the same federal and state governments.

The problem is they are specifically trying to make their own lives harder, evidently so they can congratulate themselves for how well they survive it, but unfortunately that's affecting others who don't have the family networks and the herd mentality to weather the adversity.

I propose instead of having to vie for dominance, imposing their alien values and way of life on each other, the federal government stays out of local affairs, and state lines are redrawn, so urbanites can have their own states, and ruralites theirs.

You obviously haven't given much thought to what would have happened to the south if they had won the war. It's a relative shithole now with low wages and republican leadership, but imagine if slavery were legal: it would be worse than mexico.

My emotional response is "hell yeah!" but no, it wouldn't be democratic. The solution is education, but most of the rural people are too smart to learn anything, so "science progresses funeral by funeral." Wait for them to die and do a better job educating the next generation.

The trend, the last several centuries especially/particularly, has been increasing urbanization, so you may get your wish, their way of life has been dying out for some time.

Yes, it's going to happen. https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-01- ... ng-naivete
Serendipper
Philosopher

Posts: 1773
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Serendipper wrote:I've not taken a position on Fl, so how could I be wrong? I have absolutely no clue whether Fl is beneficial or not (when not swallowed).
I just looked back at the original quote.
Fluoride in water to feminize men to further globalist agenda
And I haven't countered that. I did point out that it is damaging to men's sexual potency and testosterone. So one part of the idea is correct. IOW someone reading what you wrote would likely think it's just a silly idea as a whole. The issue of whether is part of an agenda, yes, I haven't shown that. And I suppose I am agnostic. There is so much evidence that fluoride is damaging and still it is used ends up being a kind of passive conspiracy at a minimum. But that is, yes, still a distance from an agenda based decision. I didn't remember you having the part about the agenda.

I was just citing that as example of a typical conspiracy theory. I don't have an opinion of whether it's true or not.

2) you are not generalizing in the way one generalizes about racial heights. You did not say 'generally' X. You dismissed the entire category. No qualifications about tendencies, most, many whatever. You just categorically dismissed them.

You'll have to provide a concrete example since I'm not seeing my error via the claims you're making.

Well, it's the context. And I just looked at the work I would have to do. REquote Gloominary's post, your response, my response in a couple of posts. And I am too lazy.

Let me put it this way, setting aside the issue of whether you have presented something false there.

When people talk about the uneducated or cognitive biases, the implicit logic in the former accusation, is that if more educated people believe something, it is the case. I think that depends on the kind of fact it is, and it is an argument we cannot draw any conclusions on in any specific case. So the argument functions as a general dismissal, when it should not. It is ad hom, so it is not relevent to any specific case.

I agree with that. I'm not saying climate change is right because smart people believe it, but I'm saying party affiliation correlates with intelligence/education. I've even proposed a mechanism to explain the correlation (brain damage from poverty).

The second accusation, that it has to do with cognitive biases, certainly has merit, in certain kinds of patterns of belief, but again it is ad hom. It is focussing on the believers and not the specific arguments and best proponents. But further it assumes that not believing in a specific conspiracy theory is bias free. There is tremendous cognitive dissonence around noticing when there are systematic problems - at least for those for whom that creates cognitive dissonence, which is many people.

Well I can slaughter the arguments of the right too, so I'm not appealing to ad hom, but the hom is the topic in this case.
Serendipper
Philosopher

Posts: 1773
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Serendipper wrote:My intuition is you're wrong, but I'll defer to your expertise I think that is what Noam is doing (not that his intuition is that climate change is correct, but that his intuition is irrelevant).

You're saying his intuition is to defer to the authority of those purported to know and maybe you're right, but it could be that he's following a mechanistic logic designed to keep intuitions out of it.

Intuition = what my gut says, right?
Intuition is black boxed. One tends not to go through careful deductive reasoning. Many of the steps are leaps. I doubt he went and checked their research in the way experts are supposed to for publication in Nature, for example. I doubt he looked at objections by dissenting scientists, then dug into the research to see how scientists concluding global warming is caused by humans, and not say, solar activity, sunspots, other factors, set up protocols to eliminate this. I would guess he did what most people do with is assumed that there could not be protocol and paradigmatic factors confusing large humers of his colleagues and that any political/money interests financing the research also have not skewed the results. IOW he went on black boxed estimates of probabilities. It's a decent heuristic. Sometimes it is wrong, but most of the time it will work, in the course of one's lifetime. But it is not analytical research and it is not empirical research.

I think you nailed it.

The scientific types don't have any choice in the matter because if they are scientists, they have to trust the reported science because if they don't, then they've undermined their own work. That's why each claim is substantiated with a citation (scienceguy et al 2019)

Sure, but sometimes they fuck up. Rogue waves is a nice example. When paradigmatic issues are at stake and where money or politics is a factor, there can be serious weaknesses, and despite their educations, they can be as stubborn as anyone else.

And by the way, I am not saying he's wrong. I have been lazy - notice the pattern - about global warming. I could get in there, look at the best opposition's papers and arguments, then look at the research for global warming and spend a lot of time on it. I have done that with certain conspiracy theories, for example. But they tend to be on more interesting events. This would be a multidisciplinary science research project. Snore. I did that shit in college. I still read about neuroscience and some other specific areas of science, but this would be like preparing a thesis. No thanks. So I am not arguing that he has fooled himself. I use intuition on a vast number of things. We have to.

Fair enough. I think climate change is bs, but I realize free energy is the ultimate goal and it's going to be solar, so I'm willing to go along with the propaganda.
Serendipper
Philosopher

Posts: 1773
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

I think this kind of discussion has to get into sub-groups. Conservatives have often been very mixed about liberty. Often they are for greater law enforcement, less rights for criminals - which ends up meaning less rights for people considered by the police to be criminals - that is suspects. They have often been very pro-wars on drugs, wars on terrorism, that have had as part of them reductions in liberty. I would guess more of the left of center was skeptical about the Patriot Act than the right of center. Of course it was Bush,so some of that may have been knee jerk, but still.

To me there is a massive center that has been manipulated to give up liberty. Then you have on the right people who could be broadly classed as libertarians or share something with that label and on the left anarchists or people who share much of their skepticism about both government and industry...These people are actually trying to determine who has power, how did they get it, what does it mean about citizen power, privacy, liberty, etc. Unfortunately the two groups tend to have strong cultural differences and have not been able to unify to at least create a significant minority faction.

Good points, there are many kinds of right-wingers: fascists, Nazis, authoritarian capitalists, Christians and conservatives, libertarian capitalists, Christians and conservatives...urbanist right-wingers, ruralist right-wingers...just as there's many kinds of left-wingers, and then there are centrists, and then there are anarchists......

Gloominary
Philosopher

Posts: 1306
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Dislocated

@Serendipper

Explain the election map being blue where money is and red in the country. The NBC poll was obviously wrong.

Look at careers and party affiliation: the high paying jobs favor liberals.

Look at the military: officers are more liberal than enlisted men.

Maybe he got most of middle class votes in rural and urban states, but just not enough overall votes in urban, whereas she got most of the working class votes in rural and urban states, but just not enough overall votes in rural.

I pasted it wrong. Try this one: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/artic ... ne.0052970

I skimmed through it, I'm not seeing anything about conservatives or ruralites being talentless.

he point is that neurological differences exist and correlate 83%.

I'd be surprised if there weren't any neurological differences.

Brain-damaged humans resulting from stress of poverty which favors overdevelopment of the amygdala relative to the insula. The fear that conservatives are more prone to feel is a direct result of exercising the amygdala while leaving the insula to atrophy. Whereas coddled liberals aren't in constant survival mode which leaves time and energy to develop other neural areas.

Are conservatives and ruralites brain damaged, or are liberals and urbanites, what with the lack of sunshine, fresh air, clean water, organic food, exercise, friends, family, community, culture, freedom, independence, action, adventure, and the abundance of stress, noise, pollution, pharmaceuticals, crime, autism, atomization, alienation.

Are conservatives and ruralites paranoid, or are liberals and urbanites gullible, naïve?

I'm not going to do a 180, and say urbanites and urbanity is all bad, I myself am an urbanite.

each has pluses and minuses, and while one might or mightn't be overall better, it's nowhere near as cut and dry as you'd have us believe.

Mark my words, as long as liberals continue to offend, insult and threaten half the population: the middle class, ruralites, the uneducated, Christians, whites, men and so on, you will never, ever make any headway.

If liberals want a greener country, with more redistribution from the top 1% to the bottom 99%, you cannot do it without making yourselves appealing to the aforementioned demographics.

That is in large part why you lost in 2016, and that is why you will continue to lose every other election, if not every election from here on out.

Only a narcissist is bulletproof.

Just saying I won't fall for that technique, not that I'm closeminded.

I don't care much if the conservative iQ is several points below the mean.

And I'm not a conservative anyway, immigration is about the only issue I'm conservative on, the rest I'm some combination of liberal, green and libertarian.

I just think you're being totally unfair to them.

Man, you ain't gettin it. Conservative's central mantra is professors are stupid; that intelligence is inversely proportional to education and complex issues are common sense.

It's not that they think all professors are dumb, it's that they think most sociologists and political scientists are book smart, but life/street dumb.

It's that they think gender studies is a complete waste of time, not physics, chemistry, biology, economics...

Another gross mischaracterization of conservatives, this is never going to get you or liberals anywhere, have you learned nothing from 2016?

Shouting racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, inbred morons is precisely what got you Donald Trump.

In fact as far as I'm concerned, you and your brand of liberalism is controlled opposition, whether you realize it or not, you are making liberals look bad, because of how much vitriol you spew.

Not if it represents the people instead of the people with money.

Agreed.

Where is the evidence for that? Hillary was elected, but the moron was selected and that happened before, with Bush and Gore. Why it is the guy with the lowest iq and the least votes who wins?

I could see you saying Bernie, but Killary Shillary, really?

She was plainly the greater of two evils.

And the democratic primaries were completely rigged, further proving my point democracy alone is often insufficient a strong constitution puts checks and balances on how much tyrants who don't represent the people can get away with.

They studied that specifically and there is no evidence to support voter fraud.

Whose they, and why should they be trusted?

Conspiracies do happen.

Right, but democrats often ridicule republicans for being conspiratorial...well except for recently, now that Trump's been elected, they've gone full on tinfoil, the irony!

Gloominary
Philosopher

Posts: 1306
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Dislocated

Serendipper wrote:
Gloominary wrote:But for people who supposedly fear less, liberals are sure willing to sacrifice their liberty for security.

I'm not sure how much stock I put in these brain scans.

I imagine you're referring to guns, but most liberals don't use guns so it's not a sacrifice of liberty. Voting liberal advocates the liberty of deciding which drugs to ingest, the freedom to stick your tallywacker in more places, get married to more people, change your gender, the freedom to collect fatter paychecks or welfare, the freedom to use a credit card to get out of jail instead of having to come up with cash. Conservatives are authoritarian: Thou shalt not _________!

Most conservatives don't do street drugs, so I guess the war on drugs isn't anti-freedom.

Liberals force you to pay for brothels, peoples sex changes and safe injection sites, to discipline and educate your children a certain way, to medicate yourself a certain way, limits who you can criticize, tells you who you can hire/fire, forces you to pay carbon taxes, props women and minorities up at the expense of men and the majority, and if the extremists ever got in charge, who knows, they might ban meat, or ban religion, like they did in the Soviet Union, or ban hateful religions, like the Abrahamic ones, or castrate abhorrent men, or burn white people in ovens.
These aren't my imaginings, these're ideas circulating in the liberal fringe, and if a conservative fringe can come to power, why not a liberal one?

Liberals aren't just economically authoritarian, they're every bit as socially authoritarian as conservatives, in the main it's the constitution, conservatives and libertarians that keep them in check, but whereas conservatives are all about marginalizing, imprisoning or exterminating individuals who violate norms, or correcting their behavior, liberals are all about propping them up at the peoples expense.

For them, tolerance isn't enough, even acceptance, tolerance and acceptance are just the beginning, in the long run they just won't do, so they have to be equal in virtually every respect, often at the expense of the people.
They are entitled to reparations, even outright revenge.
Perhaps they are even to superior to the ones who used to bully them, destined to become the new normal.

If the bible says: thou shalt not do x, liberals say: thou shalt not suffer the social or objective consequences of doing x,

Gloominary
Philosopher

Posts: 1306
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Dislocated

Gloominary wrote:@Serendipper

Explain the election map being blue where money is and red in the country. The NBC poll was obviously wrong.

Look at careers and party affiliation: the high paying jobs favor liberals.

Look at the military: officers are more liberal than enlisted men.

Maybe he got most of middle class votes in rural and urban states, but just not enough overall votes in urban, whereas she got most of the working class votes in rural and urban states, but just not enough overall votes in rural.

You can look on politico and see the demographic breakdown for each state. The poorer one is, the more likely to be conservative... If they're white. The poor minority can't be conservative since conservatives don't like minorities.

I pasted it wrong. Try this one: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/artic ... ne.0052970

I skimmed through it, I'm not seeing anything about conservatives or ruralites being talentless.

I never said it contained anything about talent. And skimming for phantoms is your idea of research? lol

All I meant to show is brain differences exist and brain differences also explain talent differences. The insula is a higher-evolved part of the brain relative to the amygdala (known as the lizard brain).

Brain-damaged humans resulting from stress of poverty which favors overdevelopment of the amygdala relative to the insula. The fear that conservatives are more prone to feel is a direct result of exercising the amygdala while leaving the insula to atrophy. Whereas coddled liberals aren't in constant survival mode which leaves time and energy to develop other neural areas.

Are conservatives and ruralites brain damaged, or are liberals and urbanites, what with the lack of sunshine, fresh air, clean water, organic food, exercise, family, community, freedom, independence, action, adventure, and the abundance of pollution, crowds, noise, pharmaceuticals, crime, alienation, atomization.

From that I can tell you know nothing of country life lol.

Are conservative ruralites paranoid, or are liberal urbanites gullible, naïve?

Look at the neurology. What would a lizard do?

I'm not going to do a 180, and say urbanites and urbanity is all bad, I myself am an urbanite, each has pluses and minuses and while one might or mightn't be overall better, it's nowhere near as cut and dry as you'd have us believe.

You brought rural vs urban into it. I was only referring to conservatives spanning 4 categories: race, age, education, and income. There is nothing inherently detrimental about country life, but city life is cost-prohibitive to the poor, unless one lives in a dumpster, so the poor aggregate in the country. It's more to do with the fact that people are willing to pay more for things in cities, like property, that prices the poor out of the market, relegating them to the country.

Mark my words, as long as liberals continue to offend, insult and threaten half the population, the middle class, whites, ruralites, the uneducated, Christians, heterosexuals, men and so on, you will never, ever make any headway.

The Trumptards are already outnumbered, so their resolve is of no consequence, except to their own blood pressure, which only hastens their extinction.

If liberals want a greener country, with more redistribution from the top 1% (or 1 10th of 1%) to the 99%, you cannot do it without making yourselves appealing to the aforementioned demographics, that is in large part why you lost in 2016, and that is why you will continue to lose ever other election, if not every election from now on.

Brain-damaged narcissists can't be reasoned with. Nothing can threaten the ego.

Only a narcissist is bulletproof.

Just saying I won't fall for that technique, not that I'm completely close minded.

I don't care much if the conservative iQ is a little lower than the mean.

And I'm not a conservative anyway, immigration is about the only issue I'm conservative on, the rest I am either liberal, green or libertarian.

Yes and you poofed from our discussion on immigration which I see as the equivalent of sticking your head in the sand because you'd prefer to retain your belief than risk being convinced of something you really don't want to believe. Dad does that all the time. It's a lot like not going to the dr because we'd rather not know. Dad's been listening to Rush for 30-40 years and if he's wrong, he doesn't want to know it; he just wants to live his fantasy until he dies without arguing or having to admit it was wrong. He has essentially told me so.

Now after having left me with such impression you are expecting me to believe you're on an open honest quest for truth. I remember what you said, that lazy people don't deserve handouts and brown people are inferior in some ways and that's consistent with the anticipated neurological consequences of an overdeveloped amygdala (fear).

I just think you're being totally unfair to them.

Why should I have sympathy for the arrogant? That was the position of the woman on the Richard Dawkings video I posted. She asked why we don't include diversity of ability, implying we should let underqualified people have a go just to be nice and spare their feelings. And I might go along with that if the applicant were at least humble. I don't have anything against uneducated people, but only the arrogant uneducated who assert what they don't know, or even tried to know, and even go as far as supposing themselves innately smarter, by virtue of common sense, than those who have worked their ass off all their lives studying that very thing. Where do they get their balls and why should I feel sorry for them?

Man, you ain't gettin it. Conservative's central mantra is professors are stupid; that intelligence is inversely proportional to education and complex issues are common sense.

It's not that they think all professors are dumb, it's that they think liberal sociologists and political scientists are book smart, but life/street dumb.

No it's all professors. Anyone with intelligence speaks nonsense to them. They flatter themselves by pedestalizing common sense as a way to pump their egos, even though they haven't put any effort into changing their level of knowledge by studying anything in particular other than sports or cars or parties and such (because they're narcissists).

People trust who they relate to and if a person isn't well educated, then they will cotton best with those who are also not as nuanced and they will distrust those they can't understand.

Another gross mischaracterization of conservatives, this is never going to get you or liberals anywhere, have you learned nothing from 2016?

Shouting racist, sexist, homophobic, inbred morons is precisely what got you Donald Trump.

No, Hillary got us Trump. Trump was a not-hillary vote. Pretty much anyone else would have beat Trump.

In fact as far as I'm concerned, you and your brand of liberalism is controlled opposition, whether you realize it or not, you are making liberals look bad, because of how much vitriol you spew.

Nothing can be done about the trumptards, except to wait for them to crash their harleys, so it doesn't matter if venom is spit in their eyes in order to expose their foolishness to the other generations coming up. They can get pissed all they want and show up to vote for Trump 10 min earlier just to make it worth that much more LOL

Conservatives are like robots. They show up at the polls faithfully and diligently like machines. (They also salute the flag like machines, accept things with no evidence like machines.) I don't see "extra conservatives" coming out of the woodwork to vote in 2020 because we can be assured that they'll all vote anyway.

But the wishy-washy liberal waits till the last minute and may blow it off.

This is why runoff elections always always always goes to conservatives because they are the only ones who vote the 2nd time. They are like robots on a mission.

Where is the evidence for that? Hillary was elected, but the moron was selected and that happened before, with Bush and Gore. Why it is the guy with the lowest iq and the least votes who wins?

I could see you saying Bernie, but Killary Shillary, really?

Hillary is more intelligent than Trump, and Gore was more intelligent than Bush. All I meant is it's the dumb ones who win the election that they lost. Meaning the people picked the smart one, but the dumb one was appointed by those charged with preventing the people from picking the dummy in the first place.

She was plainly the greater of two evils.

Oh I agree!

And democratic primaries were totally rigged, proving my point the democracy, the system is rigged, at least a strong constitution puts checks and balances on how much tyrants who don't represent the people can get away with.

The constitution should be amended to prevent that shenanigans.

They studied that specifically and there is no evidence to support voter fraud.

Whose they, and why should they be trusted?

Researchers. Published research exists on the matter. They found evidence of some ridiculously low, like 0.00004% voter fraud.

Conspiracies do happen.

Right, but democrats often ridicule republicans for being conspiracy minded, well except for recently, after Trump was elected, now they've gone full on tinfoil, the irony!

I don't think dems think Trump conspired with Russia, but they want to make the case that he did in order to get him out of office because the ends justify any means with liberals.

I want him to stay in office so we can exhibit the end result of his policies in order to usher in real change in the form of a progressive instead of a conservative democrat. We had to have Hoover to get FDR and we'll need Trump to get whoever it is that's going to clean up his mess.

If we end the show now, we'll be mired in mediocrity for a generation, maybe more, in the hands of conservative democrats (plutocrats). The scraps falling from the table might get bigger, but they'll still be scraps.
Serendipper
Philosopher

Posts: 1773
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Gloominary wrote:
Serendipper wrote:
Gloominary wrote:But for people who supposedly fear less, liberals are sure willing to sacrifice their liberty for security.

I'm not sure how much stock I put in these brain scans.

I imagine you're referring to guns, but most liberals don't use guns so it's not a sacrifice of liberty. Voting liberal advocates the liberty of deciding which drugs to ingest, the freedom to stick your tallywacker in more places, get married to more people, change your gender, the freedom to collect fatter paychecks or welfare, the freedom to use a credit card to get out of jail instead of having to come up with cash. Conservatives are authoritarian: Thou shalt not _________!

Most conservatives don't do street drugs, so I guess the war on drugs isn't anti-freedom.

That's true. Probably a neurological basis for that as well.

Liberals force you to pay for brothels, peoples sex changes and safe injection sites,

Not me. They make the ones capitalizing off the community pay for that.

to discipline and educate your children a certain way,

You mean by not beating the kids or teaching them the earth is 6000 yrs old?

to medicate yourself a certain way,

I'm not aware of forced medication. Pretty much every conservative I know has a basket of pill bottles.

limits who you can criticize,

I can see that.

tells you who you can hire/fire,

That doesn't affect me.

forces you to pay carbon taxes,

Not me.

props women and minorities up at the expense of men and the majority,

I'm worried about women in power, but other than that, I don't care.

and if the extremists ever got in charge, who knows, they might ban meat,

I'll never live to see it.

or ban religion, like they did in the Soviet Union,

Awesome!

or ban hateful religions, like the Abrahamic ones, or castrate abhorrent men, or burn white people in ovens.

I'm not seeing that.

These aren't my imaginings, these're ideas circulating in the liberal fringe, and if a conservative fringe can come to power, why not a liberal one?

The internet. People are too well-connected and well-informed to be bamboozled like that.

Liberals aren't just economically authoritarian, they're every bit as socially authoritarian as conservatives, in the main it's the constitution, conservatives and libertarians that keep them in check, but whereas conservatives are all about marginalizing, imprisoning or exterminating individuals who violate norms, or correcting their behavior, liberals are all about propping them up at the peoples expense.

So one group wants to kill them and the other wants to prop them up? I'll side with the propers.

For them, tolerance isn't enough, even acceptance, tolerance and acceptance are just the beginning, in the long run they just won't do, so they have to be equal in virtually every respect, often at the expense of the people.
They are entitled to reparations, even outright revenge.
Perhaps they are even to superior to the ones who used to bully them, destined to become the new normal.

The only ones in their crosshairs are the arrogant white boomers. No one else gives a hoot.

If the bible says: thou shalt not do x, liberals say: thou shalt not suffer the social or objective consequences of doing x,

The right has a moral foundation and the left asserts that having a moral foundation is itself immoral. The right is on crusade against sin and the left is on crusade against those on crusade against sin.

All in all, I get the most freedom from a democrat vote.

Last year the republicans passed a law against driving while talking on the phone. I can't tell if they're worried that I'm driving with one hand or if moving my lips is the problem. 90% of the time if a freedom has been taken from me, republicans did it. Seatbelt laws, helmet laws, mandatory insurance laws, prohibition of booze, drugs, sex, gambling,,, about the only thing not prohibited are guns and bibles. Republicans are the disease of freedom.
Serendipper
Philosopher

Posts: 1773
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

PreviousNext