msi Posted November 5, 2020 Share Posted November 5, 2020 Trust is an issue, but tolerance of other peoples opinions is another. Once everyone you don't agree with is a lunatic then you've already moved a long way down the slope to polarisation. Tolerance isn't equivalence. Villages tolerated their id*ots, but they didn't let them have equivalence to village leaders. </Not calling anyone an id*ot here> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Hun Posted November 5, 2020 Share Posted November 5, 2020 Probably some in-bred redneck still claiming welfare for his long dead daddy thinks he can get away with voting Trumpy, lol. (not that this doesnt happen in UK) I tried it my self, he was indeed sent a ballot paper. He's a Republican voter. However, I have no way know if he's dead or a 118 year old voter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thehowler Posted November 5, 2020 Share Posted November 5, 2020 Trust is an issue, but tolerance of other peoples opinions is another. Once everyone you don't agree with is a lunatic then you've already moved a long way down the slope to polarisation. Tech greed promotes and facilitates factions. Pretty large factions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeanutButter Posted November 5, 2020 Share Posted November 5, 2020 Trust is an issue, but tolerance of other peoples opinions is another. Once everyone you don't agree with is a lunatic then you've already moved a long way down the slope to polarisation. We each receive one finite life. I'm sure when we're all on our death beds we'll be very pleased at how much time we spent arguing with randoms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gigantic Purple Slug Posted November 5, 2020 Share Posted November 5, 2020 We each receive one finite life. I'm sure when we're all on our death beds we'll be very pleased at how much time we spent arguing with randoms. People argue with randoms on the internet because they have nothing better to do with their time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thehowler Posted November 5, 2020 Share Posted November 5, 2020 Looks like Trump might lose Georgia soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shlomo Posted November 5, 2020 Share Posted November 5, 2020 Looks like Trump might lose Georgia soon. .....and she is considered to be the fifth hottest women in the world by the Daily Mail Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pig Posted November 5, 2020 Share Posted November 5, 2020 Its becoming all too real. Inside the counting centre police in tactical gear ready to move against armed protesters outside Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Young Turk Posted November 5, 2020 Share Posted November 5, 2020 People argue with randoms on the internet because they have nothing better to do with their time. Wrong! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottbeard Posted November 5, 2020 Share Posted November 5, 2020 The USSR broke up. Maybe the USA will too. Someone I know who is knowledgeable on history certainly thinks it's very possible - not in the next year or two of course, but in the next 50-100 years (say). Once you get to a stage where there are just entrenched red & blue areas who get more and more entrenched rather than closer together, history says you're pointing towards a permanent split so that each half can govern itself differently, rather than trying forever to create an impossible compromise. HPC is a different place to how it was before. It has always had an alternative view and people willing to dig deeper but some posters have gone off the deep end now. I don't know if they realise their decisions were all wrong and they've decided they just want to watch the world burn and will support anything that is anti-mainstream or if it's just part of the global swing towards anti-intellectualism. Take Boris the liar. No self respecting HPCer would have supported this buffoon 10-15 years ago. He would have been everything they despise, a rich, lying, corrupt toff, the embodiment of the establishment trying to make excuses for the failures. But somehow they've swung. He has now managed to convince these people that he is the solution to the problem and the problem is always outsiders, liberals, foreigners, pikininis, letter-boxes, etc. Ironically, the alt-right are the sheeple now, following blinding and barking when told to bark. They don't realise it yet but they will eventually. You see, I think HPC has changed because in the past different views were listened to and debated. Now you yourself are saying "the only sensible view is anti-Boris, and if you're not anti-Boris you don't belong on HPC". Back in 2007 there were bulls and bears with opposing views, but both were very much part of the community. Now there seems to be a campaign to create the "HPC image" and if you face doesn't fit it you don't belong. It's like a detestable London club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chunketh Posted November 5, 2020 Share Posted November 5, 2020 Looks like Trump might lose Georgia soon. I don't think he will, but it could be VERY close 07:15 Trump 2,429,783 (+14,929 on 11:00) Biden 2,406,744 (+49,287 on 11:00) Difference 23,039 Count - 95% 12:00 Trump 2,431,724 (+1,941 on 07:15) Biden 2,413,184 (+6,440 on 07:15) Difference 18,540 Count - 96% At this rate Biden wont pass him before completion (needs 4.12% more votes to go his way) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riedquat Posted November 5, 2020 Share Posted November 5, 2020 Emotion overwhelms facts - I think it's an evolutionary trait (Not sure if there's a tiger in the trees? - trust your gut). Emotions are what gives value to facts. The "facts alone" brigade completely miss the point in every decision they ever make. Emotions tell you what has value, what's worth having. A good grasp of the facts is necessary for spotting when your emotional response is to something you inaccurately perceive, and for working out how to most effectively get whatever you think is worth having, but the idea that you can have a purely fact-based analysis of what direction you should be going in is absurd, and destructive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Young Turk Posted November 5, 2020 Share Posted November 5, 2020 Someone I know who is knowledgeable on history certainly thinks it's very possible - not in the next year or two of course, but in the next 50-100 years (say). Once you get to a stage where there are just entrenched red & blue areas who get more and more entrenched rather than closer together, history says you're pointing towards a permanent split so that each half can govern itself differently, rather than trying forever to create an impossible compromise. I don't see how splitting would do much good. Even the most polarised states are split around 70/30. So if America split into coasts and flyover, there would be millions of Democrats in Flyover and millions of Republicans on the Coasts. I don't think the USA is more polarised than 20 twenty years, in terms of the distribution of support. Instead there has been a shift in attitudes to political differences, driven by in large part by target online misinformation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dugsbody Posted November 5, 2020 Share Posted November 5, 2020 I agree with you dugs. It is astonishing that normal people in the US and U.K. are voting against their better judgement, best interests, and (in my view) moral values and supporting people like Trump and Johnson. In the U.K. we have the former “Red Wall” voters, and in the US, Low paid workers in the likes of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and Phoenix, Arizona. I can only explain their support for their natural enemies by pointing out that previous leaders who should have been improving their lives (like Blair in the U.K. and Obama in the US) have sold them down the river in favour of Bankers and the global liberal elite. So in return for that, they support the global non-liberal elite. The ones who actually have held power for most of the last 50 years. The problem is the rising tide of capitalism hasn't been spread evenly. Almost everyone may be better off than they were 50 years ago but fewer are better off than they were 20 years ago while some are much, much better off than they were 20 years ago. The increase in lifestyle hasn't been enjoyed equally and research shows that increasing inequality almost always leads to unrest in society. Interestingly, this wealthier demographic includes both younger professionals in high end service industries but also mostly older generations who have received the huge generation transfer of wealth by owning most of the assets already (low interest rates = more expensive housing etc). Yet these older people vote with the poorer younger people for right wing anti-liberal elites such as Trump and Boris. Oh well, the world cycles. The disillusioned will look to liars promising simple solutions for a while, then turn on them when they fail to materialise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dugsbody Posted November 5, 2020 Share Posted November 5, 2020 Emotions are what gives value to facts. The "facts alone" brigade completely miss the point in every decision they ever make. Emotions tell you what has value, what's worth having. Emotions can be manipulated to make humans believe value lies in one direction or another. Trillion dollar industries exist because of this fact. Facts matter, a lot. By realising that we are primitive apes we can try to be a little better than primitive apes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Young Turk Posted November 5, 2020 Share Posted November 5, 2020 Emotions are what gives value to facts. The "facts alone" brigade completely miss the point in every decision they ever make. Emotions tell you what has value, what's worth having. A good grasp of the facts is necessary for spotting when your emotional response is to something you inaccurately perceive, and for working out how to most effectively get whatever you think is worth having, but the idea that you can have a purely fact-based analysis of what direction you should be going in is absurd, and destructive. Your point is correct, but I don't think it's relevant to the point to which your responding. For example, I remember a few things from the analysis of the Bush v Gore election. People didn't like Gore and they did like Bush (apparently many said he was "someone you would want to have a beer with"). Surveys showed a lot of people also thought that Bush shared Gore's views on climate change. Why? Because those people believed in climate change and thought Bush was a nice, good guy, so surely he must believe it too. The fact was that Bush and Gore differed on climate change, but people who formed an emotional attachment to Bush were quite likely not to notice this. People who bemoan politics being emotion driven aren't emotionless. They are just against the people who ignore facts and are only led by emotion (i.e. if they know nothing about an issue, their candidate's policy, but insist he is right). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thecrashingisles Posted November 5, 2020 Share Posted November 5, 2020 Tech greed promotes and facilitates factions. Pretty large factions. I think tech is a scapegoat. The descent into the culture war started before then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Hun Posted November 5, 2020 Share Posted November 5, 2020 I don't see how splitting would do much good. Even the most polarised states are split around 70/30. So if America split into coasts and flyover, there would be millions of Democrats in Flyover and millions of Republicans on the Coasts. When India partitioned, people physically moved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Young Turk Posted November 5, 2020 Share Posted November 5, 2020 I think tech is a scapegoat. The descent into the culture war started before then. What do you mean by before tech? We had less tech when we had less of culture war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonsieurCopperCrutch Posted November 5, 2020 Share Posted November 5, 2020 Sleepy Joe's " just in time" voting card system seems to be working wonders. Need another 200k votes, no problem we got plenty in stock ready for delivery in any state. Pre printed and pre filled in and post marks any date you like. Just vote. I'd call those baseless allegations fairly libellous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonsieurCopperCrutch Posted November 5, 2020 Share Posted November 5, 2020 Loving the guy just mooching around in the background like nothing much is happening. Where's the footage? Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonsieurCopperCrutch Posted November 5, 2020 Share Posted November 5, 2020 Weeks? think a year or more for the legal battles. A concerted effort to delegitimize the president. I wish the costal states and fly over states should just separate into two different nations and get it over with. F***ing S***hole country. AMEXIT. Taking control of their own borders and laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gigantic Purple Slug Posted November 5, 2020 Share Posted November 5, 2020 Your point is correct, but I don't think it's relevant to the point to which your responding. For example, I remember a few things from the analysis of the Bush v Gore election. People didn't like Gore and they did like Bush (apparently many said he was "someone you would want to have a beer with"). Surveys showed a lot of people also thought that Bush shared Gore's views on climate change. Why? Because those people believed in climate change and thought Bush was a nice, good guy, so surely he must believe it too. The fact was that Bush and Gore differed on climate change, but people who formed an emotional attachment to Bush were quite likely not to notice this. People who bemoan politics being emotion driven aren't emotionless. They are just against the people who ignore facts and are only led by emotion (i.e. if they know nothing about an issue, their candidate's policy, but insist he is right). Thing is, how many people actually really have time to consider the facts ? When voting, does everyone go out and read three party manifestos, or hundreds of pages of documentation on Brexit ? Or do they go to an "interpreter" who interprets the facts in the way they want them too producing new "facts" ? Most people don't have the time to consider the facts. they are too busy getting on with their lives working, looking after the house or educating their kids. They make emotional based decisions on things like politics, and often find facts to support those decisions rather than the other way round. Some people like to pretend they consider the facts, but most of the time they are just justifying a deeper emotional feeling with facts they have got from someone who may have already interpreted them in a way that aligns with their own emotions. They claim their viewpoint is "fact based" and sneer at people who have emotional driven viewpoints, even though their basis for determining the viewpoint is often exactly the same, just hidden with a veneer. For me, I don't see it as important as how people make the choice. Everyone has the choice to make and how they choose to make it is their business I'm not going to dictate to them how they should think about a problem, it's authoritarian and well as futile,. An emotional response is just as valid as a "fact based" one to me, especially when you consider it averaged over an entire population. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thecrashingisles Posted November 5, 2020 Share Posted November 5, 2020 What do you mean by before tech? We had less tech when we had less of culture war. I mean before the era of social media. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Young Turk Posted November 5, 2020 Share Posted November 5, 2020 When India partitioned, people physically moved. Some people choose to move to a place they consider more suitable politically. I think moving is quite easy for some poor (few belonings, probably renting rather than owning) and rich people (can bear the cost of moving and can even afford to move whole family, relocate business, perhaps already own second home etc.). Most people are stuck in the middle (have lots of roots in a place, couldn't necessarily easily get a job elsewhere, would be very expensive travelling back to see family if they don't all move, lots of attachments to local area and people). It's not really feasible on a large scale unless it's forced. Also, there are political divisions within families, so as well as moves there would have to be divorces too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.