Who wins trump or Biden?

[Riedquat]

14 minutes ago, Pimp My Pants said:

I'm not really interested in understanding people like that.

I work on the basis that disassembling claims will be seen by many more people than the poster and will carry greater affect.

Very few people these days appear to have any interest in understanding anyone they don't completely agree with. No wonder so much is the mess that it is.

"People like that" might be considerably less unpleasant themselves if they did the same thing.

[Arpeggio]

1 hour ago, Dr Doom said:

Don't search for frazzledrip

Adrenochrome is featured on the film "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas".

Johnny Depp looked very unwell in recent times. Wonder what Kevin Spacey and Tom Hanks are up to? Wonder about Harvey Weinstein?

[Keith Wibble]

5 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

Very few people these days appear to have any interest in understanding anyone they don't completely agree with. No wonder so much is the mess that it is.

"People like that" might be considerably less unpleasant themselves if they did the same thing.

I have an active interest in politics and that also encompasses the reasoning behind such comments so I'm way past trying to understand the root causes. 

If I am to engage with such a poster it's important to pin down the claim and go from there.

[Riedquat]

Just now, Pimp My Pants said:

If I am to engage with such a poster it's important to pin down the claim and go from there.

I'd argue that it's more important to pin down the underlying causes of the sentiment they're expressing and avoid getting too distracted by whatever fireworks it might've set off.

[Bob8]

5 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

Very few people these days appear to have any interest in understanding anyone they don't completely agree with. No wonder so much is the mess that it is.

"People like that" might be considerably less unpleasant themselves if they did the same thing.

I disagree.

I think the scientific community have been wrongly leaning over backwards to give the press and idiots undue respect. They are better views as small kids having a tantrum. No-one wants Covid restrictions, but Covid-19 is real and naturally occuring and people having a tantrum should be seen as the children they are. It sucks when your side lose, but Trump clearly lost and having a tantrum does not help. It really is shit have burning huge amounts of fossil fuel, but jamming your fingers in your ears and shouting so you cannot hear is not the response of a properly developed person.

[Keith Wibble]

4 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

I'd argue that it's more important to pin down the underlying causes of the sentiment they're expressing and avoid getting too distracted by whatever fireworks it might've set off.

I refer you to the other sentence in my last post.

[Riedquat]

7 minutes ago, Bob8 said:

I disagree.

I think the scientific community have been wrongly leaning over backwards to give the press and idiots undue respect. They are better views as small kids having a tantrum. No-one wants Covid restrictions, but Covid-19 is real and naturally occuring and people having a tantrum should be seen as the children they are. It sucks when your side lose, but Trump clearly lost and having a tantrum does not help. It really is shit have burning huge amounts of fossil fuel, but jamming your fingers in your ears and shouting so you cannot hear is not the response of a properly developed person.

My side?

Quite frankly a lot of the time I see equally childish responses from all sides, just sometimes some people happen to be on the reasonable one more by chance than anything else. In terms of open-mindedness, empathy, flexibility of thought and the ability to fully understand a situation they're all much of a muchness. In the case of Trump many of those saying "Trump is terrible" seem to have made up their mind to do so on about as much as those saying "He's great" - it happens to fit in better with their very simple view of the world. I happen to agree with them that he's terrible but that doesn't mean I necessarily think that they're operating less on a preconceived, childish view of the world than his supporters.

[Bob8]

Just now, Riedquat said:

My side?

Quite frankly a lot of the time I see equally childish responses from all sides, just sometimes some people happen to be on the reasonable one more by chance than anything else. In terms of open-mindedness, empathy, flexibility of thought and the ability to fully understand a situation they're all much of a muchness. In the case of Trump many of those saying "Trump is terrible" seem to have made up their mind to do so on about as much as those saying "He's great" - it happens to fit in better with their very simple view of the world. I happen to agree with them that he's terrible but that doesn't mean I necessarily think that they're operating less on a preconceived, childish view of the world than his supporters.

Sorry, I was not speaking of you, it was a generalisation. I think we broadly agree.

There is a tendency for liberals to avoid saying there political opponents are stupid and try to believe their opponents are as smart as they are. What they miss is that these to assertions do not contradict.

Most people believe in evolution as they trusted the people who told them so, just as most creationists believe in creation for the same reason. But, evolutionists are right and equivalance is misguided.

Some people will truely believe in a world where a new aristcratic class can rule over us, above the feeble demands of governing bodies and the EU. Such people should vote for brexit and Trump. Most just wanted the old days back, while modernists voted the other way.

[zugzwang]

1 hour ago, Chunketh said:

Mad as a box of frogs.

Fake Trumpers, that's the explanation!

I suspect they're mostly CCP sleepers given expensive cosmetic surgery and years of training to make them look and sound like rednecks, mixed in with a few Marxist brigades to do the wet work.

 

[Riedquat]

10 minutes ago, Bob8 said:

Most people believe in evolution as they trusted the people who told them so, just as most creationists believe in creation for the same reason. But, evolutionists are right and equivalance is misguided.

That's a good example. There's possibly equivalence in the amount of intelligence and justification for their position (not amongst everyone), with some people on the evolution side being essentially just as dogmatic as the creationists. Those evolutionists are right but should have better understanding before criticising the creationists.

Should you let someone off the hook because they've ended up holding a reasonable position entirely by chance, and with their mentality could just have easily wound up with the opposing view?

[zugzwang]

51 minutes ago, Arpeggio said:

Elsewhere someone claimed that guy is an undercover marine?!

3 things seem like what he is saying.....

Q clearance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_clearance

A lot of children do disappear https://globalmissingkids.org/awareness/missing-children-statistics/

Statues of Satan have been appearing in various places https://www.huffpost.com/entry/satanic-temple-unveils-sculpture-in-detroit_n_55b63881e4b0224d8832b687

Search for "John Podesta's artwork".

Some Spirit Cooking by Marina Abramovic....

Someone mention Satan?

This man eats bats! The connection with Wuhan is obvious.

[Young Turk]

2 hours ago, Biggus said:

Voting for Trump was voting for change. Maybe it didn't work out how people would have liked. But what was the alternative? More of the same.

Neither Trump nor Clinton represented all change or all the same.

On some issues Trump represented change and on others he represented reaction and Clinton was the same.

For examples of Clinton representing change and Trump representing the same or a return to worse:

1) On climate, Clinton was for some change, whereas Trump was a reactionary who opposed any change.

2) I think Clinton was planning to extend healthcare slightly, whereas Trump planned to repeal the ACA, leaving tens of millions with no coverage.

Trump was able to be all things to all people. He was a very corrupt man who inherited his wealth, dodged the draft, and openly boasted about bribing politicians. Yet he was somehow a man of the people and run as an anti-corruption candidate. He was going to drain the swamp, yet he gave positions to his children and rich friends, and used the office to enrich himself. He was going to bring troops home, not start any wars, but also "bomb the shit out of ISIS", he was always opposed to the wars, except for the times when he wasn't, but he would also increase spending on the "depleted military" that was Obama's legacy. He was going to massively cut taxes, increase spending and balance the budget. 

People pointed out the hypocrisy and the contradictions but he was immune to criticism.

2 hours ago, Biggus said:

The modern left is about increasing the power of the state. One way they try to do this is by creating dependence on the state. If someone has the support of their family or community they are not dependent on the state. Hence the drive to destroy family and divide communities.

That's not unique to the Left. The Right initiated the war on drugs which led the massive expansion of the prison population, which resulted in many fatherless families.

[zugzwang]

3 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

That's a good example. There's possibly equivalence in the amount of intelligence and justification for their position (not amongst everyone), with some people on the evolution side being essentially just as dogmatic as the creationists. Those evolutionists are right but should have better understanding before criticising the creationists.

Should you let someone off the hook because they've ended up holding a reasonable position entirely by chance, and with their mentality could just have easily wound up with the opposing view?

What justification is there for believing in Creationism?

[Riedquat]

1 minute ago, zugzwang said:

What justification is there for believing in Creationism?

Not sure why you're asking me, since I think it's bonkers.

On the other hand if you were to ask why do some people believe in it - because they're been brought up to, because it fits in with their worldview of how they believe the world actually is I suppose. Some people agree that evolution is correct for pretty similar reasons though, not because they've looked at the evidence for both and found the former utterly lacking and the latter very convincing.

[Chunketh]

17 minutes ago, Bob8 said:

Sorry, I was not speaking of you, it was a generalisation. I think we broadly agree.

There is a tendency for liberals to avoid saying there political opponents are stupid and try to believe their opponents are as smart as they are. What they miss is that these to assertions do not contradict.

Most people believe in evolution as they trusted the people who told them so, just as most creationists believe in creation for the same reason. But, evolutionists are right and equivalance is misguided.

Some people will truely believe in a world where a new aristcratic class can rule over us, above the feeble demands of governing bodies and the EU. Such people should vote for brexit and Trump. Most just wanted the old days back, while modernists voted the other way.

If you at least try and get a handle on what is causing the conflict it can help in resolving it or at the very least help you agree to disagree.

 A lot of what people believe is based on ******** but if you scratch a little bit you can frequently find out what the root reason is for them clinging onto that view(s). That reason may be very real, and something worth understanding to make some progress.

Of course, it can also be based on more ********, that's when it gets tiring. I'd recommend the Joe Rogan experience as a little excursion in understanding some folk (pick one you would usually disagree with), its quite enlightening.

 

[Chunketh]

13 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

That's a good example. There's possibly equivalence in the amount of intelligence and justification for their position (not amongst everyone), with some people on the evolution side being essentially just as dogmatic as the creationists. Those evolutionists are right but should have better understanding before criticising the creationists.

Should you let someone off the hook because they've ended up holding a reasonable position entirely by chance, and with their mentality could just have easily wound up with the opposing view?

Faith is a really tough one to try and crack and tbh people can believe what they like so long as they are not demanding everyone else alter their behaviour to respect their views (abortion, working on the sabbath, teaching kids their brand of crazy in school, etc).

[Young Turk]

2 hours ago, Dr Doom said:

Don't search for frazzledrip

or tubgirl

[Chunketh]

8 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

What justification is there for believing in Creationism?

Religious freedom

Just so long as they keep it to themselves. Hitch said it best :

 

 

[Riedquat]

2 minutes ago, Chunketh said:

Religious freedom

That's justification for letting them get on with their belief but not for believing it in the first place.

[Chunketh]

Just now, Riedquat said:

That's justification for letting them get on with their belief but not for believing it in the first place.

Its both. Someone has to teach their kids this crap for them to end up believing it in the first place.

Its why they want the nonsense taught in schools. Without fresh meat it slowly dies off.

[Bob8]

19 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

That's a good example. There's possibly equivalence in the amount of intelligence and justification for their position (not amongst everyone), with some people on the evolution side being essentially just as dogmatic as the creationists. Those evolutionists are right but should have better understanding before criticising the creationists.

Should you let someone off the hook because they've ended up holding a reasonable position entirely by chance, and with their mentality could just have easily wound up with the opposing view?

 

11 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

What justification is there for believing in Creationism?

I assume you believe in evolution. So do I. I believed it in as my parents and teachers told me so and the scientific community (whom I trusted) seemed to back them up.

Later, I joined that community. At a party in London, a lady (who believed in evolution) said something about evolution that was completely wrong. She was not willing to be corrected by a PhD at a party, as she had heard her version about ten years previously from a teacher (probably with no more than a BSc) trying to teach 13 years olds.

She would have laughed at creationists, but was just as daft and unquestioning.

6 minutes ago, Chunketh said:

If you at least try and get a handle on what is causing the conflict it can help in resolving it or at the very least help you agree to disagree.

 A lot of what people believe is based on ******** but if you scratch a little bit you can frequently find out what the root reason is for them clinging onto that view(s). That reason may be very real, and something worth understanding to make some progress.

Of course, it can also be based on more ********, that's when it gets tiring. I'd recommend the Joe Rogan experience as a little excursion in understanding some folk (pick one you would usually disagree with), its quite enlightening.

 

I agree. But that can mean the reason we hold correct and incorrect views are pretty stupid. Which is fine. The feeling we get for a correct answer is the same that we get for a reassuring answer, so people will confuse the two.

[Chunketh]

6 minutes ago, Bob8 said:

I agree. But that can mean the reason we hold correct and incorrect views are pretty stupid. Which is fine. The feeling we get for a correct answer is the same that we get for a reassuring answer, so people will confuse the two.

People gravitate towards simple explanations that fit with their world view.

Social media capitalises on this to the extreme. Both left and right now have examples of influencers making a lot of money from spouting demonstrable ********, people believe it because its bite size, simple, fits and they are repeatedly exposed to it inside their own echo chamber, created courtesy of social media.

We have gone down a very dangerous path and need to think of a way out of it before it causes a problem we cannot fix.

EDIT:

I would add that this material is also prolific. Its really hard to challenge a point of view when they can just dig up another piece of rubbish 5 secs after you refute the first. It's bloody exhausting.

[Bob8]

5 minutes ago, Chunketh said:

People gravitate towards simple explanations that fit with their world view.

Social media capitalises on this to the extreme. Both left and right now have examples of influencers making a lot of money from spouting demonstrable ********, people believe it because its bite size, simple, fits and they are repeatedly exposed to it inside their own echo chamber, created courtesy of social media.

We have gone down a very dangerous path and need to think of a way out of it before it causes a problem we cannot fix.

EDIT:

I would add that this material is also prolific. Its really hard to challenge a point of view when they can just dig up another piece of rubbish 5 secs after you refute the first. It's bloody exhausting.

Quite. It would be daft to spend years on every issue.

Brexit, for all the expertise, was split broadly into those whose status was better in the olden days (unqualified people, old people, racists) and those who have higher status in the modern day.

Those who want a human hierarchy, a tower of babel, and the old days will be Republican. And the old days were a pretty brilliant time for many to be American.

[msi]

26 minutes ago, Young Turk said:

or tubgirl

or Blue Waffle

[Young Turk]

6 minutes ago, msi said:

or Blue Waffle

Ha! I was thinking of that too.

I've never searched either. I remember being in the office, someone mentioned blue waffle, someone else searched it on his phone and the look of disgust on his face dissuaded me from searching!