Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Hezzilreen the Cunning

BigDTBone's page

4,670 posts (4,715 including aliases). No reviews. 2 lists. 2 wishlists. 7 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 4,670 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

thejeff wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Most of the undermining of unions has been done at the state level through republican held legislatures. Yes, Obama was president, but he doesn't get to decide what laws the Michigan state legislature passes.
Tell the Air Traffic Controllers that.

This one? They endorsed him in 2011 as well.

Or are you talking about the changes in hiring practices, the articles for which all read like they were written by a MRA.

No, This. This was a federal government action which was seen by many labor leaders as the turning point which brought about the fall of unions. The only reason that state governments feel that they can undermine unions is because of this action. This is a top-down movement.

I'm not sure it's the "only reason". It certainly was a turning point. Plenty of states had "right to work" laws before that, for example.

I think more than "top down", it's a Republican movement. Democrats may not have fought it as hard as we like and may even have contributed, but it's clearly been driven by Republicans and movement conservatives at least since Reagan.

The only? Maybe not. There were a number of decisive and consecutive victories against organized labor at that time. Reagan was looking to set precedence though, and what he achieved against the Air Traffic Controllers was bigger than probably he even intended.

The ATC's thought they could be the stop-gap. They thought they could score a big win. They thought they had the country by the thin hairs. Reagan bulldozed them and was able to keep air traffic functioning. He put unprecedented sanctions on the union and the employees. The union folded and NATCA was formed shortly thereafter.

It was certainly seminal and indicative to/of the kind of actions we see against labor commonly today.


Irontruth wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Most of the undermining of unions has been done at the state level through republican held legislatures. Yes, Obama was president, but he doesn't get to decide what laws the Michigan state legislature passes.
Tell the Air Traffic Controllers that.

This one? They endorsed him in 2011 as well.

Or are you talking about the changes in hiring practices, the articles for which all read like they were written by a MRA.

No, This. This was a federal government action which was seen by many labor leaders as the turning point which brought about the fall of unions. The only reason that state governments feel that they can undermine unions is because of this action. This is a top-down movement.

EDIT: Also MRA? WTF are you talking about? That is some very strange side-shade to throw. If you have something to say you should just come on out and say it. Otherwise keep your trap shut.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
Most of the undermining of unions has been done at the state level through republican held legislatures. Yes, Obama was president, but he doesn't get to decide what laws the Michigan state legislature passes.

Tell the Air Traffic Controllers that.


Irontruth wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:

Or on a more interesting front; present some evidence that I am wrong. If observation isn't substantial enough, then make your case.

I think you have overlooked a very important aspect of this conversation. I haven't offered a solution. That is why I don't need to know why. If I had told you how I propose to fix the bias then I would need to know intricate information about the bias. I have only asserted that there was a bias.

To give a common (real, non-wood-chipper) example: Gregor Mendel didn't have to understand why heritable traits transferred from one generation of pea plant to the next in order to observe it, predict it, or manipulate it. Knowing why something is is simply not a prerequisite to knowing that something is.

I don't have to present evidence you're wrong. You've presented bad data, made assumptions based that bad data, then when confronted with the fact that you didn't have good data, claimed you were right all along anyways. I've already identified that your methodology at arriving at conclusions is sloppy and inaccurate. If your method of seeking answers provides a correct one, it is through luck or reliance on parroting things you've heard with no understanding.

To use your analogy, you don't actually know that the thing is a wood chipper. You've heard about wood chippers and think this might be one based on the vague description, but there's a chance it's a paper shredder too. You're also asserting that because you shouldn't put your hand in it, that the machine should be avoided at all costs and everyone should consider it useless. You're asserting that because there is a chance of danger, it is impossible for it to be useful.

In this instance, you are not Gregor Mendel. You are an anti-vaxxer.

Actually, my original claim in September was that we should consider the possibility that there is a polling bias in favor of Clinton.

I never said wood chippers don't work, I said they were being used poorly in this case.

As for anti-vaxxers, There is a notable exception that I made a claim based on my own observation about the past which then proved to be correct in the future. Anti-vaxxers don't have evidence to demonstrate their claims. I do.

You are the one without evidence to the contrary. You are the one having difficulty coming to terms with reality. It sounds like you are actually the anti-vaxxer.

As soon as you are ready to strike an actual claim based of evidence rather than, "LALALA DONT BELIEVE YOU LALALALA," I have a significant amount of substantiating data and a one-way ANOVA to show you. But until then I am happy to stay with, "I don't have to know why a thing is to know that a thing is."

Edit: since no one else seems interested in this topic; if you want to continue, let's take it to PM.


thejeff wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
thejeff wrote:


It kind of amuses me to have the discussion here keep switching back and forth between "It's the corporatism" and "It's the political correctness", with both those groups basically arguing with the same people and ignoring each other.
Corporatism drives out the far left and political corectness draws out the right of the party/middle of the country.

That's probably a fair assessment. Obviously Democrats should ditch both.

Become a labor/socialist party that never ever talks about racism or sexism or any kind of prejudice. That'll guarantee they sweep every state.

Add in some pacifism too, because everyone knows the US only uses the military for corporate ends. That'll get more votes.

Non sequitur much?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Quiche Lisp wrote:
Quiche Lisp wrote:
To refuse to be challenged about one's ideas, in a safe and learned environment, makes one weak and pusillanimous in his life at large. How sad.
BigDTBone wrote:
This presupposes that both sides will conduct themselves in an intellectually / academically honest manner. Currently in the United States this presupposition is complete farce.

I disagree. It presupposes only that the audience is sophisticated enough to discriminate what is said, and to be able to evaluate the soundness of the speakers. I'm talking here about universities, and not about TV talk shows.

But I agree that if one wants to spread one's ideas, one of the best things to do is to find venues where those ideas can be discussed earnestly. I'm sure there are currently in the USA places (on the web, surely) where one can find intellectually honest Republicans or intellectually honest Democrats, or similarly honest independents, to debate controversial ideas.

If you posit a priori that there's no intellectual honesty to be found anywhere in the opposite party, you're creating the very same divisiveness which is currently tearing your country apart.

To an outside observer, the similarities between two irreconcilable enemies are often striking.

I wouldn't (nor didn't) suggest that no intellectual honesty can be found in the party who opposes my views. However, There are several topics that I can discern very quickly about the intellectual honesty of the other side.

For example:

Doxxing, good or bad?
Rape Culture or Boys will be Boys?
Homosexuality, an aberrant lifestyle guaranteed to bring unhappiness. Yes or No?

Treating those discussions as reasonable to have in a public forum is normalizing vileness.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quiche Lisp wrote:

Regarding universities:

those institutions harken to the Middle Ages, when theologians and other learned persons engaged in regular debates called "disputatios", which pitted two speakers against one another, with all the rigour of logic and the sophistication of rethorics, with the goal of enlightening a broad audience about the subject matter at hand.

Students who refuse today to have strong debates held in their alma matter are, to my opinion, disrespecting and antagonizing the heart and soul of the institution which they are part of.

To refuse to be challenged about one's ideas, in a safe and learned environment, makes one weak and pusillanimous in his life at large. How sad.

This presupposes that both sides will conduct themselves in an intellectually / academically honest manner. Currently in the United States this presupposition is complete farce. In an alternative facts / facts-don't-matter context having such a debate can only serve two purposes. (1) Normalizing an irrational (read: bigoted) position by treating it as a rational one, and (2) giving a pulpit to propagandists.


Irontruth wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
3. How did it compare to other polls?
BigDTBone wrote:
EVERY MAJOR POLL had Clinton ahead by AT LEAST 5 points. It wasn't just one poll. It was the average, it was the trend.

Are you claiming there were two polls in Oregon?

Edit: even still, you're not actually comparing a poll to another poll. I'm calling you out on your lack of specifics. In that line, you still have no specifics.

You're making a claim to being right as you talk in vague generalities with implications of data, but no actual data. You're arriving at conclusions based on what you think is true, without actually looking at facts.

See, I'm arriving at conclusions based on observation. I observed what appeared to be a serious bias in favor of one candidate and then predicted a continuation of that trend into the future.

To be plain, there is a wood chipper. On the wood chipper is a sign that reads, "Safe to put your hand in."

Now I've seen signs before. Generally I am open to signage as a good conveyer of information. But I watch anyway. I observe people putting there hands into the wood chippper. I observe the result. It doesn't appear to be safe after all.

Now, to reach the opinion that the sign is wrong and it is in fact dangerous to put your hand in, I didn't have to look into who produced the sign, the model of wood chipper, the mechanics of wood chipper, or other wood chipper signs. I can still predict that people continuing to put their hands in the wood chipper will not be safe.

Essentially, I don't have to know why it is unsafe to know that it is unsafe.

If my observation isn't convincing then go ahead and put your hand in the wood chipper.

Or, Democrats, go ahead and keep trusting polls that tell you what you want to hear.

I bolded the relevant portion of your post.

It's an unconvincing argument.

Be unconvinced, stick your hand in the wood chipper.

Or on a more interesting front; present some evidence that I am wrong. If observation isn't substantial enough, then make your case.

I think you have overlooked a very important aspect of this conversation. I haven't offered a solution. That is why I don't need to know why. If I had told you how I propose to fix the bias then I would need to know intricate information about the bias. I have only asserted that there was a bias.

To give a common (real, non-wood-chipper) example: Gregor Mendel didn't have to understand why heritable traits transferred from one generation of pea plant to the next in order to observe it, predict it, or manipulate it. Knowing why something is is simply not a prerequisite to knowing that something is.


Irontruth wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
3. How did it compare to other polls?
BigDTBone wrote:
EVERY MAJOR POLL had Clinton ahead by AT LEAST 5 points. It wasn't just one poll. It was the average, it was the trend.

Are you claiming there were two polls in Oregon?

Edit: even still, you're not actually comparing a poll to another poll. I'm calling you out on your lack of specifics. In that line, you still have no specifics.

You're making a claim to being right as you talk in vague generalities with implications of data, but no actual data. You're arriving at conclusions based on what you think is true, without actually looking at facts.

See, I'm arriving at conclusions based on observation. I observed what appeared to be a serious bias in favor of one candidate and then predicted a continuation of that trend into the future.

To be plain, there is a wood chipper. On the wood chipper is a sign that reads, "Safe to put your hand in."

Now I've seen signs before. Generally I am open to signage as a good conveyer of information. But I watch anyway. I observe people putting there hands into the wood chippper. I observe the result. It doesn't appear to be safe after all.

Now, to reach the opinion that the sign is wrong and it is in fact dangerous to put your hand in, I didn't have to look into who produced the sign, the model of wood chipper, the mechanics of wood chipper, or other wood chipper signs. I can still predict that people continuing to put their hands in the wood chipper will not be safe.

Essentially, I don't have to know why it is unsafe to know that it is unsafe.

If my observation isn't convincing then go ahead and put your hand in the wood chipper.

Or, Democrats, go ahead and keep trusting polls that tell you what you want to hear.


Irontruth wrote:
You sound like you got lucky that reality happened

Also, just to get back to my original statement. If you can look back at the 2016 election, with the benefit of hindsight, and STILL not see a strong Clinton polling bias then you are having a hard time being honest with yourself.


Irontruth wrote:
3. How did it compare to other polls?
BigDTBone wrote:
EVERY MAJOR POLL had Clinton ahead by AT LEAST 5 points. It wasn't just one poll. It was the average, it was the trend.


Irontruth wrote:

Who did the poll? When was it done? How did it compare to other polls? Did something happen between the poll and the primary, like a debate or major news story? How was the poll done? How did they weigh certain demographics? Was all this early or late in the nomination process?

I'd bet $ you formed your opinion before you could answer even one of these questions.

Also, pay up. I accept Paizo gift cards


Irontruth wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

If you're going to complain about polling, you're going to need to come with extremely detailed data. Specifically dates and methodology.

If the last poll in Oregon was done a month before the primary, than your complaining about it being 10 points off is pretty much meaningless. We don't know that though, because all you provided were two numbers, but there's a mountain of information you're missing. If you're not looking at that information, you're making assumptions and most likely wrong.

Who did the poll? When was it done? How did it compare to other polls? Did something happen between the poll and the primary, like a debate or major news story? How was the poll done? How did they weigh certain demographics? Was all this early or late in the nomination process?

I'd bet $ you formed your opinion before you could answer even one of these questions.

Edit: yeah, you didn't even get the margin of victory right for Oregon. Also, there's scant polling data on the state, so from what I can tell you're basically making it up.

Sanders wins by 10.2 points, local news station poll 7-10 days before the vote shows Clinton in lead by 15

But, yeah, I made it up. Tell yourself whatever you need to keep the fantasy alive.

Edit, it does look like RCP flubbed a button on that page which I admit I didn't double check before posting earlier. Sanders actually won by 12 points. So yeah, I guess I was totally wrong about my point...

Let me get this straight, you cited verifiably incorrect information and you're acting smug about it?

I literally just caught you forming opinions on invalid data. Maybe... just maybe, instead of acting like a know-it-all, do some research and actually think critically about some things.

Actually, I formed my opinions live as it unfolded over the course of the last 18 months. I pulled up some information because I don't have eidetic memory. The information I pulled up was incorrect against my position. As in, the correct information supports my statement even more than the original information I presented.

So would you care to present some information that counters my argument or are you just going to blow smoke about how Sanders was under polled by 27% instead of 20% which makes my point somehow invalid?


thejeff wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
pres man wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
pres man wrote:

Who Will Be President?

Anyone that followed votes like Brexit was not surprised that the polls were wrong about Trump's chances to win. People don't answer honestly about their views if those views are being labeled *-ist. That doesn't mean they reject their views, because their views are often formed by their own experiences and philosophies.

... and a metric done of horsefeathers that they've been fed , loudly and angrily, specifically to make them vote against their own interests.
Well, individuals often have competing interests. It may that one candidate/party only has one issue that the individual agrees with and agrees with multiple issues with the other candidate/party. Yet, it may be that one issue is the most important to them at the time of voting and out weighs the others.
I agree, I think we get into a dangerous place when we start deciding that we know other people's best interests better than they do.
When we get to those who want Obamacare destroyed but think they'll be okay because they get their health insurance through the ACA, we can be pretty sure about it. Or those who think they'll actually get coal jobs back.

I don't disagree with you about that. But it is still a dangerous place to be.


pres man wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
pres man wrote:

Who Will Be President?

Anyone that followed votes like Brexit was not surprised that the polls were wrong about Trump's chances to win. People don't answer honestly about their views if those views are being labeled *-ist. That doesn't mean they reject their views, because their views are often formed by their own experiences and philosophies.

... and a metric done of horsefeathers that they've been fed , loudly and angrily, specifically to make them vote against their own interests.
Well, individuals often have competing interests. It may that one candidate/party only has one issue that the individual agrees with and agrees with multiple issues with the other candidate/party. Yet, it may be that one issue is the most important to them at the time of voting and out weighs the others.

I agree, I think we get into a dangerous place when we start deciding that we know other people's best interests better than they do.


Irontruth wrote:

If you're going to complain about polling, you're going to need to come with extremely detailed data. Specifically dates and methodology.

If the last poll in Oregon was done a month before the primary, than your complaining about it being 10 points off is pretty much meaningless. We don't know that though, because all you provided were two numbers, but there's a mountain of information you're missing. If you're not looking at that information, you're making assumptions and most likely wrong.

Who did the poll? When was it done? How did it compare to other polls? Did something happen between the poll and the primary, like a debate or major news story? How was the poll done? How did they weigh certain demographics? Was all this early or late in the nomination process?

I'd bet $ you formed your opinion before you could answer even one of these questions.

Edit: yeah, you didn't even get the margin of victory right for Oregon. Also, there's scant polling data on the state, so from what I can tell you're basically making it up.

Sanders wins by 10.2 points, local news station poll 7-10 days before the vote shows Clinton in lead by 15

But, yeah, I made it up. Tell yourself whatever you need to keep the fantasy alive.

Edit, it does look like RCP flubbed a button on that page which I admit I didn't double check before posting earlier. Sanders actually won by 12 points. So yeah, I guess I was totally wrong about my point...


thejeff wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:


The evidence that the polls were wrong was staring us right in the face. How many times did Bernie "upset" a Clinton lead? How many times by MORE than 8 points? How many times did the polling error favor Bernie? You can't look at the primary season honestly and NOT see systemic polling bias in favor of Clinton, and nothing changed as far as polling between primaries and the general.
How many times did he? You tell me. The only big one I remember was Michigan.

Right off the top of my head, there was a 20 point difference between polls and results for Sanders in Indiana. He was down by 10 and won by 10. There was a 10 point difference in Oregon where he was down by 5 and won by 5. Both of which were primaries, not caucuses.

That's 3 10+ point polling errors in favor of Clinton. If it isn't bias (i.e., just poor methodology) where are the reverse upsets against a supposed Sanders lead?

Those are just the big ones. That doesn't include where Sanders won in an upset with <5 point variance, or were Sanders out performed by >5 points but still lost. If I get time over the weekend I'll dig them up but they are there for you to find.

And if you really think Comey cost Clinton the election then you are one of the Democrats I'm talking about who is having a hard time being honest with themselves.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
KingOfAnything wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Let's just do real stuff. I, for example, was completely dismissed on these very boards when last September I said that we (as Democrats) should really address the possibility that there was a polling bias in favor of Clinton.

There wasn't really a large polling bias, though. There was a disastrous reporting bias about the polling.

(HRC won the national vote, and lost hard in late-deciding voters. Lead-up polls were basically right.)

This is exactly what I mean when I say that main stream Democrats have a hard time being honest with themselves.

Late deciding voters? Or unwilling to self-report voters? When someone makes a prediction and turns out to be correct, they get the benefit of the doubt. In this case, Trump predicted the rust belt + Pennsylvania was in the bag for him when the polls made that statement laughable. He said because of a "silent majority." Or essentially, people unwilling to say outloud they would vote for him.

Look at the polls (the actual polls, not the aggregate estimators) 2 weeks, 1 month, and 6 weeks out from the election, then look at the results Election Day. The polls were wrong.

The evidence that the polls were wrong was staring us right in the face. How many times did Bernie "upset" a Clinton lead? How many times by MORE than 8 points? How many times did the polling error favor Bernie? You can't look at the primary season honestly and NOT see systemic polling bias in favor of Clinton, and nothing changed as far as polling between primaries and the general.

If you look back now, with the benefit of hindsight, and still can't see the polls were wrong (i.e., blaming it on reporting or saying that the nation-wide poll was close-ish) then you are having a problem accepting reality. AKA having a difficult time being honest with yourself.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Knight who says Meh wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
... that would also require being honest with yourself
This. Unfortunately this is something main stream Democrats have had a very difficult time with over the last 18 months. Particularly WRT HRC.
This is especially true once you buy into the republican narrative...

Yeah, I have no need to engage with you on your fantasies about what I have or haven't bought into.

Let's just do real stuff. I, for example, was completely dismissed on these very boards when last September I said that we (as Democrats) should really address the possibility that there was a polling bias in favor of Clinton.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
... that would also require being honest with yourself

This. Unfortunately this is something main stream Democrats have had a very difficult time with over the last 18 months. Particularly WRT HRC.


Generic Villain wrote:

As a fellow psych grad I think they're interesting, certainly, but more as a "hey, did you know this cool fact?" sort of trivia thing. Fun and largely harmless factoids to bust out at parties or on first dates, but ultimately just one of the vagaries of the human mind.

That's not an effort to disparage your own interest of course. I think tons of things the human brain does are fascinating and would love to wax philosophical about them for hours if I could - my friends though? Usually not so much.

The phenomena that I find particularly disturbing isn't necessarily Mandela Effects, but it's close. People who misremember key moments in their own personal lives and, over time and as a a result of continually retelling themselves these false/revised histories, come to believe them as reality. That old adage of "everyone remembers where they were when they heard about JFK's assassination/the Challenger explosion/9/11"? Nope. Sorry, those crystal clear flashbulb memories are just as susceptible to self-deception as any other. There's a statistically significant chance that, in fact, every single person is remembering these events incorrectly. Think you know where you were and what you were doing when you heard about the Twin Towers? You're probably wrong.

That's spooky.

I don't know. It's possible. But I have a pretty clear memory of an 8:00 AM (Central) Calculus II test (special integrations of trig functions) and someone getting up and leaving very upset in the middle of the test (I have no idea if that was related, but the timeline seems correct in retrospect.) Then after class heard some rumblings about a plane hitting the first tower but still very little info. Went to Physics and we covered projectile motion in class. (Instructor made a quip so it stuck) By the time that class was out at 11, the university had canceled classes for the rest of the day.

I mean, I guess it is possible that I filled in those blanks later. The woman who left the exam upset I could have mentally fudged the timeline to make myself believe that there was a correlation. But, for the rest, I don't think so.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the problem started when you thought that my reply to you meant that I disagreed with you.

The difference coming in that I think the democrats are responsible for the way they are perceived (vs being the republicans fault for perceiving them "wrongly") and I'm not sure that you or thejeff think that is the case.


Irontruth wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Samy wrote:
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
Let me state it outright. Your hypothetical white dude, unexpectedly unemployed and with 3 kids, has it f!cking hard. But you can't credibly tell me that your hypothetical dad wouldn't most likely have a harder time turning his circumstances around if he was also a black man.

Of course he would have it harder if he was black too. But if you want his vote, you need to tell him that you're going to make his lot better, not that "hey buddy, you're privileged so nevermind you, I'm gonna help this trans lesbian Muslim disabled person over here."

You need to know what to say to each demographic to appeal to them. Nobody wants to hear "you don't matter compared to these worse-off guys". They want to hear that you want to do something to help them. If you don't, then you don't get their vote.

When precisely did a candidate say something like that last year?

It feels like this conversation is more about Republican perception of Democrats, than actually about Democrats.

Absence of conversation carries a de facto meaning as well. Essentially *not* talking about the economic, social, health, and emotional realities/concerns of people leads them to (rightly or not) believe that the topics you *are* talking about are more important to you AND represent your priorities.

Reread the question. Please address the question.

I don't care about your theory of what the problem is, unless you can SHOW me the problem.

For example, here's an article that does a break down of key words in Clinton's speeches.

Huh, interesting that when I read that article, it seems to say the opposite of what you're saying. That's so weird. Perhaps you have something you can refute that with? Other than just your opinion that is.

Breaking voters down by issue, "improving economic conditions" break for Trump 48/43

Your question is irrelevant, the only thing that is important is perception. Democrats have a perception problem on this topic. It doesn't matter "What the most common words in HIllary Clinton's speeches," are. If it isn't selling, it isn't selling. The democrats need to own their image and that means managing more effectively.

So, anyway. I gave you a link to SHOW you the problem. The message Clinton gave didn't resonate. THAT's the problem.

Edit: I updated the link to go directly to the statistic I was talking about.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Loch ness monster wrote:

!!! >.>

<.< !!!

^.^.....>.>

Seriously though can I get about tree fiddy?

Nice novelty alias. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
Samy wrote:
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
Let me state it outright. Your hypothetical white dude, unexpectedly unemployed and with 3 kids, has it f!cking hard. But you can't credibly tell me that your hypothetical dad wouldn't most likely have a harder time turning his circumstances around if he was also a black man.

Of course he would have it harder if he was black too. But if you want his vote, you need to tell him that you're going to make his lot better, not that "hey buddy, you're privileged so nevermind you, I'm gonna help this trans lesbian Muslim disabled person over here."

You need to know what to say to each demographic to appeal to them. Nobody wants to hear "you don't matter compared to these worse-off guys". They want to hear that you want to do something to help them. If you don't, then you don't get their vote.

When precisely did a candidate say something like that last year?

It feels like this conversation is more about Republican perception of Democrats, than actually about Democrats.

Absence of conversation carries a de facto meaning as well. Essentially *not* talking about the economic, social, health, and emotional realities/concerns of people leads them to (rightly or not) believe that the topics you *are* talking about are more important to you AND represent your priorities.


pres man wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
pres man wrote:
What does the idea of "white privilege" mean in regards to someone living in a small town that has a population that is 100% white? In that setting they have no structural advantage over anyone else in the town based on their "whiteness" (of course there are all kinds of other privileges that different people benefit from at different times).

Well for one, that town isn't likely to have lead in the water.

It also isn't likely to have Mount Fuji nearby either. You are comparing other locations to this location. I am saying within the context of this particular location, does this idea of "white privilege" have any meaning?

Well, since you just invented that use for the term white priviledge, you tell me. That isn't what the term traditionally describes though.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
pres man wrote:
What does the idea of "white privilege" mean in regards to someone living in a small town that has a population that is 100% white? In that setting they have no structural advantage over anyone else in the town based on their "whiteness" (of course there are all kinds of other privileges that different people benefit from at different times).

Well for one, that town isn't likely to have lead in the water.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
pres man wrote:

What do people think about the Brookings Institute's claim that the best way for anyone to move out of poverty is: at least finish high school, get a full-time job and wait until age 21 to get married and have children.

Too simplistic? More "pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps" b.s.? Some truth in it?

I think this is a great example of actually privileged individuals being completely ignorant about the actual reality of real human beings in the world.


Scythia wrote:
Also, some people become alarmingly offended when a label is applied to them (while they think themselves fine as "normal"). Just ask about cis-gender.

Do you think there is any relation to it being such a clunky term? I mean trans-gender is also pretty clunky. When my dad transitioned in 2006 she had been living as a woman for about 7 years, but when she got the surgery it was still called, "sex reassignment surgery."

Now I believe the preferred term is "gender confirmation surgery." (EDIT: I realize that I was unclear that I meant this as indicative of a change in how we think about these topics, and that changing the name of the surgery is representative of a turning point in our thinking as a culture) Which kind of leaves "trans-gender" and "cis-gender" in an awkward place. I don't know that the terms actually do a good job of encapsulating what they are trying to get across.

Compare this to "hetrosexual" which I have never heard a heterosexual complain about being called / labeled.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:

We can all agree that poverty sucks, and sucks more if you are a minority. But, that doesn't change the fact that humans are loss-averse by nature. We are irrational. When you frame the conversation around "privilege" that the majority must lose or give up to achieve equality, you are setting yourself against deep mental heuristics.

If progressives would apply all those psych principles we spent so much studying and what we now know about the mind, we could reframe the discussion in terms of the minority "handicap" instead. Something rich, white golfers can understand immediately, and poor, white Americans are less likely to resist.

Messaging matters. You can share all the same facts in two different ways and get wildly different responses.

It looks like the original post is now gone, but I've deliberately never used "privilege/privileged" because of that negative reaction. I had been trying to come at from the other side using "disadvantaged", but that will likely be provocative too. "Handicap" will likely be the same.

I am at a loss for describing or even acknowledging the basic inequities built into the system without pissing off those who don't face those same challenges. And we can't attempt to fix a problem if we can't even discuss it.

For what it is worth, BNW has said on more than one occasion (including in this thread) that it is the specific term "privilege" that draws his ire. And he even suggests "discriminated" would be more approachable.

The problem that I see is that "privilege" in the academic social equity sense has far different connotations from its use in common english. "Privilege" evokes wealth and leisurely lifestyle in common english. When academics tell the out-of-work divorcee with a back injury, no health insurance, no car insurance, child support arrears, and a landlord itching to boot him out of his home every 30 days that he is "privileged" it meets with a rightful, "F-you buddy." It also doesn't help that affluent college students / while collar workers tell him to, "check his privilege," and seem to actually mean it in the common english sense.

Essentially, beyond academia it is a non-starter term. But it is going to be difficult to get that guy on board with any social change that doesn't include him. When you need to be at (completely made up for demonstration purposes ==>) "Level 30" to be stable in life with room to breathe, the difference between level 10 and level 5 is moot. Yeah, he is sitting 5 levels ahead of the other person but that is still a far cry away from "privilege," and the academic sitting comfortably at level 50 telling him how "not being beaten by the police" is a "privilege" isn't helping to sell it.

At any rate; I don't think BNW (or myself for that matter) disagree with any of your positions on this matter. Me in particular, I don't have any issue with using "privilege," but I DO understand why so many people push back against it.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Irontruth wrote:


Any future candidate is going to face off against Trump. Knowing and understanding why he won, what were his strengths and weaknesses, and different ways to beat him will be far more useful than hypotheticals that change the outcome of the previous election.

And...

Trump won because Clinton was a bad candidate. That is why analyzing him will not work.
While it may be comforting to believe this, it is far from the full answer. Democrats need to accept that Trump offered a message that people needed to hear so badly they were able to vote for him despite his clear and obvious faults.

Maybe. But most Trump voters I know fall into two camps:

1. Blatant bigots, of the "Islam is evil" variety.
2. People who just really, really hated Clinton.

I would suggest that sampling and confirmation bias are strong in this response.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Irontruth wrote:


Any future candidate is going to face off against Trump. Knowing and understanding why he won, what were his strengths and weaknesses, and different ways to beat him will be far more useful than hypotheticals that change the outcome of the previous election.

And...

Trump won because Clinton was a bad candidate. That is why analyzing him will not work.

While it may be comforting to believe this, it is far from the full answer. Democrats need to accept that Trump offered a message that people needed to hear so badly they were able to vote for him despite his clear and obvious faults.


There was also the time that Barbara Streisand combined the Triangle of Zinthar with the Triangle of Krewluck to form the Diamond of Pantheos and became Mecha-Streisand. And then Robert Smith and Sidney Poitier turn into a giant moth and turtle (respectively) and fight her.

Or the time that Mickey Mouse gains flight and a breath-weapon and terrorizes Denver CO.

;)


Thomas Seitz wrote:

Dragon,

Cthulhu doesn't count as magic. He's an Old One. Old Ones aren't magic.

Imagination Land was more like an alternate reality than magic.

The giant guinea pigs were more like invaders than magic.

I will concede the Curse Words as magic.

The Jewish camp thing was more a religious phenomena than magic.

Don't forget when Chef's mom captured Kenny's soul in a pot roast.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

The thing about the superdelegates is that they're never actually locked up, until the final vote. Had Sanders actually been winning in the primaries - getting significantly ahead in pledged delegate count, the superdelegates would have moved to him. At least that's the assumption - superdelegates have never actually overridden the primary voters.

They do likely influence the vote, but they don't make anything mathematically impossible or even very unlikely.

Then they shouldn't be telling media sources who they are planning to vote for. There should be a culture of silence about it. It should be an official rule of the Democratic Party that superdelegates are verboten to discuss their pick until 48 hours after the last primary. They should hold each other accountable by removing their superdelegate status if they indicate to anyone who they intend to vote for before that time.

I'm OK with superdelegate (not really, more like, I am prepared to accept the reality of them) but I'm not OK with one candidate being "behind" by 400+ delegates before the first vote is cast.


DM Beckett wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:
Not really my guy.
Sorry, I didn't mean to put words in your mouth, it's just an easy assumption to make when someone describes Democrats as "your party."
DM Beckett wrote:
anyone that voted for anyone else (which does not include me, by the way), besides Hillary
Except he says otherwise specifically.
I did not vote for anyone else. If it helps, what I'm trying to say is I am not included in the group of folks being dismisses/shamed for voting for anyone else but Hillary. Or, I didn't vote for Trump, so I don't consider myself in the group being talked about.

Sorry, I seem to have stepped into my own miscommunication trap. I meant to say, "It looks like DM Beckett probably voted for HIllary (or abstained from voting) based on this quote."

I apparently flubbed that, so you know... carry on and stuff.


Hitdice wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:
Not really my guy.
Sorry, I didn't mean to put words in your mouth, it's just an easy assumption to make when someone describes Democrats as "your party."
DM Beckett wrote:
anyone that voted for anyone else (which does not include me, by the way), besides Hillary

Except he says otherwise specifically.

EDIT: Also, I'm sorry for piling on after you apologized. I just know that it is frustrating to be accused of supporting the other guy just because you practice introspection and give a good faith attempt at academic honesty. Particularly when you go out of your way to state your affiliation.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:

few general thoughts

I don't think there is much to gain by dwelling on the past. however you can still learn from it.

for me Usually the best answer falls to the middle 0 1 2 3 2 1 0 I think some of the problems are that the distribution of extreme views has moves so the middle doesn't appear in the middle anymore something like
0 1 2 2 0 2 3 if that makes sense.

balance in all things.

The shift is intentional to force a dishonest compromise. There is a distribution of ideas like 001112222333449; and so we "meet in the middle" at 5.


thejeff wrote:
Only thing I don't like are caucuses. Those are ridiculously exclusive.

There is something to be said for old-school Athenian democracy in action. Neighbors meet with neighbors to discuss the politics essential to their community, listen to one another, and then cast a decisive vote at the same time.

It doesn't always work that way, and it can make inclusiveness challenging. But, it would be sad to see it completely removed from our system.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Seitz wrote:
It was inherently unfunny stuff in terms of the issues. But they did it with aplomb along with a sharp wit. While I never got into Wilmore, he was by far the better of the two late night shows on CC. Now it's Samantha Bee without question.

Just remember, Jon Stewart sucked for at least 3 seasons before he found his voice, and then didn't become great until the 2004 election season.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Quote:

I could add to this, but we shouldn't be re-fighting the primary. Suffice to say that the idea that the primary was balanced and fair does not ring true with Bernie supporters. And while Hillary supporters are fond of reminding us that we are fewer in number than, say, Clinton supporters in 2008, there's still quite a lot of us. It's not worth arguing over, though.

I will also note, however, that it appears that even BNW agrees that the primary was not fair and balanced—he just doesn't think it needed to be because "that's how parties work". That's an attitude that is worth discussing, since changing how primaries are run might or might not be part of the party's future direction.

But that is how parties work. It amuses me to hear complaints about not listening to the base along with complaints about closed primaries. Registered party members are the base. Independents aren't the party base.

More generally, if you want to change the party rules, this isn't how to do it. You don't do it with an Independent changing his affiliation for a presidential run, largely supported by non-party voters. You don't do it by complaining about the party rules afterwards. You don't do it by not voting for the winner of the primary. You don't do it top down.
And this is where I come off like a broken record: You do it bottom up. You want to change the Democratic party? Become the Democratic party. Get people into local offices. Win state and congressional races. Take over the machinery. Use that to change the rules.

I just have a fundamentally different idea of what a political party should be. I think the party should simply be a platform of ideas. You shouldn't need to register to support an idea.

I understand what the rules were/are, I simply believe them to be at odds with a political party participating in a representative government.


thejeff wrote:
Both the super-delegates & closed primaries are long standing things, not implemented to protect Clinton. As by the way are the caucuses, which favored Sanders.

I didn't say they were enacted to support Clinton, I said they are tools are the party leadership to put their favored candidate on the top of the ticket. Clinton just happened to be that person this time.


Irontruth wrote:
pres man wrote:

How could anyone vote for a douchebag when they clearly had a turd sandwich to vote for?

Unfortunately, many of the party elites and various allies in the liberal media decided they knew better than the excited voters. They need to learn to trust their base. Which means even if you could swing things towards a candidate you believe is actually the best choice, that you ethically do not do so. And yes, this requires people to accept that there is going to be collateral damage when your side loses. As long as they feel they must win at any cost, then they will continue to try to manipulate the results behinds the scenes.

How did they manipulate the results behind the scenes? Be specific please.

I presume pres man is referring to the number of actions taken by the Democratic Party to nudge the primaries in favor of the leaders preferred candidate. Things like scheduling of debates, use of party databases, and DWS's underground smear campaign against Sanders. Not to mention the fact that super-delegates were allowed to pledge before the field was fully announced.

But that's just the stuff on the top, that we KNOW happened. There were huge amounts of reported voting anomalies that were in the news and then never followed up on. I'll see if I can find the exact piece I'm thinking of, but I remember one specific case where a guy went to vote for Sanders and didn't vote for any of the other races on the ballot. His ballot was rejected by the automated reader as blank. The election official present destroyed the ballot and had him try again, same result. 4 times. The machine was clearly not registering votes for Sanders, but presumably other Sanders voters that day voted for other races and didn't get kicked. There were a bunch of stories like that a throughout the primary season.

Then, you know, the whole closed primary thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Thomas Seitz wrote:

Barely Scythia.

But yes it's still on the air. Unlike say, a black man doing late night TV these days.

I miss Larry Wilmore. :(
I don't. He was far too dry for me. His show did not belong on comedy central, but on msnbc.

He was definitely less joke-about-the-news and more laugh-at-the-news. And his side kicks were pretty wacky (man, I miss Mike Yard, too.) I don't know, I still thought it felt like a comedy show, with the caveat that the show was definitely focused on social injustice which is inherently un-funny.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Seitz wrote:

Barely Scythia.

But yes it's still on the air. Unlike say, a black man doing late night TV these days.

I miss Larry Wilmore. :(


thejeff wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:

There are plenty of high-skill, high-pay (compared to national median), low-education jobs out there. (Mechanic, welder, electrician, plumber, hvac install/repair, computer network admin, machinist, etc)

The difference is that you don't have an entire town where 70%+ of breadwinners work for a single company doing the same job.

Thing is, those towns had people doing most of that work already. Even while the Widget factory was open, people still needed mechanics, welders, electricians, etc.

Closing the factory doesn't suddenly boost that demand.

Right. And that is the real difference. There is a need for those professions all over the country. But it would mean moving away from the dead mining town.

So, you can't say that high-pay, low-education jobs are gone. They aren't. You could find an apprenticeship within a week for at least half of the ones I listed. With a 12 month certification you could get any of the others.

You just can't expect to walk off the high school graduation stage and show up with an able-body and a will to work and expect to be the sole-bread winner for a family of 5. That reality is over.


thejeff wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:

It is unbelievable that people in coal country still believe this nonsense and well past time they grow up and learn to live in the really real world. If the only way to win elections is to tell people lies they want to hear and pursue 'solutions' which will not work then our country will be joining coal power in the graveyard. Clinton offered coal workers real hope with the possibility of job retraining towards wind and solar power. Instead they chose to continue embracing the GOP lies which have been slowly strangling their communities for decades.

As for auto-workers... they should probably be warned that their days are numbered. Autonomous vehicles will greatly reduce the number of new cars needed each year... and correspondingly the number of auto workers needed. Ergo, auto factory communities should be looking to transition to new options over the next half century or so.

The thing is job retraining is something they are not interested in. They want there way of life back. Straight out telling them "Sorry your communities are going to get worse and the jobs you and your ancestors have done for generations are gone" is a pretty surefire way to alienate the people you are speaking to. Graphs and hard logic always loses out to emotional appeals, especially on complex issues that people are not knowledgeable about. I have seen some strain of this kind of thinking in all walks of life, so it's not like its epidemic only amongst coal miners and auto workers.

And honestly "job retraining" isn't the panacea it's made out to be. Sure, there's some work in wind & solar they could move into. Some other fields.

Still, the fundamental problem isn't as simple as "these jobs are going away and there are these other jobs that we don't have workers trained for." Job retraining helps you compete for the jobs there are, but that's likely to only mean you beat someone else out for the job and they still need one.
The world of good-paying, skilled, but...

There are plenty of high-skill, high-pay (compared to national median), low-education jobs out there. (Mechanic, welder, electrician, plumber, hvac install/repair, computer network admin, machinist, etc)

The difference is that you don't have an entire town where 70%+ of breadwinners work for a single company doing the same job.


South Park creators will back off mocking Donald Trump they say, because "satire has become reality."


2 people marked this as a favorite.
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:

It's kind of a lame thing for them to be concerned about, but it's consistent with what their stance has always been.

From what I hear, PETA's philosophy is that somebody has to represent the fringe of your direction in order to get movement in your direction (to say nothing of the fact that whoever is perceived as furthest out will be labeled by our Dumbf+@+ Media as "the irrational fringe" no matter how genteel they are, thereby severely punishing moderate approaches), and I can't argue with that.

The US has an entire major political party based on this idea, and it's working great for them.


Captain Battletoad wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
I think the way forward is to focus more on what was wrong with Clinton.
So Nintendo's strategy with the Switch in regards to the Wii U?

No, because a great performance for a new console would be annual global sales in the 15-20 million range.

To win the presidency you need to attract at least 60+ million votes in the US alone. Also, you need to do so to the exclusion of the other guy; which isn't a requirement for a gaming console.

So basically, no, because thats a completely inappropriate analogy.

1 to 50 of 4,670 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002-2017 Paizo Inc.® | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours, Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific time.

Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.