The Political & Philosophy Thread

[rms]

I used to swim and fish in that rock quarry and sled down the pipeline har har

I drive through the hollow basically every day on the way to the gym

 

[Einherjar86]

Haha, yep, sounds like high school.

 

[arg]

It's so much fun watching you twist yourself into knots. You're like a political contortionist.

i don't feel like i'm contorting. i like Trump but he's not infallible to me.

You are one of the most idiotically partisan people I've encountered on the internet arg. Congratualtions.

republicans are better on fiscal policies and immigration. i don't give a shit about social issues and republicans spend less money on them. the one thing i disagree with them about is abortion as i am pro-mandatory-abortion below a certain income

 

[zabu of nΩd]

There's all this hysteria over fake news and the example of how dangerous it is this pizzagate bullshit. One story, which somehow tons of people had been duped by, yet I hadn't heard of it until after it was pizzagate (and I read a lot of different news sources, and I have a sufficient number of Trump supporters contributing to my FB feed). I suspect this blowup about fake news is an example of how misleading news can be just as if not more dangerous. Kind of like the breathless coverage given to Richard Spencer's national white nationalist gatherings that bring together a few dozen white nationalists from all over what is supposedly an incredibly racist nation. Even *if* coverage isn't slanted, what is covered shows a bias of its own, particularly when the level of coverage is so grossly out of proportion to the event.

It could just be that it's an easy place to focus political will to improve journalistic standards. The First Amendment makes it pretty hard for government to regulate biased/misleading news, so the best hope may lie in company policies - specifically those of social media companies, since they have the politically diverse customer bases news companies lack.

I personally hope Facebook implements a policy that strikes a good balance between protecting freedom of expression and reducing the spread of misinformation.

 

[Dak]

Am I really radical? Relatively speaking I guess I am, but I usually don't feel like it, mostly because I'm critical (or at least skeptical) of identity politics.

It has less to do with agreeing with the things leftists say than with disagreeing with what rightists say. Many of the people in my community here in Boston I agree with politically; but I come from a small town outside Buffalo NY where many of the women in my high school class still live today, having babies and going to church (that's a horribly reductive comment, and the connotations are regrettable; but it's basically true). My family and hometown friends are overwhelmingly right-wing, conservative, and (as far as family goes) deeply religious. I have a hard time taking many of them seriously.

I much prefer being around women too busy for family or spirituality.

I don't take "right wing" or "left wing" people very seriously because they usually believe in their parties, or at least in some submovement within them.

 

[Einherjar86]

I much prefer being around women too busy for family or spirituality.

I don't discriminate "being around" people according to their politics. I still hang out with conservative friends when I visit Buffalo. I was just referring to CIG's comment about irrational political beliefs. Most of the left-wing people I know are in academia, and have often thought long and hard about their political investments.

I can't say the same for the right-wing people I know back in Buffalo. Most of them just inherit the politics of their forefathers.

 

[Einherjar86]

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-climate-idUSKBN1421V0?utm_source=applenews

The memo sought a list of all department employees or contractors who have attended any meetings on the social cost of carbon, a measurement that federal agencies use to weigh the costs and benefits of new energy and environmental regulations. It also asked for all publications written by employees at the department's 17 national laboratories for the past three years.

Trump transition officials declined to comment on the memo.

"This feels like the first draft of an eventual political enemies list," a Department of Energy employee, who asked not to be identified because he feared a reprisal by the Trump transition team, had told Reuters.

Real fucking subtle. The witch hunt begins.

 

[rms]

I personally hope Facebook implements a policy that strikes a good balance between protecting freedom of expression and reducing the spread of misinformation.

what is it with liberals that expect people to do good things?

 

[arg]

what is it with liberals that expect people to do good things?

dont call them liberals as they are not about freedom; they are for the control of thought, language and other people's money.

they are not progressive either, as their beliefs are the opposite of progress, forever envious of success and wanting to drag it down.

I call them exclusively lefties as a derogatory term. And they will never win because most of America is fundamentally not like them. Ein's conservative family is correct and he and his leftie academia nutcases are not.

 

[Dak]

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-climate-idUSKBN1421V0?utm_source=applenews

Real fucking subtle. The witch hunt begins.

Witch hunts are constant, it's only the hunters/hunted that shifts.

 

[Baroque]

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-climate-idUSKBN1421V0?utm_source=applenews



Real fucking subtle. The witch hunt begins.

It's a good thing I didn't take that job in NYC after all. It's like he thinks climate science is anti business science. In all of the climate science talks I went to or work I've done no one ever said anything about what businesses should or shouldn't do. It's simply studying the massive amounts of satellite and other real life evidence, trying to unravel cause and effect of dozens of trends.

Climate scientists are blessed with insanely large sample sizes to work with, far more so than many other branches of science. Working with just one month's worth of data from just 1 satellite I got in trouble for using 60% of a supercomputer's resources. The evidence is there, yet there are still many aspects to study.

He ignores all of the new cleaner technology that has been created in the name of it, and all of the sales and jobs that came along with said tech.

Whether you "believe" in climate change or not (which is stupid, you could just say you don't believe in almost any science, yet we are where we are because of it) who wants to live in excess pollution and breath in polluted air?

If we had simply implemented all of the current clean energy tech this wouldn't even be a debate. If there were enough solar and wind and hydroelectric plants we wouldn't bother burning coal. Building these plants would create jobs and remove dependence on some resources and give us cleaner air, what is wrong with this idea to any reasonable person? True climate scientists are not even directly suggesting this, they simply study and gather data with an honest and open mind.

 

[Baroque]

It's not the climate scientists who study real world data he should worry about, it's the climate activists and lobbyists. And they're not going away even if he fires every scientist.

This idea of "we don't like the results your science is finding so you're fired" is dangerous and anti intellectual.

Yeah NASA scientists are what's wrong with America sure there.

 

[Einherjar86]

Witch hunts are constant, it's only the hunters/hunted that shifts.

My point still stands.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

what is it with liberals that expect people to do good things?

Not sure if you're joking or not, but plenty of companies challenge the government on ethical issues - Google's history of refusing government requests for customer info is a relevant example in this case.

 

[rms]

you just said "I hope google censors appropriately" -- it's a ridiculous expectation of another human to not act in self interest

 

[arg]

Google and facebook are run by globalist lefties, don't expect them to be impartial

 

[arg]

It's a good thing I didn't take that job in NYC after all. It's like he thinks climate science is anti business science. In all of the climate science talks I went to or work I've done no one ever said anything about what businesses should or shouldn't do. It's simply studying the massive amounts of satellite and other real life evidence, trying to unravel cause and effect of dozens of trends.

Climate scientists are blessed with insanely large sample sizes to work with, far more so than many other branches of science. Working with just one month's worth of data from just 1 satellite I got in trouble for using 60% of a supercomputer's resources. The evidence is there, yet there are still many aspects to study.

He ignores all of the new cleaner technology that has been created in the name of it, and all of the sales and jobs that came along with said tech.

Whether you "believe" in climate change or not (which is stupid, you could just say you don't believe in almost any science, yet we are where we are because of it) who wants to live in excess pollution and breath in polluted air?

If we had simply implemented all of the current clean energy tech this wouldn't even be a debate. If there were enough solar and wind and hydroelectric plants we wouldn't bother burning coal. Building these plants would create jobs and remove dependence on some resources and give us cleaner air, what is wrong with this idea to any reasonable person? True climate scientists are not even directly suggesting this, they simply study and gather data with an honest and open mind.

Doesn't need to be government funded, aren't there private green energy companies?

 

[zabu of nΩd]

you just said "I hope google censors appropriately" -- it's a ridiculous expectation of another human to not act in self interest

Absurd exaggeration. Why would any government come up with something like the First Amendment out of "self interest" when they could just be like China and control all information? Why would anyone ever donate to charity, or sacrifice their life in battle?

 

[rms]

I feel like you're minimizing or forgetting the historical reasons why the 1st Amendment was established in the first country?


Yep, no charities are corrupt and no service members have their own reasons for sacrificing freedom/life/etc...

 

[zabu of nΩd]

There are numerous historical reasons why it was established, just as there are numerous rights it guarantees. Which one are you referring to, specifically?

"Yep, all charities are corrupt and all service members have selfish reasons for getting themselves killed." Is that what you're implying, or would you care to offer a more comprehensive and itemized explanation of why every single thing humans ever do is motivated by self-interest? You're making a very ambitious claim, in case you haven't realized.