Trump vs. Biden

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I don't know if I mentioned this, but I saw my MAGA uncle join an event on Facebook for Trump's second inauguration. LOL.

 

[Jaguar]

Was he using a controlled substance at the time?

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Was he using a controlled substance at the time?

No idea, lol.

 

[ceecee]

I don't know if I mentioned this, but I saw my MAGA uncle join an event on Facebook for Trump's second inauguration. LOL.

Oh. Where is it going to be held?

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Oh. Where is it going to be held?

Apparently it's just an online event. I don't know the location of this particular Avignon, unfortunately.

 

[ceecee]

No it wouldn't. If there were the same amount of conservatives as liberals in this country, you wouldn't need the electoral college.

I had no idea 34% and falling was an even split.

U.S. Conservatism Down Since Start of 2020

The decline in self-identified conservatism in 2020 has been seen about evenly among men and women, and among all political party groups.

However, it was more pronounced among adults in upper-income households as well as among middle-aged adults (aged 35 to 54) than their counterparts.

I thought white middle aged upper income was the conservative's bread and butter. I wonder what could be driving them away because it doesn't seem to be only Trump.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

George Conway posted this text he supposedly got. It's just so sad.

 

[ygolo]

Ha! This is great. I never thought of that, but yes- the former hippie bastion of anti-vaxing homeopathic medicine and conspiracy theorists is now a mostly right wing subset of nutters- but don't forget that the left is now the party of moral intolerance, censorship, doxing, book burning, de-platforming, governmental authoritarianism, the idea that people should be judged based strictly on their race, and a number of anti-scientific notions like the idea that biological sex is a "spectrum" and that there's no difference between men and women- so I don't think anti-science/history has any particular "side" politically speaking. How weird that the nuttier wings inverted? No wonder there's people of older generations that have no idea where to cast their ideological support. I'm kind of in that demographic as older-ish, but back when moral authoritarianism and censorship was a right wing thing (bush era), I had it out big time with other conservatives- friends and family- which makes it fairly easy for me to pick a "side" today, based strictly on how I personally categorize and prioritize my political and social priorities- which I think is what everyone does, or tries to do, to some extent. Now that classic individual liberty based enlightenment era liberalism has found a weird home with fiscal conservativism and working class competence, it's a very good fit for me.

I wish I could agree with you and have a nice balance here. However, my observation is not that nutters flipped wings, but that they flocked to one side. You can certainly change my mind with enough well founded examples and a sound argument tying those together.

In addition, there are some points of issue.

1) Religious intolerance, and moral intolerance are not the same thing. For example, if people are intolerant of Nazi behavior on moral grounds, I cannot fault this intolerance one bit. For another example, if someone hates people because they are Muslim, or Christian, then that I would categorize as bigotry. If, on the other hand, if people are wary of fundamentalist Muslim or Christian sects that interfere with freedoms of people in general, I understand that, and is completely different.

2) Censorship is different from curbing disinformation and self-radicalization. Freedom of speech doesn't include the to ability yell fire in a crowded theater, Incitement to violence, or incitement in general to break other other laws. You can argue independently if the laws themselves are just or not. Civil disobedience (or more specifically Satyagraha) of unjust laws has been a common tactic for those who have the moral high-ground for quite some time.

3) Doxing still seems quite bipartisan. TBH, it seems to be the left doxing those on the left, and the right doxing those on the right, but for entirely different reasons.

4) What book-burning?

5) What does de-platforming mean here? This to me seems like playing victim, after being caught for bad behavior.

6) Authoritarianism can only come from those who have the authority. Right now the right has the levers of power. If there is abuse of power, it has to come from those who have it. If on the other hand, if this is a reference to being asked to wear masks especially by people in their own homes or their own businesses, then you have a very different notion of authoritarianism than I do.

7) Saying that the left is being racist at a time when known neo-Nazis run the alt-right is a BIG stretch.

8) Regarding Sex and Gender: New England Journal of Medicine, Nature, more Nature, Proceedings of the National Academies

 

[Totenkindly]

Many Georgia Republicans put Trump ahead of party and expect him to stay as president, hurting chances in Senate runoff

Just... what a mindboggling cluster.

Not that I mind the potential fallout.

 

[Lateralus]

I thought white middle aged upper income was the conservative's bread and butter. I wonder what could be driving them away because it doesn't seem to be only Trump.

Not wanting to be associated with the riff-raff?

 

[Lateralus]

Many Georgia Republicans put Trump ahead of party and expect him to stay as president, hurting chances in Senate runoff

Just... what a mindboggling cluster.

Not that I mind the potential fallout.

Sure, if they think boycotting elections isn't really any different than boycotting Netflix I won't complain.

 

[anticlimatic]

I wish I could agree with you and have a nice balance here. However, my observation is not that nutters flipped wings, but that they flocked to one side. You can certainly change my mind with enough well founded examples and a sound argument tying those together.

Really? You don't see it?

I'm not sure anything I can point out or say will change your mind if you don't see it already. Perhaps you're more of a leftist than an independent, which is fine if those are your values. Curious which values you have that diverge from it...but in the meantime I'll address your points here with my own perspective, which you can take or leave.

1) Religious intolerance, and moral intolerance are not the same thing. For example, if people are intolerant of Nazi behavior on moral grounds, I cannot fault this intolerance one bit. For another example, if someone hates people because they are Muslim, or Christian, then that I would categorize as bigotry. If, on the other hand, if people are wary of fundamentalist Muslim or Christian sects that interfere with freedoms of people in general, I understand that, and is completely different.

Agreed 100%.

2) Censorship is different from curbing disinformation and self-radicalization. Freedom of speech doesn't include the to ability yell fire in a crowded theater, Incitement to violence, or incitement in general to break other other laws. You can argue independently if the laws themselves are just or not. Civil disobedience (or more specifically Satyagraha) of unjust laws has been a common tactic for those who have the moral high-ground for quite some time.

This I'm afraid is bullshit (though full disclosure, I am a hardline free speech advocate). Attempting a top-down curbing of disinformation via censorship only accelerates the problem it tries to correct, because the effort to control- even if the original intent behind that control was for people's own good- is (rightly) seen as a threat, the way anyone or anything asserting power over anyone or anything else accurately is a threat, and then people will back away entirely from the system, trustless, and operate in the dark instead like a feral cat. Maybe someday it can be done correctly, with a Fact Checking institution that everyone can trust, but most of the current fact checkers are just outsourced propaganda wings of the democratic party, and nobody on the right takes them seriously. Worse, they often just assume the opposite of what they say is the truth. The correct response to bad information or concerns of someone self-radicalizing is not less disseminated information, however bad, via censorship. The correct response is more disseminated information- get the bad stuff out in the open, let it be vetted against reality and debate. As human beings we should all know well by now that things repressed are made much worse by the repression. High quality new ideas, which are like sporadic flowers that grow on vast fields of shit, are also only possible because of bad ideas and bad information- challenging people to discover why they are bad, and in doing so discover other things along the way. There really just is no good argument for censorship that I'm aware of, aside of course from the "yelling fire in a crowded theater." But other than literally that, No.

3) Doxing still seems quite bipartisan. TBH, it seems to be the left doxing those on the left, and the right doxing those on the right, but for entirely different reasons.

4) What book-burning?

5) What does de-platforming mean here? This to me seems like playing victim, after being caught for bad behavior.

These three real quick- the book burning thing came mostly from tictok (my girlfriend is into it and loves to annoy me with progressive videos, among others that genuinely do make me laugh), and she went through this phase a while back of sending me videos of people burning JK Rowling's books because she's anti-trans, or something like that. Also I saw they had a bible burning ceremony in Portland recently, and I've seen various other (likely not entirely serious) calls to burn books that leftists don't like. I know the staff at Penguin Publishers recently had an emotional breakdown trying to block them from publishing Jordan Peterson's new book (not literal burning, but same spirit). Stuff like that, not really a huge deal, but a sign of the culture. Doxing, regardless of whose doing it, is nasty nasty shit. I'm unaware of people on the right doing it, except maybe 4chan hackers/Anonymous or something like that, but I'd be open to examples. As long as we can agree that it's insane, and awful.

De-platforming I think is just another word for cancel culture- the idea that someone should be publicly shamed, fired, never hired again, and presumably die of starvation- for their political beliefs. It also refers to the blocking/protesting/shutting down of any not-radical-left-enough speaker to prevent them from speaking. People like Janet Mock (for being Jewish), Nicholas Dirks (for having a high salary), Anita Alvarez (for being part of law enforcement), Bassem Eid (for being a Palestinian not hard enough on Israel), and the list goes on forever. It is yet another insane practice and terrible idea, particularly as it pertains to the censorship issue I just discussed.

6) Authoritarianism can only come from those who have the authority. Right now the right has the levers of power. If there is abuse of power, it has to come from those who have it. If on the other hand, if this is a reference to being asked to wear masks especially by people in their own homes or their own businesses, then you have a very different notion of authoritarianism than I do.

An authoritarian leader can only come from those who have the authority to be such, but I was referring to the "authoritarian personality type," as coined by Theodor Adorno at Berkley in 1954. His focus was on right-wing authoritarianist types:

"He found that right-wing authoritarians are submissive to authority figures in their society, tend to become aggressive in the name of those authority figures and hold very conventional views. They strongly agreed with statements such as, "The established authorities generally turn out to be right about things, while radicals and protestors are usually just 'loud mouths' showing off their ignorance." They would strongly disagree with statements such as, “Everyone should have their own lifestyle, religious beliefs, and sexual preferences, even if it makes them different from everyone else."

Later, Edward Shils identified the left wing authoritarian personality type:

They identified some tell-tale signs of left-wing authoritarians: They believe people in power should be punished and the existing order should be violently overthrown. They see people with opposing political views as inherently immoral and prefer to be surrounded by people who share their values. They think the government or other institutions should forcefully stop people from sharing views they find abhorrent.

Left-wing authoritarians typically strongly agree with the following statements: the rich should be stripped of their belongs and status; deep-down just about all conservatives are racist, sexist and homophobic; classrooms can be safe spaces that protect students from the discussion of harmful ideas.

Sound familiar?

I'll call out any right-winger who blindly listens to authority, or gets aggressive over forcing traditional roles or concepts on other people. I've known and dealt with plenty, though not a whole lot, in my life. The profile of a right wing authoritarian type does not fit the bulk of my conservative peers, but the profile of a left wing authoritarian type fits most- if not all- of my left wing peers. It certainly fits the profile of just about every politically vocal individual on this forum, administrators included. Maybe it's a sample pool thing and I'm wrong? Just speaking to my intuition on that one.

I will say, in regards to authoritarian personalities with their hands on the levers of power, that there are plenty of governors with hands on said levers, and between democrats and republicans, one of the two tends to be far more draconian than the other- as revealed by COVID, and the devastating use of lockdowns.

7) Saying that the left is being racist at a time when known neo-Nazis run the alt-right is a BIG stretch.

I think neo-nazis are the alt right, right? Fuck them and everything about them. I don't know of anyone else who identifies as alt-right except for that tiny, universally condemned by the majority of sane conservatives as an insane hate group, faction of Hitler groupies. They certainly have absolutely nothing in common with the rest of us. It's a shame leftists can't say the same thing about their own psychos, it would really go a long way towards making them less of a nervous laughing stock in general among conservative circles.

This is, however, a complete non-sequitur to the point that woke culture has gone so backwards in regards to race that it judges people based strictly on it once again. At least Proposition 16, to repeal an anti-discrimination law, was shot down by voters in California- though it is an accurate representation of the direction leftist radicals want to take people.

8) Regarding Sex and Gender: New England Journal of Medicine, Nature, more Nature, Proceedings of the National Academies

Thank you, I'll give these a read when I have some more free time- spent all I had tonight on the thoughts above.

 

[The Cat]

 

[Jonny]

This I'm afraid is bullshit (though full disclosure, I am a hardline free speech advocate). Attempting a top-down curbing of disinformation via censorship only accelerates the problem it tries to correct, because the effort to control- even if the original intent behind that control was for people's own good- is (rightly) seen as a threat, the way anyone or anything asserting power over anyone or anything else accurately is a threat, and then people will back away entirely from the system, trustless, and operate in the dark instead like a feral cat. Maybe someday it can be done correctly, with a Fact Checking institution that everyone can trust, but most of the current fact checkers are just outsourced propaganda wings of the democratic party, and nobody on the right takes them seriously. Worse, they often just assume the opposite of what they say is the truth. The correct response to bad information or concerns of someone self-radicalizing is not less disseminated information, however bad, via censorship. The correct response is more disseminated information- get the bad stuff out in the open, let it be vetted against reality and debate. As human beings we should all know well by now that things repressed are made much worse by the repression. High quality new ideas, which are like sporadic flowers that grow on vast fields of shit, are also only possible because of bad ideas and bad information- challenging people to discover why they are bad, and in doing so discover other things along the way. There really just is no good argument for censorship that I'm aware of, aside of course from the "yelling fire in a crowded theater." But other than literally that, No.

I disagree with this.

I'll start by saying I agree that the government should not impose criminal or other legal sanctions against people who peddle in misinformation. However, the issues we face today aren't really "free speech" issues in the classical sense. What we're really talking about here is "equal speech." Some people simply want the right to say whatever they want and have it the hosted on the same platform; for example, conspiracy theories and well-sourced reporting both treated the same way on twitter. I disagree with this, and I think it's bad for society.

This notion that we should just let it all hang out and have it be "vetted against reality and debate" is naïve. In principle, if we were literally holding formal debates on both sides of a particular issue then I'd agree. But even then, we'd be tasked with deciding which topics among the seemingly limitless number of fact vs. bullshit arguments there are out there. And then, we're still left with innumerable falsehoods that go unaddressed. People reading things on facebook and twitter are not generally amendable to seeing both sides of an issue. The same goes for people interacting with all the "news" organizations like ZeroHedge and Breitbart. People scroll, read something briefly, incorporate the gist of it into their understanding of the world, and move on.

Your statement about "things repressed are made much worse by the repression" is also false in this context. If the government imposed laws against speaking about certain things, then sure I'd agree. For example, if it were illegal to discuss the facts surrounding the JFK assassination, then sure it would make people very curious about it. But, if OANN or NewsMax starting posting unsourced stories about JFK being killed by the deep state, and asserting that it was all some conspiracy by this group or another, and people with a vested interest in that belief started spreading this misinformation around, then letting it spread unchecked on social media would make it worse, not better. That someone removes the post from twitter doesn't make people believe it more than they otherwise would...they're own vested interest does that.

If you truly believed what you're suggesting here, then shouldn't you also believe that all the Hunter Biden stuff that was covered by the Post but not covered by the "mainstream media" was actually more effective in convincing people of Biden's corruption because it was being "repressed"? The truth is, most people actually didn't even know about it because it wasn't covered. If it were given space in the public discussion it would have gained more traction.

I think the heart of the issue is, you think there are some truths that aren't being expressed and you believe that you're personally being harmed by it. You have a vested interest in certain beliefs, and want them propagated. If I were to bet, I would say you think of yourself and your ilk as somewhat akin to Galileo, speaking truth to power and being oppressed by some perverse and corrupt institutions seeking to silence that truth for personal benefit. But I think that perception is flat out wrong.

The best solution is to establish a clear and transparent logic to what constitutes acceptable or unacceptable information, and apply that logic fairly, allowing for appeals in cases where something is in dispute.

 

[ceecee]

Many Georgia Republicans put Trump ahead of party and expect him to stay as president, hurting chances in Senate runoff

Just... what a mindboggling cluster.

Not that I mind the potential fallout.

It's so on brand for them. I especially love the idea of them writing in Trump.

 

[ceecee]

Not wanting to be associated with the riff-raff?

Maybe. Especially when you read parallel universe stuff like this.

Looking Ahead to Trump’s Second Term '-' American Greatness

In his second term, therefore, Trump will need to be far bolder and more aggressive. With the loyalty and passion of 74 million Americans putting wind in his sails, there’s hope that, starting in January, Trump will be, if anything, Trumpier than ever.

And that’s exactly what we need.

American Greatness bills itself as" the leading voice of the next generation of American Conservatism."

I can see this entire delusion being a gigantic turnoff to even the mildly right person.

 

[anticlimatic]

I disagree with this.

I'll start by saying I agree that the government should not impose criminal or other legal sanctions against people who peddle in misinformation. However, the issues we face today aren't really "free speech" issues in the classical sense. What we're really talking about here is "equal speech." Some people simply want the right to say whatever they want and have it the hosted on the same platform; for example, conspiracy theories and well-sourced reporting both treated the same way on twitter. I disagree with this, and I think it's bad for society.

This notion that we should just let it all hang out and have it be "vetted against reality and debate" is naïve. In principle, if we were literally holding formal debates on both sides of a particular issue then I'd agree. But even then, we'd be tasked with deciding which topics among the seemingly limitless number of fact vs. bullshit arguments there are out there. And then, we're still left with innumerable falsehoods that go unaddressed. People reading things on facebook and twitter are not generally amendable to seeing both sides of an issue. The same goes for people interacting with all the "news" organizations like ZeroHedge and Breitbart. People scroll, read something briefly, incorporate the gist of it into their understanding of the world, and move on.

Your statement about "things repressed are made much worse by the repression" is also false in this context. If the government imposed laws against speaking about certain things, then sure I'd agree. For example, if it were illegal to discuss the facts surrounding the JFK assassination, then sure it would make people very curious about it. But, if OANN or NewsMax starting posting unsourced stories about JFK being killed by the deep state, and asserting that it was all some conspiracy by this group or another, and people with a vested interest in that belief started spreading this misinformation around, then letting it spread unchecked on social media would make it worse, not better. That someone removes the post from twitter doesn't make people believe it more than they otherwise would...they're own vested interest does that.

If you truly believed what you're suggesting here, then shouldn't you also believe that all the Hunter Biden stuff that was covered by the Post but not covered by the "mainstream media" was actually more effective in convincing people of Biden's corruption because it was being "repressed"? The truth is, most people actually didn't even know about it because it wasn't covered. If it were given space in the public discussion it would have gained more traction.

I think the heart of the issue is, you think there are some truths that aren't being expressed and you believe that you're personally being harmed by it. You have a vested interest in certain beliefs, and want them propagated. If I were to bet, I would say you think of yourself and your ilk as somewhat akin to Galileo, speaking truth to power and being oppressed by some perverse and corrupt institutions seeking to silence that truth for personal benefit. But I think that perception is flat out wrong.

The best solution is to establish a clear and transparent logic to what constitutes acceptable or unacceptable information, and apply that logic fairly, allowing for appeals in cases where something is in dispute.

I also think that perception is flat out wrong.

Honestly I wasn't thinking so much about the Hunter Biden business, it's much more of a core value of mine, and what concerns me most about it is the day to day type of censorship- self censorship, censorship of particular public conversations, censorship of view points and perspectives and values, censorship of arts and individual creations. I've had a hard on for free speech since I understood what it was, which shouldn't be too hard to believe considering my mouth. What really galvanized it was the authoritarian right, during my brief tenure at a Fundamentalist Christian High School, in which I was forced to watch this video (skip to 7:45 to rock). It ended up being a good sampler of some quality 80s jams I hadn't heard before, but outside of this video no such music was ever allowed in school (for the good of our souls, of course). I listened to it anyway, decided I enjoyed it, and further decided that was the last time anybody was going to tell me what to think, experiment with, or experience. I was going to decide all of that for myself, and so it's gone, and I wouldn't change a thing or wish anything less on anyone else.

I dislike the amount of control you seek over public discourse and consider it unduly patronizing to society in general, but I sympathize with the fact that you have society's best interests at heart, as I have the same. Maybe it's the Ne in me, but I like what arises from the unscripted chaos, and think it's a better path to more novel and interesting ideas. I value more of the pioneering spirit and risks, in general, than I do safety- better to be impassioned and inspired than content and comfortable. I think that is the kind of thing that benefits a society more than a bunch of worker drones afraid to think outside of their own scripted boxes for fear of "whatever" (honestly, I thought this was pretty common sense knowledge). Maybe a balance, because I do hear you in regards to kooky dangerous things being propagated unchecked- but I do think the overall societal danger is lower than you think it is. That War of the Worlds radio broadcast that everyone thought was real was pretty cool, even if it did traumatize a few people.

 

[Jonny]

I also think that perception is flat out wrong.

Honestly I wasn't thinking so much about the Hunter Biden business, it's much more of a core value of mine, and what concerns me most about it is the day to day type of censorship- self censorship, censorship of particular public conversations, censorship of view points and perspectives and values, censorship of arts and individual creations. I've had a hard on for free speech since I understood what it was, which shouldn't be too hard to believe considering my mouth. What really galvanized it was the authoritarian right, during my brief tenure at a Fundamentalist Christian High School, in which I was forced to watch this video (skip to 7:45 to rock). It ended up being a good sampler of some quality 80s jams I hadn't heard before, but outside of this video no such music was ever allowed in school (for the good of our souls, of course). I listened to it anyway, decided I enjoyed it, and further decided that was the last time anybody was going to tell me what to think, experiment with, or experience. I was going to decide all of that for myself, and so it's gone, and I wouldn't change a thing or wish anything less on anyone else.

I dislike the amount of control you seek over public discourse and consider it unduly patronizing to society in general, but I sympathize with the fact that you have society's best interests at heart, as I have the same. Maybe it's the Ne in me, but I like what arises from the unscripted chaos, and think it's a better path to more novel and interesting ideas. I value more of the pioneering spirit and risks, in general, than I do safety- better to be impassioned and inspired than content and comfortable. I think that is the kind of thing that benefits a society more than a bunch of worker drones afraid to think outside of their own scripted boxes for fear of "whatever." Maybe a balance, because I do hear you in regards to kooky dangerous things being propagated unchecked- but I do think the overall societal danger is lower than you think it is. That War of the Worlds radio broadcast that everyone thought was real was pretty cool, even if it did traumatize a few people.

I wasn't saying you were thinking of Hunter Biden, I was using that to support my assertion that your claim that repression actually encourages propagation is false in this context.

Again, I'm not arguing against free speech. I'm arguing against giving all speech an equal platform, which is essentially what social media does if not moderated in some form. I can see how that would be patronizing, because I'm essentially making the value-judgment that allowing such things is bad and that the people participating don't know better.

But perhaps there is a way to achieve some level of discerning without being patronizing. It is to that end that I recommended establishing a set of transparent guidelines that govern that classification system. For example, information is propagated through Wikipedia, but not all information is allowed. There needs to be very particular sourcing/standards. In a similar fashion, guidelines can be established for social media sites like facebook and twitter.

Perhaps we can even induce debate. For example, if you post some "information" on twitter, others have the right to challenge that information by flagging it and offering supporting evidence against it. If enough people flag it, then a warning is attached to any tweets on that topic that they're in dispute, and perhaps a link is generated to the counterpoints. And of course you would have a right to source your claims as well. That way, anyone reading your tweet would know (1) that it was in dispute, and (2) have a link to a sort of wiki/debate page where all the pertinent issues are addressed.

Without such a remedy, for many people we will never reach that point (of debate) in practice. People will just reinforce their bad ideas with more misinformation. And yes, there are genuinely bad ideas.

Believe it or not, I also value risk...I am an actuary after all. But I also value knowledge and taking calculated risks. Playing Russian roulette isn't something I would ever encourage.

As for the overall societal danger... https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/12/07/michigan-sos-benson-armed-protest/

 

[Jaguar]

December 8th is 'Safe Harbor Day.'

 

[Tater]

December 8th is 'Safe Harbor Day.'

[MENTION=5143]Salomé[/MENTION]!!!