How did the general populace get this sheepish? It's not just the right either, they're just the worst offenders now. It's like people's brains have been infected with mindworms containing their buzzwords of choice and nothing else gets in. There doesn't seem to be any room for debate or compromise about anything anymore...
My theory is that, despite the fact that we're living in the most advanced moment in history in a technological sense, in a cultural sense we're basically in the Dark Ages.
True, every epoch has had its fair share of crazy ideas. But when some of the craziest ones become mainstream, such as the belief that the Earth is flat, or that space is fake, or that dinosaurs never existed, then something has gone terribly wrong at the cultural level.
Political discussions look like sophisticated theories by comparison. It's very difficult to agree on any given political issue with someone if we can't even agree on the shape of the Earth.
What keeps me optimistic in this is how curiosity and an open mind can counteract that. When I explained to my kids (age 10 and 12) what a light year is, and that we're actually looking at the past of the universe, they came up with the idea that you could prove history by finding a civilization far enough away to see it. Like, more than 60 million light years away looking at earth they would see dinosaurs, not humans. Of course they realized that instant communication is impossible, but the idea was cool.
Unfortunately, disinterest in education, especially science, seems to be very common, also schools are focusing more on learning "useful" things instead of fostering true curiosity and creativity.
Probably people believed weird stuff all the time, but if all our tech is used only for entertainment, not education, weird stuff spreads much faster and many people haven't learned to think for themselves or to critically look at data, understand how science works so that they stop distrusting it... also, if people's main source of information is the internet, modern search algorithms keep you in a bubble of like-minded folks, showing you always only similar information that others like you were interested in.
If a society wants to avoid herds of dumb followers, a thorough and balanced education is important. Learning to think, to analyze, to debate, to be wrong, to admit it and learn from it, not just to accumulate conserved knowledge and repeat it.
How did the general populace get this sheepish? It's not just the right either, they're just the worst offenders now. It's like people's brains have been infected with mindworms containing their buzzwords of choice and nothing else gets in. There doesn't seem to be any room for debate or compromise about anything anymore...
My theory is that, despite the fact that we're living in the most advanced moment in history in a technological sense, in a cultural sense we're basically in the Dark Ages.
True, every epoch has had its fair share of crazy ideas. But when some of the craziest ones become mainstream, such as the belief that the Earth is flat, or that space is fake, or that dinosaurs never existed, then something has gone terribly wrong at the cultural level.
Political discussions look like sophisticated theories by comparison. It's very difficult to agree on any given political issue with someone if we can't even agree on the shape of the Earth.
If a society wants to avoid herds of dumb followers, a thorough and balanced education is important. Learning to think, to analyze, to debate, to be wrong, to admit it and learn from it, not just to accumulate conserved knowledge and repeat it.
You're so right. Unfortunately I'm not so sure that's what society really wants...
One of the more annoying things about Democrats/Liberals/Progressives in general in the desire to see/read a whole bunch of obscure iconography into everything. Like when a conservative figure puts out a 14 word statement, everyone in left twitter loses their collective shit like it's some top secret nazi dog-whistle. It almost certainly isnt.
We've seen time (and time) again that social conservatives have no issue saying plainly what they're thinking. They arent hiding neo nazi symbols in obscure places.
One of the more annoying things about Democrats/Liberals/Progressives in general in the desire to see/read a whole bunch of obscure iconography into everything. Like when a conservative figure puts out a 14 word statement, everyone in left twitter loses their collective shit like it's some top secret nazi dog-whistle. It almost certainly isnt.
We've seen time (and time) again that social conservatives have no issue saying plainly what they're thinking. They arent hiding neo nazi symbols in obscure places.
The religious right does the exact same thing. If I had a dollar for every 'secret symbol' or 'hidden Satanic message' I was told about when I was little, I'd be a rich man...
If a society wants to avoid herds of dumb followers, a thorough and balanced education is important. Learning to think, to analyze, to debate, to be wrong, to admit it and learn from it, not just to accumulate conserved knowledge and repeat it.
Nobody appreciates the Socratic Method anymore. This era is particularly hostile to it.
Nobody appreciates the Socratic Method anymore. This era is particularly hostile to it.
I don't appreciate it either, and I'm particularly hostile to it as well. For academic reasons, mostly. But I still value reason, analysis, and everything else that Arvia said.
Nobody appreciates the Socratic Method anymore. This era is particularly hostile to it.
I don't appreciate it either, and I'm particularly hostile to it as well. For academic reasons, mostly. But I still value reason, analysis, and everything else that Arvia said.
There is the 5 times why method that still sees use. It's kind of the same
Yeah the 5 times why method is great. We use it at work to investigate safety incidents. It completely loses its relevance once you reach the 'because so and so was a dumbass' answer and have to tapdance around that to find a different answer. The 'dumbass' why is usually the 1st or 2nd so every why after that becomes less and less relevant to the real problem...
Sure. As an anecdote, initially I was a fan of the Socratic Method, until I read Nietzsche's Birth of Tragedy, where Socrates is heavily criticized. Granted, most of Nietzsche's criticisms are ad hominem fallacies. But, the possibility of critiquing Socrates and his method intrigued me.
Fast forward a couple of years, I started to become acquainted with formal logic. I began studying propositional logic and then moved on to predicate logic, second-order logic, etc. One of these that intrigued me was paraconsistent logic. I was very interested in the idea that it's formally possible to deny the Principle of Excluded Middle while at the same time avoiding the notion that a contradiction entails anything (the Principle of Explosion). Now, it may be argued that paraconsistent logic is useless, or at least it's less useful than any traditional logic (propositional, predicate, second-order, etc.). I have no problem in accepting that critique. But even if it's useless, the very fact that they "exist", that is, that they can be formalized, in a precise way, proves that the underlying assumption of the Socratic Method is false, insofar as that method assumes that the three classical Principles (of Identity, of Non-Contradiction, of Excluded Middle) are true for all and any system of logic whatsoever. The very point of paraconsistent logic is to show that any of these principles can be false in that context without this leading to the Principle of Explosion. Now, in an ordinary conversation or debate, of course you use the Socratic Method, as well as the person you're debating. But we shouldn't therefore conclude that the underlying logic of that method is the only kind of logic in existence.
Yeah, sorry for derailing the thread. This is a thread for politics, after all.
On that note, I'm not entirely sure how I feel about the claim that the stage in Hyatt wasn't purposely designed as a rune. It could be a coincidence, I don't know.
There is the 5 times why method that still sees use. It's kind of the same
Yeah the 5 times why method is great. We use it at work to investigate safety incidents. It completely loses its relevance once you reach the 'because so and so was a dumbass' answer and have to tapdance around that to find a different answer. The 'dumbass' why is usually the 1st or 2nd so every why after that becomes less and less relevant to the real problem...
well, suppose dumbass is one of the colleagues then the dumbass why can indicate a clear follow up that dumbass needs to go on a course to learn the safety protocols and dumbass's boss needs to question why dumbass could have gotten into that situation without the proper people knowing he did not do the safety course, etc, etc. Often many actions come out to improve the general way of working, which could be beneficial in the long term.
If dumbass is a visitor then you get into which signs and stuff is missing or unclear, etc.
But yes, no one goes beyond the dumbass level because no one likes actions
There is the 5 times why method that still sees use. It's kind of the same
Yeah the 5 times why method is great. We use it at work to investigate safety incidents. It completely loses its relevance once you reach the 'because so and so was a dumbass' answer and have to tapdance around that to find a different answer. The 'dumbass' why is usually the 1st or 2nd so every why after that becomes less and less relevant to the real problem...
well, suppose dumbass is one of the colleagues then the dumbass why can indicate a clear follow up that dumbass needs to go on a course to learn the safety protocols and dumbass's boss needs to question why dumbass could have gotten into that situation without the proper people knowing he did not do the safety course, etc, etc. Often many actions come out to improve the general way of working, which could be beneficial in the long term.
If dumbass is a visitor then you get into which signs and stuff is missing or unclear, etc.
But yes, no one goes beyond the dumbass level because no one likes actions
Usually dumbass knew the protocols but ignored them. In my experience anyway. It's easier to pretend it's the 'system' than to actually confront the individual.
Yeah, sorry for derailing the thread. This is a thread for politics, after all.
On that note, I'm not entirely sure how I feel about the claim that the stage in Hyatt wasn't purposely designed as a rune. It could be a coincidence, I don't know.
I don't object. I'm not sure I understood everything in your post but it was interesting.
There is the 5 times why method that still sees use. It's kind of the same
Yeah the 5 times why method is great. We use it at work to investigate safety incidents. It completely loses its relevance once you reach the 'because so and so was a dumbass' answer and have to tapdance around that to find a different answer. The 'dumbass' why is usually the 1st or 2nd so every why after that becomes less and less relevant to the real problem...
well, suppose dumbass is one of the colleagues then the dumbass why can indicate a clear follow up that dumbass needs to go on a course to learn the safety protocols and dumbass's boss needs to question why dumbass could have gotten into that situation without the proper people knowing he did not do the safety course, etc, etc. Often many actions come out to improve the general way of working, which could be beneficial in the long term.
If dumbass is a visitor then you get into which signs and stuff is missing or unclear, etc.
But yes, no one goes beyond the dumbass level because no one likes actions
Usually dumbass knew the protocols but ignored them. In my experience anyway. It's easier to pretend it's the 'system' than to actually confront the individual.
Well that’s a management/enforcement problem and if they are afraid to confront individuals who are putting their lives and other lives at risk, then they are the actual dumb asses in the equation.
The next why when it comes to dumbasses not following protocol is why aren’t they following protocol.
There is the 5 times why method that still sees use. It's kind of the same
Yeah the 5 times why method is great. We use it at work to investigate safety incidents. It completely loses its relevance once you reach the 'because so and so was a dumbass' answer and have to tapdance around that to find a different answer. The 'dumbass' why is usually the 1st or 2nd so every why after that becomes less and less relevant to the real problem...
well, suppose dumbass is one of the colleagues then the dumbass why can indicate a clear follow up that dumbass needs to go on a course to learn the safety protocols and dumbass's boss needs to question why dumbass could have gotten into that situation without the proper people knowing he did not do the safety course, etc, etc. Often many actions come out to improve the general way of working, which could be beneficial in the long term.
If dumbass is a visitor then you get into which signs and stuff is missing or unclear, etc.
But yes, no one goes beyond the dumbass level because no one likes actions
Usually dumbass knew the protocols but ignored them. In my experience anyway. It's easier to pretend it's the 'system' than to actually confront the individual.
Well that’s a management/enforcement problem and if they are afraid to confront individuals who are putting their lives and other lives at risk, then they are the actual dumb asses in the equation.
The next why when it comes to dumbasses not following protocol is why aren’t they following protocol.
Well, truth to tell, a lot of our safety protocols are over the top. The problem is that the company really only cares about not getting sued, not safety. Real safety problems get swept under the rug while they write up people for stupid shit like not wearing steel-toed shoes when moving a gallon of methanol from one lab to the next. Like dropping a gallon jug on your foot happens all the time. I shit you not, we had an entire building get evacuated because somebody spilled chemicals in it and it took a week before they told us what it was. But oh my God gotta wear those safety shoes when moving a 10 pound gallon jug...
In Andrew Cuomo news, it seems these sexual harassment claims might actually save him rather than force him out. If it's me, I'd much rather be fighting on the "I was too affectionate in public" field (his spin and framing, not mine, it's more serious than that) rather than the "I manipulated COVID-19 death numbers" one. His press conference today was one step from just saying "hey, this is how Italians greet each other." Guy is a snake, but he'll slither away from this pretty easily I think. It doesn't matter how many Democrats come out against him, he's never cared what opponents in his own party have thought before, he isn't gonna start now.
If a society wants to avoid herds of dumb followers, a thorough and balanced education is important. Learning to think, to analyze, to debate, to be wrong, to admit it and learn from it, not just to accumulate conserved knowledge and repeat it.
Nobody appreciates the Socratic Method anymore. This era is particularly hostile to it.
I was actually thinking more of scientific approach to thinking, analyzing data and discussing results rather than Socratic debate, maybe I should have made that clearer. Classic debate has its merit, of course, but I was more worried about today's people believing more in propaganda because they don't know how research works and therefore think scientifically acquired data (assuming the methods were solid) is nothing more than another viewpoint and opinion like a religious or political worldview.
If a society wants to avoid herds of dumb followers, a thorough and balanced education is important. Learning to think, to analyze, to debate, to be wrong, to admit it and learn from it, not just to accumulate conserved knowledge and repeat it.
Nobody appreciates the Socratic Method anymore. This era is particularly hostile to it.
I was actually thinking more of scientific approach to thinking, analyzing data and discussing results rather than Socratic debate, maybe I should have made that clearer. Classic debate has its merit, of course, but I was more worried about today's people believing more in propaganda because they don't know how research works and therefore think scientifically acquired data (assuming the methods were solid) is nothing more than another viewpoint and opinion like a religious or political worldview.
I don't think there is a big problem with a lack of scientific literacy today, personally. As far as this thing can be studied without widespread testing, the majority of adults of all age groups in this country understand the major concepts to an acceptable degree, and you can explain scientific concepts to the public successfully.
One thing that is also interesting to me, is that a high degree of scientific knowledge doesn't mean you start agreeing on scientific matters. It turns out there are more important things than your knowledge of science that can determine your views on things. For climate change and energy related issues, politics influences opinion as much as scientific knowledge. For nuclear power issues, the amount of social trust in society matters as much as scientific knowledge. Same goes for biotechnology.
Now i'm going on an irrelevant tangent here, so please don't assume i'm referring to you here, but I think an often understated part of the 2000's and 2010's was a technocratic notion that a scientific approach to society would be a general solution for most of its ills. I still do not believe that to be the case, given that how we process information and what we choose to do with it often has less to do with the raw information content and more to do with how we view the world in general.
It is my opinion that, at the end of the day, many things will boil down to our own philosophy and ideology, including many scientific matters. We will have a range of choices on what to do with our vast array of information, and no immutable, set-in-stone answer for how to live and govern society will reveal itself within this data.
Mainly focused on running over the 2020 election results and what they can mean for the party going forward. The whole article is worth your time.
Some key quotes from Shor:
"Why did nonwhite voters start sorting more by ideology? And that’s a hard thing to know. But my organization, and our partner organizations, have done extensive post-election surveys of 2020 voters. And we looked specifically at those voters who switched from supporting Hillary Clinton in 2016 to Donald Trump in 2020 to see whether anything distinguishes this subgroup in terms of their policy opinions. What we found is that Clinton voters with conservative views on crime, policing, and public safety were far more likely to switch to Trump than voters with less conservative views on those issues."
"If we conduct ourselves the way we did after 2008, we’re definitely going to lose. And due to the way that our electoral system works, we really could be locked out of power for a very long time, just like we were after 2010. ... Since the maps in the House of Representatives are so biased against us, if we don’t pass a redistricting reform, our chance of keeping the House is very low. And then the Senate is even more biased against us than the House. So, it’s also very important that we add as many states as we can."
"So, in 2016, Hillary Clinton got 51.1 percent of the two-party vote. Obama got 52 percent in 2012. In just about any other country, retaining 51.1 percent support would have been enough to keep power. But in this country, between 2012 and 2016, the Electoral College bias changed from being one percent biased toward Democrats to 3 percent biased toward Republicans, mainly because of education polarization. So Donald Trump is unpopular. And he does pay a penalty for that relative to a generic Republican. But the voters he’s popular with happen to be extremely efficiently distributed in political-geography terms."
Mainly focused on running over the 2020 election results and what they can mean for the party going forward. The whole article is worth your time.
Some key quotes from Shor:
"Why did nonwhite voters start sorting more by ideology? And that’s a hard thing to know. But my organization, and our partner organizations, have done extensive post-election surveys of 2020 voters. And we looked specifically at those voters who switched from supporting Hillary Clinton in 2016 to Donald Trump in 2020 to see whether anything distinguishes this subgroup in terms of their policy opinions. What we found is that Clinton voters with conservative views on crime, policing, and public safety were far more likely to switch to Trump than voters with less conservative views on those issues."
"If we conduct ourselves the way we did after 2008, we’re definitely going to lose. And due to the way that our electoral system works, we really could be locked out of power for a very long time, just like we were after 2010. ... Since the maps in the House of Representatives are so biased against us, if we don’t pass a redistricting reform, our chance of keeping the House is very low. And then the Senate is even more biased against us than the House. So, it’s also very important that we add as many states as we can."
"So, in 2016, Hillary Clinton got 51.1 percent of the two-party vote. Obama got 52 percent in 2012. In just about any other country, retaining 51.1 percent support would have been enough to keep power. But in this country, between 2012 and 2016, the Electoral College bias changed from being one percent biased toward Democrats to 3 percent biased toward Republicans, mainly because of education polarization. So Donald Trump is unpopular. And he does pay a penalty for that relative to a generic Republican. But the voters he’s popular with happen to be extremely efficiently distributed in political-geography terms."
If Democrats do ONE other major thing besides COVID-19 relief, it should be the voting rights legislation in HR1. This article by Ronald Brownstein is chilling and prophetic. In short, Republicans are using Trump's big lie about the stolen election to justify the escalation of their all-out assault on voting rights, to a level not seen since Jim Crow. Success in these measures, combined with the structural advantages the GOP already enjoys in our system, could leave Democrats in a place where nearly 55% of the public agrees and/or votes for them, but are completely locked out of any national power anyway:
Republicans have abandoned policy entirely (this is not hyperbole, they didn't even have a party platform in 2020). If you ask them in private, they'll tell you flat-out the only way they can win is to manipulate the board. Hell, their lawyer ADMITTED it during Supreme Court arguments last week. That more people voting is, essentially, "unfair" to Republicans.
They have no problem with attempting to overthrow an election. They don't believe everyone should have a right to vote. The only thing they stand for at this point is the destruction of small-d democratic principles.
Yeah I really like that Shor focused in on HR1 later in the interview, I failed to note such in my quotes. Hopefully there's isn't as much of a desire to horse-trade or burnish one's moderate credentials on HR1. It's one thing to slightly water down COVID relief, painful for some Americans but very short term in its impact. It's another thing to water down a bill that will aid the anti-democratic forces in the country. Essentially undermining any political advantage one might get from being a moderate. In fact, it's these anti-democratic perverse incentives that facilitate extremism over centrism.
The big hurdle is HR1 will not be exempt from filibustering, so I can't personally say I know of a strategy to get that one over the line. I suppose there's a way to try and bundle it with other spending bills down the road, such as the National Defense Authorization Act, but then that's going to be a legal debate just like $15 minimum wage was, so might not be a win.
While some people have spent the week pretending (because everyone pushing it knows it's not true) that Dr. Seuss was "cancelled" (rather than his estate making a decision to not publish another run of certain books), here is an ACTUAL example of an attempt to curtail free speech, because we can't have cops getting their feelings hurt on the job:
The kicker being it's the target of the tongue-lashing who gets to decide whether or not the speech being directed at them is meant to "provoke a violent response". As if they need provocation. But sure, let's make the ground cops stand on into even more of their personal fiefdom than it already is (which is basically total already). No one is conscripted into this job. If you can't handle the heat, find a new one.
There are already laws that take care of yelling fire in a crowded theater. Calling a police officer a pig or telling them to go f their mother does not factor into that equation. Everyone's job would be a hell of alot different if they were just able to demand people treat them with respect by force of the law. Apparently, only cops get to enjoy this privilege by having bills introduced around the idea.
On a side tangent, whenever I engaged anyone on other platforms about the Dr. Seuss nonsense, and correctly pointed out that nothing was being banned, the estate was choosing not to do another run of certain books, and what would you like to do, FORCE them to?? (which is about 1000x more dystopian than anything they are alleging took place) the answer would inevitably shift to "copyrights shouldn't last that long anyway". Which is an amazing non-sequiter in and of itself. But also speaks to another issue.
My generation was dead wrong about Napster and copyright infringement. Lars Ulrich and Metallica took endless heat, but, in hindsight, they were 100% right. The music industry did die, and the fans killed it. Because we took everything for free (stole) and never looked back. Only with the advent of streaming has it started to adapt, but the artists are seeing fractions of pennies per spin, and unless you are Elton John or AC/DC, you aren't seeing jack squat from them.
The reason "It's a Wonderful Life" played on literally EVERY local station on Christmas Eve for decades was because it became public domain. It's why there are endless anthologies of Lovecraft stories. But if an estate or heirs are protecting and using the copyright, I now believe it should absolutely NOT be taken from them by force after a certain amount of time (even though it is currently somewhere between 70-120 years based on when/what was published, but apparently people now think it should be as low as 30, meaning during the lifetime of the author, which is ridiculous). This isn't like a patent on medicine. No one's life is hanging in the balance over a record or novel.
But it doesn't surprise me this was the response. And the 30-40 year old generation is responsible. We decided in the year 2000 that we shouldn't have to pay for music anymore. We were dead wrong, and created a world where people think art should be free. Which may be why so much of it isn't up to the level it used to be.
It's caused me to do a complete 180 on the issue after a situation arose with Metallica on Twitch a couple weeks ago (having their own live performance muted was seen as a great irony and karma by most, but it made me question my own positions from 20 years ago and change them) and then being confronted with this response about copyright length (from the left and right) during this most recent dust-up. But I am in the minority on this, the OVERWHELMING minority based on social media responses and interactions. Why should people Stephen King has never met or entered into a business relationship with have a right to make money off his work 70 years after his death if his great-grandchildren are still alive and overseeing the estate??
Comments
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2021-02-16/fractured-power
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2021-03-03/china-not-ten-feet-tall
What keeps me optimistic in this is how curiosity and an open mind can counteract that. When I explained to my kids (age 10 and 12) what a light year is, and that we're actually looking at the past of the universe, they came up with the idea that you could prove history by finding a civilization far enough away to see it. Like, more than 60 million light years away looking at earth they would see dinosaurs, not humans. Of course they realized that instant communication is impossible, but the idea was cool.
Unfortunately, disinterest in education, especially science, seems to be very common, also schools are focusing more on learning "useful" things instead of fostering true curiosity and creativity.
Probably people believed weird stuff all the time, but if all our tech is used only for entertainment, not education, weird stuff spreads much faster and many people haven't learned to think for themselves or to critically look at data, understand how science works so that they stop distrusting it... also, if people's main source of information is the internet, modern search algorithms keep you in a bubble of like-minded folks, showing you always only similar information that others like you were interested in.
If a society wants to avoid herds of dumb followers, a thorough and balanced education is important. Learning to think, to analyze, to debate, to be wrong, to admit it and learn from it, not just to accumulate conserved knowledge and repeat it.
You're so right. Unfortunately I'm not so sure that's what society really wants...
https://www.foxnews.com/media/cpac-stage-controversy-design-foundry-backs-dems
One of the more annoying things about Democrats/Liberals/Progressives in general in the desire to see/read a whole bunch of obscure iconography into everything. Like when a conservative figure puts out a 14 word statement, everyone in left twitter loses their collective shit like it's some top secret nazi dog-whistle. It almost certainly isnt.
We've seen time (and time) again that social conservatives have no issue saying plainly what they're thinking. They arent hiding neo nazi symbols in obscure places.
The religious right does the exact same thing. If I had a dollar for every 'secret symbol' or 'hidden Satanic message' I was told about when I was little, I'd be a rich man...
Nobody appreciates the Socratic Method anymore. This era is particularly hostile to it.
I don't appreciate it either, and I'm particularly hostile to it as well. For academic reasons, mostly. But I still value reason, analysis, and everything else that Arvia said.
Could you elaborate, out of curiosity?
Yeah the 5 times why method is great. We use it at work to investigate safety incidents. It completely loses its relevance once you reach the 'because so and so was a dumbass' answer and have to tapdance around that to find a different answer. The 'dumbass' why is usually the 1st or 2nd so every why after that becomes less and less relevant to the real problem...
Sure. As an anecdote, initially I was a fan of the Socratic Method, until I read Nietzsche's Birth of Tragedy, where Socrates is heavily criticized. Granted, most of Nietzsche's criticisms are ad hominem fallacies. But, the possibility of critiquing Socrates and his method intrigued me.
Fast forward a couple of years, I started to become acquainted with formal logic. I began studying propositional logic and then moved on to predicate logic, second-order logic, etc. One of these that intrigued me was paraconsistent logic. I was very interested in the idea that it's formally possible to deny the Principle of Excluded Middle while at the same time avoiding the notion that a contradiction entails anything (the Principle of Explosion). Now, it may be argued that paraconsistent logic is useless, or at least it's less useful than any traditional logic (propositional, predicate, second-order, etc.). I have no problem in accepting that critique. But even if it's useless, the very fact that they "exist", that is, that they can be formalized, in a precise way, proves that the underlying assumption of the Socratic Method is false, insofar as that method assumes that the three classical Principles (of Identity, of Non-Contradiction, of Excluded Middle) are true for all and any system of logic whatsoever. The very point of paraconsistent logic is to show that any of these principles can be false in that context without this leading to the Principle of Explosion. Now, in an ordinary conversation or debate, of course you use the Socratic Method, as well as the person you're debating. But we shouldn't therefore conclude that the underlying logic of that method is the only kind of logic in existence.
That's all.
On that note, I'm not entirely sure how I feel about the claim that the stage in Hyatt wasn't purposely designed as a rune. It could be a coincidence, I don't know.
If dumbass is a visitor then you get into which signs and stuff is missing or unclear, etc.
But yes, no one goes beyond the dumbass level because no one likes actions
Usually dumbass knew the protocols but ignored them. In my experience anyway. It's easier to pretend it's the 'system' than to actually confront the individual.
I don't object. I'm not sure I understood everything in your post but it was interesting.
Well that’s a management/enforcement problem and if they are afraid to confront individuals who are putting their lives and other lives at risk, then they are the actual dumb asses in the equation.
The next why when it comes to dumbasses not following protocol is why aren’t they following protocol.
People don't like to give feedback. It's scary...
Well, truth to tell, a lot of our safety protocols are over the top. The problem is that the company really only cares about not getting sued, not safety. Real safety problems get swept under the rug while they write up people for stupid shit like not wearing steel-toed shoes when moving a gallon of methanol from one lab to the next. Like dropping a gallon jug on your foot happens all the time. I shit you not, we had an entire building get evacuated because somebody spilled chemicals in it and it took a week before they told us what it was. But oh my God gotta wear those safety shoes when moving a 10 pound gallon jug...
I was actually thinking more of scientific approach to thinking, analyzing data and discussing results rather than Socratic debate, maybe I should have made that clearer. Classic debate has its merit, of course, but I was more worried about today's people believing more in propaganda because they don't know how research works and therefore think scientifically acquired data (assuming the methods were solid) is nothing more than another viewpoint and opinion like a religious or political worldview.
I don't think there is a big problem with a lack of scientific literacy today, personally. As far as this thing can be studied without widespread testing, the majority of adults of all age groups in this country understand the major concepts to an acceptable degree, and you can explain scientific concepts to the public successfully.
One thing that is also interesting to me, is that a high degree of scientific knowledge doesn't mean you start agreeing on scientific matters. It turns out there are more important things than your knowledge of science that can determine your views on things. For climate change and energy related issues, politics influences opinion as much as scientific knowledge. For nuclear power issues, the amount of social trust in society matters as much as scientific knowledge. Same goes for biotechnology.
Now i'm going on an irrelevant tangent here, so please don't assume i'm referring to you here, but I think an often understated part of the 2000's and 2010's was a technocratic notion that a scientific approach to society would be a general solution for most of its ills. I still do not believe that to be the case, given that how we process information and what we choose to do with it often has less to do with the raw information content and more to do with how we view the world in general.
It is my opinion that, at the end of the day, many things will boil down to our own philosophy and ideology, including many scientific matters. We will have a range of choices on what to do with our vast array of information, and no immutable, set-in-stone answer for how to live and govern society will reveal itself within this data.
Mainly focused on running over the 2020 election results and what they can mean for the party going forward. The whole article is worth your time.
Some key quotes from Shor:
"Why did nonwhite voters start sorting more by ideology? And that’s a hard thing to know. But my organization, and our partner organizations, have done extensive post-election surveys of 2020 voters. And we looked specifically at those voters who switched from supporting Hillary Clinton in 2016 to Donald Trump in 2020 to see whether anything distinguishes this subgroup in terms of their policy opinions. What we found is that Clinton voters with conservative views on crime, policing, and public safety were far more likely to switch to Trump than voters with less conservative views on those issues."
"If we conduct ourselves the way we did after 2008, we’re definitely going to lose. And due to the way that our electoral system works, we really could be locked out of power for a very long time, just like we were after 2010. ... Since the maps in the House of Representatives are so biased against us, if we don’t pass a redistricting reform, our chance of keeping the House is very low. And then the Senate is even more biased against us than the House. So, it’s also very important that we add as many states as we can."
"So, in 2016, Hillary Clinton got 51.1 percent of the two-party vote. Obama got 52 percent in 2012. In just about any other country, retaining 51.1 percent support would have been enough to keep power. But in this country, between 2012 and 2016, the Electoral College bias changed from being one percent biased toward Democrats to 3 percent biased toward Republicans, mainly because of education polarization. So Donald Trump is unpopular. And he does pay a penalty for that relative to a generic Republican. But the voters he’s popular with happen to be extremely efficiently distributed in political-geography terms."
If Democrats do ONE other major thing besides COVID-19 relief, it should be the voting rights legislation in HR1. This article by Ronald Brownstein is chilling and prophetic. In short, Republicans are using Trump's big lie about the stolen election to justify the escalation of their all-out assault on voting rights, to a level not seen since Jim Crow. Success in these measures, combined with the structural advantages the GOP already enjoys in our system, could leave Democrats in a place where nearly 55% of the public agrees and/or votes for them, but are completely locked out of any national power anyway:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/03/democrats-need-hr-1-and-new-vra-protect-voting-rights/618171/
Republicans have abandoned policy entirely (this is not hyperbole, they didn't even have a party platform in 2020). If you ask them in private, they'll tell you flat-out the only way they can win is to manipulate the board. Hell, their lawyer ADMITTED it during Supreme Court arguments last week. That more people voting is, essentially, "unfair" to Republicans.
They have no problem with attempting to overthrow an election. They don't believe everyone should have a right to vote. The only thing they stand for at this point is the destruction of small-d democratic principles.
The big hurdle is HR1 will not be exempt from filibustering, so I can't personally say I know of a strategy to get that one over the line. I suppose there's a way to try and bundle it with other spending bills down the road, such as the National Defense Authorization Act, but then that's going to be a legal debate just like $15 minimum wage was, so might not be a win.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kentucky-bill-insult-police-officer-crime/
The kicker being it's the target of the tongue-lashing who gets to decide whether or not the speech being directed at them is meant to "provoke a violent response". As if they need provocation. But sure, let's make the ground cops stand on into even more of their personal fiefdom than it already is (which is basically total already). No one is conscripted into this job. If you can't handle the heat, find a new one.
There are already laws that take care of yelling fire in a crowded theater. Calling a police officer a pig or telling them to go f their mother does not factor into that equation. Everyone's job would be a hell of alot different if they were just able to demand people treat them with respect by force of the law. Apparently, only cops get to enjoy this privilege by having bills introduced around the idea.
My generation was dead wrong about Napster and copyright infringement. Lars Ulrich and Metallica took endless heat, but, in hindsight, they were 100% right. The music industry did die, and the fans killed it. Because we took everything for free (stole) and never looked back. Only with the advent of streaming has it started to adapt, but the artists are seeing fractions of pennies per spin, and unless you are Elton John or AC/DC, you aren't seeing jack squat from them.
The reason "It's a Wonderful Life" played on literally EVERY local station on Christmas Eve for decades was because it became public domain. It's why there are endless anthologies of Lovecraft stories. But if an estate or heirs are protecting and using the copyright, I now believe it should absolutely NOT be taken from them by force after a certain amount of time (even though it is currently somewhere between 70-120 years based on when/what was published, but apparently people now think it should be as low as 30, meaning during the lifetime of the author, which is ridiculous). This isn't like a patent on medicine. No one's life is hanging in the balance over a record or novel.
But it doesn't surprise me this was the response. And the 30-40 year old generation is responsible. We decided in the year 2000 that we shouldn't have to pay for music anymore. We were dead wrong, and created a world where people think art should be free. Which may be why so much of it isn't up to the level it used to be.
It's caused me to do a complete 180 on the issue after a situation arose with Metallica on Twitch a couple weeks ago (having their own live performance muted was seen as a great irony and karma by most, but it made me question my own positions from 20 years ago and change them) and then being confronted with this response about copyright length (from the left and right) during this most recent dust-up. But I am in the minority on this, the OVERWHELMING minority based on social media responses and interactions. Why should people Stephen King has never met or entered into a business relationship with have a right to make money off his work 70 years after his death if his great-grandchildren are still alive and overseeing the estate??