War Room Lounge V43: STEM is Overrated

[Bubzeh]

Is there a Gaza / Israel thread in this place?

 

[JDragon]

Oh man, that episode sucked

 

[Trotsky]

The "center" in this country can eat the center of my ass.

When morons and empty politicians mindlessly fetishize centrism:

 

[Higus]

Is there a Gaza / Israel thread in this place?

Yeah, but do you really want to open up that can of worms?

 

[Sketch]

What the hell is the problem with centrism here for some of you? I get that America has it ass backwards with a two party system, but ultimately, wouldn't it be best to land somewhere in the middle on some issues? Instead of A or B all the time?

 

[Bubzeh]

Yeah, but do you really want to open up that can of worms?

Yes. You only live once.

 

[Lead]

This isn't exactly realistic, but more of an adorable statement of policy and the way things would be under ideal circumstances. It's a bit...not quite starry-eyed, but similar. Like, the version of starry-eyed that describes when somebody is proceeding in a haze of duty and wants to broadcast his loyalty to the system, in effect as a sort of structural maintenance (and it makes sense in the WR since this place is notoriously unstable and full of psychos). In reality, everybody plays favorites and is impressionable.

People are flawed and have biases that they try to account for. That's a far step from what we are talking about.

For example, posters have to work really hard to earn a rebuke for breaking the rules at my expense, and they tend to get off lightly. This is mostly due to my disposition and history.

I don't know what example you are referring to. It also seems weird you are both saying you call shots and get treated unfairly at the same time. Do you think it's possible if you had a past history of doing something, that accumulated to a harsher consequence at the time you received it compared to someone else who hasn't done it before? Like you said, you've been around here for a long time where rules and policies have come and gone. The current WR staff has made a strong effort to try to apply consistency with rules/enforcement and make sure posters know beforehand when policies change, .

Contrary to your statement, I have been asked for my input in a number of instances when people crossed the line with me, and that has resulted in lighter punishments for the offender than they were set to receive.

This also doesn't subscribe to you handing out infractions or bans. You are actually stating the opposite here which is, if no harm is seen from the poster it was directed at, then a punishment may be minor to nothing. Not the same thing.

I can only go by my own experiences there, but you speak for an ideal that doesn't account for human behavior and differing styles of administration and moderation. And if what you said is how things actually worked, there wouldn't be problem children in the booth like RR getting away with murder, would there? With Tachy gone from administration, and the ripple effect of his more personal touch dissipating (for better and worse), we'll see what style takes root and how the landscape of favor and loyalty shifts.

RR isn't a moderator so I don't see how that example applies here. If you have an instance of murder that hasn't been resolved at this point, you are free to let us know.

You do no not make calls in who gets infractions or banned. No non-staff member does and all moderators are held accountable for the calls they make in conformity with the rules.

 

[Lead]

Spoiler

I disagree with this in that there was a lot to set it off, but I think you kind of hit on the problem with the season. It appears that they have planned endings for all the characters but nowhere near enough time to really get to them. So they're just frantically trying to get them all in with a bunch of shortcuts, and as a result, they don't really have the impact that you feel like they're supposed to. The way the show is set up, it's probably inevitable that the ending would disappoint unless they planned it a few seasons out.

Spoiler

This is somewhat what I've taken out of it too. Seasons 6 and 7 suffered from this a bit as well but 8 the most. The story is still great because they had a plan but most character development and shifts take multiples scenes and episodes to establish. Though I think there were hints at Dany being capable of this throughout the series, they had to rush this with only 6 episodes that all had to settle other plot-lines as well. It actually drives me crazy because I usually complain a series or movie is far too long with too much filler and for the first time, I felt like GoT was a series that could've went 10 seasons without junk and they cut it short. It sucks to see but I can forgive it.

 

[Higus]

What the hell is the problem with centrism here for some of you? I get that America has it ass backwards with a two party system, but ultimately, wouldn't it be best to land somewhere in the middle on some issues? Instead of A or B all the time?

2 issues:
1) Some people consider a middle of the road response as inherently the best option when really many issues don't have morally/intellectually/realistically defensible centrist positions. Looking down at someone for not being willing to compromise is fallacious in those circumstances.
2) There is context in modern politics with the left-wing compromising on policies in order to keep the lights on that have left them with an eroded, disheartened base, whereas the right wing has refused compromise to the point of shutting down the government several times and has been rewarded by its base. When a right winger pleads for centrism or tries to shame the left for not compromising, it should be considered a bad faith tactic because they are fully aware of the dynamic and, to a certain degree, generally politically immune to the hypocrisy from their base compared to a moderate left wing politician.

 

[Sketch]

2 issues:
1) Some people consider a middle of the road response as inherently the best option when really many issues don't have morally/intellectually/realistically defensible centrist positions. Looking down at someone for not being willing to compromise is fallacious in those circumstances.
2) There is context in modern politics with the left-wing compromising on policies in order to keep the lights on that have left them with an eroded, disheartened base, whereas the right wing has refused compromise to the point of shutting down the government several times and has been rewarded by its base. When a right winger pleads for centrism or tries to shame the left for not compromising, it should be considered a bad faith tactic because they are fully aware of the dynamic and, to a certain degree, generally politically immune to the hypocrisy from their base compared to a moderate left wing politician.

Well, it seems you have your mind made up already. You see the left as being inherently moderate, which wouldn't make sense to claim for either side as this is all opinion and subjective based. In your mind the left is moderate, in other's they are not.

Why can't both sides try to meet in the middle? This is the best we have? A VS B, do or die, with me or against? Seems pretty chimp like.

 

[Sketch]

I'm making a penne pasta with lamb slow cooking in the tomato sauce with pork shoulder and bones marinating in the slow cooking process as well. Hot Italian sausages are on the grill as we speak, they will be added later. And yes, I also have garlic bread.

Also, my picture of Fawlty that hangs over my kitchen has been taken down. Sadly, with him accusing me of stalking him, I can't salute his picture the same anymore and the feeling just isn't there like it used to be when I place him beside me to say grace as the kitchen table.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Middle of the road policies

I'm making a penne pasta with lamb slow cooking in the tomato sauce with pork shoulder and bones marinating in the slow cooking process as well. Hot Italian sausages are on the grill as we speak, they will be added later. And yes, I also have garlic bread.

Also, my picture of Fawlty that hangs over my kitchen has been taken down. Sadly, with him accusing me of stalking him, I can't salute his picture the same anymore and the feeling just isn't there like it used to be when I place him beside me to say grace as the kitchen table.

I'll send you an autographed pic of my AV today, but it won't be there in time for dinner.

 

[Higus]

Well, it seems you have your mind made up already. You see the left as being inherently moderate, which wouldn't make sense to claim for either side as this is all opinion and subjective based. In your mind the left is moderate, in other's they are not.

It's not just me being stubborn. Look at this for an illustration (source):

This figure shows how the mean position for congress over time has shifted over time. Democrats have remained ideologically consistent and more moderate compared to Republicans over the same period of time.

Why can't both sides try to meet in the middle? This is the best we have? A VS B, do or die, with me or against? Seems pretty chimp like.

Looking at the graph above, if we assume that the "correct" answer is in the direct center of the 2 parties, it means that the democrats will continue to lose ground despite being more consistently moderate for decades. Compromise doesn't work when one party negotiates in bad faith. If you want to meet in the middle then you should be asking conservatives to do the heavy lifting. If you sincerely insist its the liberals responsibility, especially if you are a consistent conservative/trolly, it's going to be met with incredulity. They poisoned the well, they need to clean it up.

 

[TheGreatA]

What the hell is the problem with centrism here for some of you? I get that America has it ass backwards with a two party system, but ultimately, wouldn't it be best to land somewhere in the middle on some issues? Instead of A or B all the time?

Not enough of a precipice for war, on a place called the War Room.

My occasional issue with "middle road ideology" has more to do with the flawed concept of thinking that "the middle road" is always the best alternative. The middle road between Hell and Heaven, is still just a compromise from Heaven, and puts us closer to the road to Hell, than we rationally should be.

That's obviously an over-simplification, but let's say, for example, that we were a "moderate politician" in Nazi Germany, trying to find compromise, a middle road, between them and something else. We should quickly come to the conclusion that there are no compromises to be made, with those kind of people. A centre ideology must still be an ideology founded on legitimate ideas, rather than just as a reaction to what the "left" and the "right" are doing.

Of course, there's also the thinking that one's political ideas should be founded upon the idea of keeping society stable, convenient and comfortable, even at the expense of prosperity, by making unnecessary amends as long as it keeps both parties happy. When pursued to its fullest extent, a society goes nowhere fast, choosing the medium road every time, when they could've just taken a short-cut, and gotten ahead of the competition.

But as long as "moderate ideology" is the result of actual intellectual pursuit on the part of a person, them having weighed the options and seen the good and bad sides of both alternatives, rather than just a result of their ever-compromising nature meekly sitting on the fence, then I have no problem with moderation.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Its also worth noting that if the DNC does fuck Sanders again his supporters will not vote Democrat just because, thereby handing Trump another W.

This illustrates the problem, though, because in reality Sanders wasn't fucked by anyone but voters who didn't vote for him. So to a portion of his loony supporters, the mere fact that he doesn't win is proof that the system is "rigged" and thus that it's better to have Trump as president than someone who is objectively much better for the office than Trump. It reads as a cult and that his supporters don't actually care about making the world better (and, in fact, actively support making it worse if they don't get their way).

 

[Anung Un Rama]

This illustrates the problem, though, because in reality Sanders wasn't fucked by anyone but voters who didn't vote for him. So to a portion of his loony supporters, the mere fact that he doesn't win is proof that the system is "rigged" and thus that it's better to have Trump as president than someone who is objectively much better for the office than Trump. It reads as a cult and that his supporters don't actually care about making the world better (and, in fact, actively support making it worse if they don't get their way).

 

[Jack V Savage]

Imagine you're someone who can examine the issue rationally and doesn't have a Greenwaldian "disagreement=bad faith" view. You see the issue, right?

 

[Sketch]

Can somebody ask jack why the Dems deliberately screwed over Bernie in 2016, I would but I’m on pretend ignore by him.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Greenwald was spot on when he described voting for the lesser of 2 evils as best way to ensure that you get ignored (something like that, forgot which article it was about).

Biden is not all that different from Trump. Two Biden terms is probably = to 1 Trump term.
But the point I made was that the Democrats undercut Sanders and if they do it again they're fucked. At that point Sanders would have to run 3rd party or essentially say fuck you to his supporters and to the issues he's cared about. Now, if there are no shenanigans, then fair play.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Greenwald was spot on when he described voting for the lesser of 2 evils as best way to ensure that you get ignored (something like that, forgot which article it was about).

The thing is that it's rare for anyone to be 100% satisfied with any candidate. So it comes off as an entitled attitude. "I'm going to burn the whole place to the ground if I don't get my way" while everyone else is pushing forward as best they can.

It's like we're all lost in the woods and we find some water and kill some rabbits to eat, and the Berniebots are like, "I want Pepsi and bacon" and then shit in the water supply and on the rabbits. Then they accuse you of hiding the Pepsi and bacon.

Biden is not all that different from Trump. Two Biden terms is probably = to 1 Trump term.

That's just objectively wrong by a huge margin. You think Biden would nominate someone like Gorsuch or Kavanaugh to the SCOTUS? You think he would have signed off on a budget-busting giveaway to heirs and big corporations? Zero chance. And that's not even getting into the unfathomably bad job Trump is doing as head of state, the various other judicial seats he's filling, environmental deregulation, hawkish foreign policy, etc. I think if you pay close attention to policy, you'll see huge, huge differences.

But the point I made was that the Democrats undercut Sanders and if they do it again they're fucked. At that point Sanders would have to run 3rd party or essentially say fuck you to his supporters and to the issues he's cared about. Now, if there are no shenanigans, then fair play.

I don't think there's any basis for saying that he was undercut, and I don't think there's any reason to expect him to be this time. But I get the sense that a lot of his supporters are ruling out beforehand any possibility that he can legitimately lose again. Just yesterday, @Gutter Chris was suggesting that the only reason Biden appears to be leading in the polls and is being covered as the frontrunner is some kind of CNN conspiracy. It's madness, and if CTism spreads to the left, what happens? Seems like encroaching barbarism to me. We have this modern, high-tech society with a pretty solid economy, but then it's being governed by dinosaurs who don't know about any of it and voters whose beliefs are in line with thinking that evil spirits cause bad weather or something.