War Room Lounge V43: STEM is Overrated

[Lord Coke]

Good lord, Alan. I went to that link in your signature thinking it was to benefit a children's charity, and instead it's selling stuff like this:

No, I will not consider this for my next gift-buying occasion. And I believe novelty dog tags are considered in bad taste.



Your continued implication that the race was some route and that any shenanigans are thus arbitrary is pretty annoying. By the second wave of elections, Sanders was nationally polling within a couple points of Clinton and winning in most open primaries, and Clinton's entire lead disappears if you take out the former confederacy.

Its my friends charity. Basically they are heathen. Don't try and get me to explain what that means other than it has something to do with Odin or being Wiccan I don't know. Anyway the organization helps out women and children that have been abused. 25 percent goes to the group and the rest to the craftsman. Most of the goods are hand made.

 

[Trotsky]

Its my friends charity. Basically they are heathen. Don't try and get me to explain what that means other than it has something to do with Odin or being Wiccan I don't know. Anyway the organization helps out women and children that have been abused. 25 percent goes to the group and the rest to the craftsman. Most of the goods are hand made.

Get them to redesign that cozy with this image and I'll buy

 

[Lord Coke]

Get them to redesign that cozy with this image and I'll buy

are you actually serious? Because I will.

 

[Jack V Savage]

How about the fact that Brazile leaked a question to her during the primary?

That was bad (and frankly should have ended Brazile's public life). But let's say that the extra prep time on that question gave Clinton a 5-point bump in the polls. She still wins by 7 points without it.

And on the issue of DNC employees not liking Sanders, don't you think that could've translated to some bias even if only unconsciously?

What does that mean in terms of concrete action that would translate to him getting fucked? The nomination isn't decided by reading the body language of the DNC. It's decided by votes.

I mean, they were talking about crafting narratives that would hurt his campaign, at the very least there seemed intent to favor Clinton in action even if it didn't lead to any. Not saying these things were instrumental in Sanders losing, I think he would've lost to Clinton in a perfectly fair contest. And saying the DNC "rigged" the primaries is definitely stretching it. But the impression of bias didn't only come from sore losers.

"Bias" in the sense that people working in the DNC might have preferred Clinton? Sure. Bias in the sense of Sanders being fucked in the election? How? The charge seems utterly nonsensical to me.

Do you think the emails are legitimate or fabricated?

I think that the emails are legitimate, but the way they were presented was incredibly dishonest, and designed to produce exactly the impact that it did produce. After the releases, Trump and the right generally were saying that the election was rigged and that Bernie shouldn't support Clinton, and many people uncritically swallowed a ridiculous narrative. If a hostile party has complete access to anyone's email history, they can use that to stir up dissension.

Which is something that Clinton herself did in 2008 and it made sense for her then and it made sense for Sanders now. Maintaining your campaign allows you to continue to expand your profile which is useful if you plan to run again as both Clinton and Sanders ended up doing after losing their respective primaries.

Sure, but that doesn't mean that people whose primary focus is the party winning in the general have to like it.

Sure some people are not appraising him in good faith and are flip flopping when convenient, not going to deny that. But I think its possible to have good faith reasons for a change of heart. I think a lot of people did some rethinking after 2016.

That's not my argument. My argument is that people's genuine feelings are being manipulated and/or that internal conflicts are clouding their judgment (for example True Progressives have hatred of the Democratic Party as an important part of their self-identification, and that naturally leads them to oppose the nominee or frontrunner, which they find different reasons to justify).

Your continued implication that the race was some route and that any shenanigans are thus arbitrary is pretty annoying. By the second wave of elections, Sanders was nationally polling within a couple points of Clinton and winning in most open primaries, and Clinton's entire lead disappears if you take out the former confederacy.

Nevertheless the implication is accurate. It absolutely was a rout, and the only "shenanigans" that could have had any impact was the leaked question, and the likely impact of that was far too small to be measured (actually negative since it became known). You know what I think of the "if you don't count voters who voted for the other guy, my candidate would have won" arguments.

I think that it's important to get this right because by accepting the ridiculous claim that Bernie was screwed out of the nomination, we open the door to thinking that if he loses again, that is proof he was screwed and that we should, as I say, shit on the provisions.

 

[Jack V Savage]

What do you disagree with?

All of it. I don't think Bernie's a generationally good person (I think he's above average for a politician but not particularly unusual--and note that I think that politicians are mostly above average for the population). I don't have more or less faith in him than I would in Warren, Buttigieg, Booker, etc. Not a fan of Corbyn. I don't think there's an unprecedently ideological generation. More Bernie voters have Biden as their second choice than anyone else.

A

lso, that article by Chait doesn't really contradict anything that I said, but it is phenomenally condescending and purposefully cynical (I'm not sure that's the right word - maybe dismissive? dishonest?) about the impetus for Sanders voters in the 2016 primary, characterizing Sanders voters in the postindustrial Midwest and East as disinterested protest voters that were attracted to Sanders....apparent social centrism rather than a genuine expression of their franchise on matters of economy and furthering the tired centrist argument that the left is somehow an extension of the right (when the left presents consistent principles and positions, and only the center-left forms their political opinions according to how they situate relative to the right).

I think he's correct in that assessment. And note that he only says, "In reality, Sanders received lots of votes from people who either appreciated his earnest persona or objected to Clinton for a variety of reasons, including her being too liberal. (Sanders ran up the vote in places like West Virginia and Oklahoma with many of the same conservative Democrats who had supported Clinton over Barack Obama in 2008). Both times, they were registering protest votes against the party and its presumptive nominee." It's not that no Sanders voters were with him ideologically, but that's only a portion of his support.

I think what you're calling the "center-left" there applies to the MSM and many conservative pundits. I don't think it's an accurate description of the thinking of people called "center-left" in most contexts. Certainly not an accurate description of Chait's thinking. I also get the sense that you think Chait is a Biden supporter, and I don't think he is.

 

[Trotsky]

All of it. I don't think Bernie's a generationally good person (I think he's above average for a politician but not particularly unusual--and note that I think that politicians are mostly above average for the population). I don't have more or less faith in him than I would in Warren, Buttigieg, Booker, etc. Not a fan of Corbyn.

I don't expect you to adopt my moralistic appraisals of candidates, but I think there's very good basis to show that, besides merely being ideologically or politically rigid on major issues and principles, Sanders is exceptionally responsive, evolving, and transparent on smaller ones according to those major principles and issues. With almost all of the other candidates, you have massive moral (according to left-wing viewpoints) failings that they have been unwilling or incapable of defending on any political or moral basis, or even explaining to left-wing critics, while Sanders has repeatedly opened himself to left wing publications to explain his past thinking on things like the Clinton criminal justice bill. With other Democrats, viewing them as moral equals to Sanders requires a lot of benefit of the doubt with regard to their political records and their relationships with powerful private donors. We have to blindly presume that votes in favor of deregulation are pragmatic good faith assertions on what will help the country, votes in favor of hedging key industries and corporations against citizen actions are pragmatic good faith assertions on what is just, votes in favor of military expenditures and authorizations are pragmatic good faith assertions that the former will fund and the latter will expedite the keeping of peace and the betterment of mankind, etc. etc. etc., because, ultimately, centrist liberals will never be held accountable for voting across the aisle on non-sexy issues.

For instance, and I know you're probably tired of hearing me insist upon this as a highly representative issue, the anti-BDS bill votes. Booker, Klobuchar, Gillibrand, etc. have completely dodged very simple questions on those bills' fundamental hostility toward the First Amendment, not to mention the political and ideological sovereignty of the country, and about their. Likewise, those politicians (Klobuchar and Booker stick out most blatantly given (a) Klobuchar's state, and (b) Cory Booker anti-bigotry platform) have repeatedly stuck their neck out for what's right when defending members of the Democratic Party - I'm thinking Keith Ellison and Ilhan Omar specifically - from dishonest and opportunistic Islamophobic attacks from Republicans or for indigenous activists during the NoDAPL protests.

I think what you're calling the "center-left" there applies to the MSM and many conservative pundits. I don't think it's an accurate description of the thinking of people called "center-left" in most contexts. Certainly not an accurate description of Chait's thinking. I also get the sense that you think Chait is a Biden supporter, and I don't think he is.

No, if I were a betting man I would be he votes Biden over Sanders, but I have no preoccupations about his candidate support.

 

[Lead]

The Pepsi and bacon thing is making me laugh out loud at random moments at the office. This one is going to be hard to forget.

 

[JDragon]

I wanted to like this post but I noticed only Plats liked it and I didn't want to ruin that.

So you hate BOTH freedom AND the War Room?

 

[Jack V Savage]

For instance, and I know you're probably tired of hearing me insist upon this as a highly representative issue, the anti-BDS bill votes. Booker, Klobuchar, Gillibrand, etc. have completely dodged very simple questions on those bills' fundamental hostility toward the First Amendment, not to mention the political and ideological sovereignty of the country, and about their. Likewise, those politicians (Klobuchar and Booker stick out most blatantly given (a) Klobuchar's state, and (b) Cory Booker anti-bigotry platform) have repeatedly stuck their neck out for what's right when defending members of the Democratic Party - I'm thinking Keith Ellison and Ilhan Omar specifically - from dishonest and opportunistic Islamophobic attacks from Republicans or for indigenous activists during the NoDAPL protests.

Wait, Booker, Harris, and Warren voted the way you like on the bill, right? Isn't Klobuchar the only candidate who didn't?

No, if I were a betting man I would be he votes Biden over Sanders, but I have no preoccupations about his candidate support.

OK.

 

[Trotsky]

Wait, Booker, Harris, and Warren voted the way you like on the bill, right? Isn't Klobuchar the only candidate who didn't?

On the most recent bill, yes (and same for Gillibrand). For previous versions and anti-BDS legislation, Booker, Harris, and Gillibrand did not, which creates a lot of obvious concerns. Booker and Gillibrand even sponsored one of the previous bills, and Booker claimed his vote against the last one was because of some technical detail, although he supported it in spirit.

And with Warren (since it's obvious that she's the left's second, albeit far less enthusiastic, choice) I get the impression that she just doesn't care all that much about foreign policy or First Amendment issues. I don't think she's badly motivated or anything like that, although she's probably more deferential than Sanders to people that are, but I think she calculates her votes to the left on those issues.

 

[Jack V Savage]

On the most recent bill, yes (and same for Gillibrand). For previous versions and anti-BDS legislation, Booker, Harris, and Gillibrand did not, which creates a lot of obvious concerns. Booker and Gillibrand even sponsored one of the previous bills, and Booker claimed his vote against the last one was because of some technical detail, although he supported it in spirit.

And with Warren (since it's obvious that she's the left's second, albeit far less enthusiastic, choice) I get the impression that she just doesn't care all that much about foreign policy or First Amendment issues. I don't think she's badly motivated or anything like that, although she's probably more deferential than Sanders to people that are, but I think she calculates her votes to the left on those issues.

Bernie's opposition was similar to Booker's from what I can see.

Booker:

I have a strong and lengthy record of opposing efforts to boycott Israel, as evidenced by my cosponsorship of S. 720, the Israel Anti-Boycott Act. However, this specific piece of legislation contains provisions that raise serious First Amendment concerns, and that’s why I voted against it. I drafted an amendment to help address these widely-held concerns, but there was no amendment process offered to allow for this bill to be improved.

There are ways to combat BDS without compromising free speech, and this bill as it currently stands plainly misses the mark.

Bernie:

While I do not support the BDS movement, we must defend every American’s constitutional right to engage in political activity. It is clear to me that this bill would violate Americans’ First Amendment rights.

I'm probably similar to Warren in that I have less interest in foreign policy.

 

[Trotsky]

Bernie's opposition was similar to Booker's from what I can see.

In language, yes, but Booker had previously sponsored legislation that was equally egregious, and it wasn't until he got gaped on Twitter that he changed his tune while still making sure he was bowing to Israel. And, while a part of me was admittedly disappointed that Bernie didn't outright support BDS, I do get that, more than that coming out being political inexpedient for him, doing so would fundamentally change the topic of the discussion from one of constraining the state to its express limits to one about a far less cut-and-dry topic, the Israel-Palestine conflict. And for persons like me, the unabashed hypocrisy around the First Amendment (my specialty in law school along with the commerce clause) was the biggest thing.

Also, on that note, another one of my pet peeves is the American right's position toward Puerto Rico, whose economy is being strangled by its territory status. Our country was supposedly founded upon "no taxation without representation." And dip shit conservatives constantly pander about channeling the founding fathers, etc. Yet, here we are, taxing Puerto Rico and pigeonholing its economy by appropriating its trade and conservatives don't want to give them state status. Of course, you could make that argument about Guam and American Samoa to varying extents as well, but I'm not familiar with them.

 

[TheGreatA]

I agree with a lot of what you say, and I think the concern and skepticism you describe is valid, but I'm far less concerned about it than I once was. I genuinely want Sanders to get the nomination because I think that Sanders is a generationally good person - and that frankly translates into him being a generationally authentic leftist because he's optimally responsive to heeding criticisms and adjusting his thoughts and positions when he's wrong (1990s criminal justice reform, Israel, etc.) and he's strong when he's unfairly criticized by right-wing liberals on issues on which he's right (protecting gun ownership).

Because of that, I have a certain faith in Sanders to stick to doing what's right that I likely will not have in another left-wing politician for some time (it's something of a miracle that Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn came up at the same time). However, I don't worry that the state of left-wing sentiment will dry up in America. Right now, we're seeing a generation of young people (18-35 years old) that are unprecedentedly ideological in American history. They aren't necessarily socialists, or anarchists, or communists, but they're driven toward the same goals of those systems: defending the powerless, litigating the powerful, and creating a just society based on a dialectical and internationalist view.

Right now, Joe Biden is skating by on the overwhelming support of senior citizens/Baby Boomers. He's beating Sanders like 75% to 10% among those crusty fucks. The actual difficulty going forward will be getting left-wing candidates into the Democratic Party. Right now, Sanders crowdfunding model has not been applied to down-ballot races, and cases like AOC are the exception to the rule.

I believe the "Hippie generation" was also seen as unprecedentedly ideological. And then they grew... older. I'm not certain that the people will remain left-wing in their beliefs, if a "moderation" of such beliefs continues to be enforced, by the notion that legitimate lefties just never succeed in elections. Americans are quite driven by the sense of belonging to the winning team, and the losing side will be abandoned eventually. Right now, being a progressive and a leftist seems to have momentum, but this momentum cannot be allowed to come to a halt.

There needs to be some kind of a payoff at a certain point, I would think.

The so-called far-right have had these kinds of payoffs, which is why I believe that it will remain a constant presence after having been more of a fringe presence in previous times, both in Europe and America.

That's how I see it but he's still preferable to Trump at the end of the day. As I have said before, I am going to be pissed if I have to vote for Biden to get rid of Trump.

My perspective on him is probably going to depend on how much of a "hawk" he turns out to be. I feel the danger of starting a war by a deemed liberal/left-winger is greater than by a right-winger these days, not so much because the right-wing politicians don't want war (hard to argue that with clowns like Bolton in charge), but more so because they will be opposed in masses. Not sure if the level of opposition will be as great if a more moderate/liberal candidate is proposing to invade somebody.

There exists a natural suspicion of all manner of military action at the behest of right-wing leadership, and nobody's fooled into buying the idea that they're committing themselves to action out of sentiment. That's just not their game. They can claim vengeance and justice, but not good-will.

Of course, as a non-American I'm more concerned with foreign policy than actual, voting Americans (who also have to be concerned by domestic policy), so my opinions on that are not really worth much. You'll have to take a greater number of considerations into account.

 

[luckyshot]

There are too many problems with the "Do STEM" shit to express in a post.

What drives me nuts is this notion that you can just self-teach your way through the equivalent of a humanities degree, particularly an advanced one.
Wildly false.

Immanuel Kant once told me that science has little to do with understanding the world and lots to do with understanding the human mind's ability to create increasingly complex and meaningful patterns within the categorical limits of its own perceptions.

Is that true?

 

[Fawlty]

Immanuel Kant once told me that science has little to do with understanding the world and lots to do with understanding the human mind's ability to create increasingly complex and meaningful patterns within the categorical limits of its own perceptions.

Is that true?

I think those two things are exactly the same.

 

[Fawlty]

I think he's correct in that assessment.

This was a very good way to bring it home imo:

"It might slowly be dawning on the left that its giddy predictions of ascendancy have not yet materialized. Corey Robin, a left-wing writer who has previously heralded the left’s impending takeover of the Democratic Party, recently conceded he may have miscalculated. “We have nothing like the organizational infrastructure, the party organization, the intellectual and ideological coherence, or political leadership we need,” he wrote. “I don’t see anything on the horizon like the cadre of ideologues and activists that made the New Deal or Reagan Revolution.”

The long-term question for the left is whether it can build a movement that can dominate in the real world, not just on Twitter and in some magazines. The short-term question is whether it can leverage what power it does have among activists and intellectuals without blowing up an election many Democrats see as an existential fight for the republic."

 

[Jack V Savage]

In language, yes, but Booker had previously sponsored legislation that was equally egregious, and it wasn't until he got gaped on Twitter that he changed his tune while still making sure he was bowing to Israel. And, while a part of me was admittedly disappointed that Bernie didn't outright support BDS, I do get that, more than that coming out being political inexpedient for him, doing so would fundamentally change the topic of the discussion from one of constraining the state to its express limits to one about a far less cut-and-dry topic, the Israel-Palestine conflict. And for persons like me, the unabashed hypocrisy around the First Amendment (my specialty in law school along with the commerce clause) was the biggest thing.

No offense, but it seems to me that when it's someone you (the general "you" probably) like, he's "responsive to criticism" and when it's someone you don't, he's "changing his tune after getting gaped on Twitter." Likewise, I think you'd have a different view of someone disappointing you out of political expedience if you didn't already have him on your Good List. That's not really a criticism. I think that's natural and to some extent unavoidable, though I think having it called to your attention should cause some re-evaluation.

 

[luckyshot]

I think those two things are exactly the same.

Ramana Maharshi once said, "There is no greater myster than this, that we keep seeking reality though in fact we are reality."

Is that also the same?

 

[Trotsky]

No offense, but it seems to me that when it's someone you (the general "you" probably) like, he's "responsive to criticism" and when it's someone you don't, he's "changing his tune after getting gaped on Twitter." Likewise, I think you'd have a different view of someone disappointing you out of political expedience if you didn't already have him on your Good List. That's not really a criticism. I think that's natural and to some extent unavoidable, though I think having it called to your attention should cause some re-evaluation.

I've specifically said on here many times that one of the reasons I had Booker ranked higher than others to his left in my list of preferred candidates is that he's responsive to pressure from the left to an extent that I don't think candidates like Biden, Klobuchar, or Harris (I still have difficulty vetting her as a candidate) would be. It just so happens that, with Booker, his positions frankly are not underpinned by ideology, so he has no path to those concessions and to explain his transitions except to flounder like he did in re pharmaceuticals back in 2017, whereas Sanders can cogently explain his thinking and recalibrate his positions consistent with his values.

Also, I, and most of the left, is fairly forgiving when it comes to moderation in rhetoric, particularly when opting for more radical rhetoric would only have the effect of short-circuiting radical goals. Also, I am not presuming that Sanders is being disingenuous and his not being a member of BDS is not in itself all that concerning - for instance, Noam Chomsky, the most prominent critic of Israel and advocate for Palestine in American history, does not agree with BDS in that it has expanded to a full boycott of Israel rather than a boycott targeting businesses and industries in occupied territories. I personally am comfortable with the "full boycott" position, but (a) I have a much more disapproving view of Israel than Sanders, (b) I have a much more favorable bias toward Iran than Sanders, and (c) I am not Jewish.

 

[Falsedawn]

You ever feel like making a topical thread, then balk when you get to the effort part because you're not in the mood to wade through borderline retarded arguments?

That's me right now.