War Room Lounge V43: STEM is Overrated

[Fawlty]

So the issue here is more the idea that infractions or bans are a matter of just who wants them to occur vs if that poster is violating rules or not. I was closing any narrative (whether intentional or not) about it being the first one cause that isn’t how it works. Obviously, any poster can notice rules being violated and bring it to the attention of staff. There is even a button to report. That poster doesn’t however have some extra leeway or say in what will happen. Staff decides that by trying to make a call based on the rules set in place, pst precedence, etc.

If someone violates the rules on the site, they are solely responsible for their infractions or ban. It isn’t some game of whether you have a buddy or enemy in the staff.

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.

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. 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.

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.

 

[Fawlty]

True or false:
Politicians trying to appeal to moderate/undecided voters is a pointless cause in modern politics; The meta-game is now about getting people to show up (or conversely, prevent/dissuade them from participating) on election day.

Somewhat false imo. While it's true that partisanship is increasing, the other thing happening is the weakening of the parties. This leaves more people in the middle. There is a significant chunk of slightly-right-leaning independents who are not loyal to a party and can be swayed, and this weakens the effect of partisanship, leaving us in roughly the same place, but with the table tilted slightly toward that voter turnout metagame. It's more important, but not to the extent that appealing to the center is pointless.

 

[BarryDillon]

Somewhat false imo. While it's true that partisanship is increasing, the other thing happening is the weakening of the parties. This leaves more people in the middle. There is a significant chunk of slightly-right-leaning independents who are not loyal to a party and can be swayed, and this weakens the effect of partisanship, leaving us in roughly the same place, but with the table tilted slightly toward that voter turnout metagame. It's more important, but not to the extent that appealing to the center is pointless.

Burn them all.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

True or false:
Politicians trying to appeal to moderate/undecided voters is a pointless cause in modern politics; The meta-game is now about getting people to show up (or conversely, prevent/dissuade them from participating) on election day.

depends on the policy. Some policies only require a moderate angle and others an appeal to moderation. Some, many, require radical change.

 

[Fawlty]

Burn them all.

Damn, it's not even 2020 yet. The center shall be penetrated, and booties shall be judged.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Its the fringe issues that need moderation in order to win swing voters, that and honesty and integrity -- something only a few candidates can boast.

 

[BarryDillon]

that and honesty and integrity

Yeah, this is definitely not true. Swing voters in the "center" swung for Trump.

 

[BarryDillon]

Swing voters swung for Reagan too. And W.

 

[Trotsky]

True or false:
Politicians trying to appeal to moderate/undecided voters is a pointless

True, but....

cause in modern politics; The meta-game is now about getting people to show up (or conversely, prevent/dissuade them from participating) on election day.

False. It's pointless because voters are not rational and do not afford their vote based on some linear placement on the political spectrum, but rather based on a holistic appraisal of their interests.

 

[Trotsky]

Swing voters swung for Reagan too. And W.

Yeah, @Anung Un Rama I think you're being very idealistic here. Reagan was, like Trump after him, unprecedentedly unprincipled, incompetent, and dishonest he won swing voters. You can look at the recent Florida elections as well: Rick Scott (very possibly the most corrupt state-level official in the country outside of Scott Walker) won swing voters, as did Ron DeSantis, whose entire platform was eating out the butthole of a the most corrupt and dishonest politician literally in American history.

 

[BarryDillon]

Burn them all.

False. It's pointless because voters are not rational and do not afford their vote based on some linear placement on the political spectrum, but rather based on a holistic appraisal of their interests.

Exactly.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Yeah, this is definitely not true. Swing voters in the "center" swung for Trump.

that was then, he tapped into something that the establishment couldn't, but even so, vs the field he didn't have as much political baggage (personal for sure, business for sure) as his opposition. It was a literal hold your nose and pick moment for a lot of people who needed change. Now, most people realize they've been hoodwinked (even if 20% of the country has been radicalized by him), but they're not going to just vote for a guy like Biden. And if they do, God help us all; not because Joe is the antichrist, but because I see a Biden win as another win for oligarchy and a devastating loss to progressive policies like M4A.

 

[Sketch]

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

Your meltdown into unbridled insanity has been amazing. Just remember, those in the center will go right (again) if this is how you and the other tyrannical leftists speak of them. We have welcome arms for the center here on the right. There will be no 'burn them all' you are only burning the lefts chances to ever be relevant again. I know you see this, hence the nervous posting style you've been displaying as of late and your increased hostility towards those not in favor of your beliefs.

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.

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. 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.

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.

This reads like a bedtime story written by someone suffering from some sort of psychological maladjustment. Between accusing people of 'stalking' you 'online' for years on end, to people on this forum getting away with 'breaking the rules' at 'your expense' you are really starting to display an intense level of paranoia that has me worried for you.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Swing voters swung for Reagan too. And W.

Reagan was a different era; conservatives weren't insane back then; there was a lot of foreign and domestic politics and shenanigans that went toward him being elected, the stock market was a more legitimate indicator of the strength of the economy, etc.

Yeah, @Anung Un Rama I think you're being very idealistic here. Reagan was, like Trump after him, unprecedentedly unprincipled, incompetent, and dishonest he won swing voters. You can look at the recent Florida elections as well: Rick Scott (very possibly the most corrupt state-level official in the country outside of Scott Walker) won swing voters, as did Ron DeSantis, whose entire platform was eating out the butthole of a the most corrupt and dishonest politician literally in American history.

You're not going to win any arguments using Florida politics as your metric.

W's campaigns were clean af. His first one, on the surface, was very appealing to almost everybody. You really had to look under the hood to realize what a loser W was. And he had a lot of scary wars to get him reelected, not to mention 2 very weak candidates. Bearded Gore with that look in his eye could have beaten W (at least by a margin too big to steal), but not french kissing my wife at the DNC Gore. And not wake me when its over Kerry....jfc (I voted for both smh).

Today, I think people are legitimately woke to whats going on.
That doesn't mean they won't vote against their best interests out of spite if you push some really crazy shit. This is a winnable election for the right side of hsitory, but only if the right people are running.

 

[all caps]

So the issue here is more the idea that infractions or bans are a matter of just who wants them to occur vs if that poster is violating rules or not. I was closing any narrative (whether intentional or not) about it being the first one cause that isn’t how it works. Obviously, any poster can notice rules being violated and bring it to the attention of staff. There is even a button to report. That poster doesn’t however have some extra leeway or say in what will happen. Staff decides that by trying to make a call based on the rules set in place, pst precedence, etc.

If someone violates the rules on the site, they are solely responsible for their infractions or ban. It isn’t some game of whether you have a buddy or enemy in the staff.

While you might not be aware of or playing the game, someone always is, so everyone always will.

 

[Sketch]

Reagan was a different era; conservatives weren't insane back then; there was a lot of foreign and domestic politics and shenanigans that went toward him being elected, the stock market was a more legitimate indicator of the strength of the economy, etc.


You're not going to win any arguments using Florida politics as your metric.

W's campaigns were clean af. His first one, on the surface, was very appealing to almost everybody. You really had to look under the hood to realize what a loser W was. And he had a lot of scary wars to get him reelected, not to mention 2 very weak candidates. Bearded Gore with that look in his eye could have beaten W (at least by a margin too big to steal), but not french kissing my wife at the DNC Gore. And not wake me when its over Kerry....jfc (I voted for both smh).

Today, I think people are legitimately woke to whats going on.
That doesn't mean they won't vote against their best interests out of spite if you push some really crazy shit. This is a winnable election for the right side of hsitory, but only if the right people are running.

While I disagree with the 'right side of history' you bring up, I agree that the Democrats need a very strong contender in this election. They do not have anybody right now. Biden is going to continue to be crucified, even by his own side. Bernie is going to be cannibalized by his own party, again. I would say this leaves us with Warren, and I don't see her being able to handle the debates and bullying that will come her way during the election. She will end up like Jeb Bush did. Also, this might be an unpopular opinion but America, socially, is not at the level of electing a female president. Hillary won the popular vote, but with the Electoral College, the old boys club remains stronger than ever.

 

[Higus]

Reagan was a different era; conservatives weren't insane back then; there was a lot of foreign and domestic politics and shenanigans that went toward him being elected, the stock market was a more legitimate indicator of the strength of the economy, etc.


You're not going to win any arguments using Florida politics as your metric.

W's campaigns were clean af. His first one, on the surface, was very appealing to almost everybody. You really had to look under the hood to realize what a loser W was. And he had a lot of scary wars to get him reelected, not to mention 2 very weak candidates. Bearded Gore with that look in his eye could have beaten W (at least by a margin too big to steal), but not french kissing my wife at the DNC Gore. And not wake me when its over Kerry....jfc (I voted for both smh).

Today, I think people are legitimately woke to whats going on.
That doesn't mean they won't vote against their best interests out of spite if you push some really crazy shit. This is a winnable election for the right side of hsitory, but only if the right people are running.

bolded: I think this supports the argument that getting people to the booth is more important than policies. A politically sound but boring candidate is going to have a tough fight against to someone who is politically incompetent but excellent at energizing and mobilizing his/her base

 

[VivaRevolution]

Yeah, @Anung Un Rama I think you're being very idealistic here. Reagan was, like Trump after him, unprecedentedly unprincipled, incompetent, and dishonest he won swing voters. You can look at the recent Florida elections as well: Rick Scott (very possibly the most corrupt state-level official in the country outside of Scott Walker) won swing voters, as did Ron DeSantis, whose entire platform was eating out the butthole of a the most corrupt and dishonest politician literally in American history.

But that isn't what people thought when they voted for Reagan or Trump.

The problem is perception, which is largely shaped by media coverage.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

bolded: I think this supports the argument that getting people to the booth is more important than policies. A politically sound but boring candidate is going to have a tough fight against to someone who is politically incompetent but excellent at energizing and mobilizing his/her base

Agreed that turnout is essential. I fear that if the Democrats put up somebody like Biden it will be very low.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

While I disagree with the 'right side of history' you bring up, I agree that the Democrats need a very strong contender in this election. They do not have anybody right now. Biden is going to continue to be crucified, even by his own side. Bernie is going to be cannibalized by his own party, again. I would say this leaves us with Warren, and I don't see her being able to handle the debates and bullying that will come her way during the election. She will end up like Jeb Bush did. Also, this might be an unpopular opinion but America, socially, is not at the level of electing a female president. Hillary won the popular vote, but with the Electoral College, the old boys club remains stronger than ever.

Warren did damage to herself with the dna testing, but there is no question she can handle herself against Trump.
That would come down to the American people not wanting what is good for them and accepting Trump's countless lies and inappropriate behaviors over Warren's DNA test.

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.