|
No but you see that was the best that could have been done as I watch the Republicans go crazy with power using a much slimmer Senate majority One of the dumbest parts of the ACA was that not only was it not nearly as good as what was possible, but the Democrats probably paid a much more significant political cost for it than if they just did what was right. Normally it should have been fine to screw over the voters as long as the rich make out okay but they actively hosed over their own politicians by ham stringing themselves trying to please Republicans and worthless Blue Dogs. I guess most of them probably landed on their feet in the private sector but it was still a joke the way they triangulated themselves into the least popular outcome.
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2018 16:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 15:24 |
|
|
Sometimes you have to pay a political cost to get that invitation to waterski at billionaire island.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2018 16:42
|
|
|
A ton of Dems campaigned against Obamacare in 2010-2016, too. It was basically the one thing the Dems passed in Obama's first term and half the people who passed it ended up either ignoring it on the campaign trail or actively running ads saying Obamacare was dumb and bad. It's not until the GOP's repeal attempt drove the ACA's poll numbers up that the Dems finally became willing to stand behind the bill.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2018 16:46
|
|
|
One of the reasons why the public option (which would have had higher premiums than private insurers, btw) didn’t pass the Senate was because Reid couldn’t get enough centrists to vote for it. It’s a solid case study of how even with controlling both the House and the Senate and the Exec, Dems still gently caress up
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2018 16:47
|
|
|
Prester Jane posted:So I went through my probate history and found this awesome post that I was probated for. . . .a large portion of the United States to overcome their Collective normalcy bias, and doing that is going to take time and a tremendous amount of effort. (Also patience.) You weren't probated in that post because anyone [edit: anyone on the mod team] actually thought you were wrong, from what I can tell -- it looks like Fans thought you were plugging your blog, which is a separate issue. That's two different things. A lot of probations people get are for technical rule violations that have little if anything to do with the substantive "value" of their posts. A probation can be a value determination but sometimes/often it just means the poster gambled with a rule violation and lost. FWIW I think your analysis is mostly valid most of the time but sometimes you misapply or overextend your own framework (the Houston predictions, etc) and sometimes factors outside the framework intervene (e.g., your pre-election predictions were all based on the assumption that Trump would lose). None of that means you're wrong as such but a prediction can be "correct" and still fail, or be "incorrect" and still succeed (see: Nate Silver and other pollsters ; Nate Silver was "correct" in that Hillary had at best at 2/3rds chance of winning, but his prediction still failed because the die rolled the other way; conversely, all the pollsters who predicted the election based on the national popular vote were actually correct, within the bounds of that prediction, but were substantively incorrect because the national popular vote did not determine the election). I mean, hell, even your Houston predictions (from what I remember anyway -- I admit I'm not an exact scholar) weren't so much "wrong" as "the breakdown of society happened in Puerto Rico instead a month later". Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 17:08 on Aug 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2018 16:47
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:A ton of Dems campaigned against Obamacare in 2010-2016, too. It was basically the one thing the Dems passed in Obama's first term and half the people who passed it ended up either ignoring it on the campaign trail or actively running ads saying Obamacare was dumb and bad. Haha oh yeah that's right I forgot about that. They turned around and torpedoed their own triangulation strategy. "Look we have to pack this bill with concessions to right-wing nutjobs so we can keep support in conservative areas because Republicans will like that we included Republican ideas, that's how you do politics." *later* "Listen up everyone our bill is terrible, wow it sucks so bad holy poo poo it might be worse than holocaust, I hate Obama and the Democrats more than my Republican opponent does, seriously gently caress the Democrats okay vote for us!"
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2018 17:10
|
|
|
The most self aware statement ever made by the Democrats was when they didn't want to send any money to Montanna when they were shoving cash into the fire for Ossaff and said it was because their brand was too toxic and didn't want to hurt the candidate by the association with the party.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2018 17:19
|
|
|
My opinion on what I've seen of Prester Jane's stuff is that it's often not exactly wrong, but is just applying a lot of subjective interpretation to things that happen (or asserting things are "standard" that may or may not be). I sometimes get the feeling that she's just sort of asserting the nature or causes of things in ways that can't easily be proved or disproved.Radish posted:No but you see that was the best that could have been done as I watch the Republicans go crazy with power using a much slimmer Senate majority I like how their reasoning for things being "the best that could have been done" almost always amounts to "because if better were possible it would have happened." It's basically an argument that something not happening is proof that it couldn't have happened, and you can't exactly disprove that since you can't travel back in time. And I guess you could even say they're correct in a trivial sort of way (in that something only wasn't possible due to many Democratic politicians being opposed to it), but the answer to that is to replace those politicians or force them to not be opposed (as opposed to their answer of "just acknowledge that is reality and that change is impossible").
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2018 17:29
|
|
|
mods stepping into the thunderdome and using their magical powers to destroy PJ. Unfair!
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2018 17:35
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/theintercept/status/1027890576438517762?s=21
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2018 17:35
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:My opinion on what I've seen of Prester Jane's stuff is that it's often not exactly wrong, but is just applying a lot of subjective interpretation to things that happen (or asserting things are "standard" that may or may not be). I sometimes get the feeling that she's just sort of asserting the nature or causes of things in ways that can't easily be proved or disproved. The root issue is that post hoc ergo propter hoc isn't enough for proof. It's probably accurate at this point to describe PJ's theoretical framework as a set of hypotheses that have so far proven valid within a specific range of situations. But that's not the same thing as "proof". (For a similar example, see: the various problems with the "Dunning-Kruger" theory : http://www.talyarkoni.org/blog/2010/07/07/what-the-dunning-kruger-effect-is-and-isnt/ . It's not so much that Dunning-Kruger is wrong as that it isn't proven because there are a range of other possible & overlapping explanations, and the theory may have less or more applicability than it was initially seen to have, and you have to be careful with saying things are proven because confirmation bias is a hell of a drug). Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 17:42 on Aug 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2018 17:39
|
|
|
Calibanibal posted:mods stepping into the thunderdome and using their magical powers to destroy PJ. Unfair! Oh god does that make me McMahon I'm so sorry
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2018 17:41
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Oh god does that make me McMahon You are also quite wrong about the reason I was probated. You are looking at the wrong probation- fans probating me for my blog was an entirely separate probation. (The post in question never links to my blog nor references it in any way.) probated me for the post in question because I proved a bunch of really popular posters wrong. Edit: I forget where but Guyovich later clarified that he probated me for "carrying on a grudge" which directly translates to getting probated for upsetting certain popular posters by proving them wrong. Edit2: also check out this example of PPJ literally probating me for saying correct things that upset the sensibilities of a certain group of pearl-clutchers: Prester Jane posted:I don't believe I ever claimed that large numbers of children were freezing to death though. You did make that up. The Trump thread is where a specific clique of posters (who are both fairly popular here and extremely privileged in their personal life) go to circle jerk each other. The moderation team of D&D has gotten swept up into supporting this circle jerk and cracks down harshly on anyone who dares disagree with what the popular kids think. I am not even remotely the only poster who thinks so and there are a fair number of posters who will readily tell you that they don't post in the Trump thread because they're afraid that disagreeing with a certain clique will get them a lengthy probation. This is a significant problem that the administration of this website is permitting to fester. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2018 17:49
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Oh god does that make me McMahon
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2018 17:51
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:At least you're not McCaine. drat, faint praise Prester Jane posted:Edit: I forget where but Guyovich later clarified that he probated me for "carrying on a grudge" which directly translates to getting probated for upsetting certain popular posters by proving them wrong. I don't want to get sucked into a rabbit hole of defending/analyzing another mod's choices but I can say that in my own forum there have been times where I had to probate posters I one-thousand-percent agreed with, just because they were doing something like carrying on a derail way past when it needed to end, or making their argument in the wrong place when it needed to be in another thread instead and there had been warnings, etc. I mean, mods are human beings too, etc., but often it's not at all about the substantive content of the post, but about the posts' form or location or context. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 18:09 on Aug 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2018 17:59
|
|
|
Using thunderdome as a base of operations, I intend to launch a serious of swift shitposting attacks against the dnd yrump thread for the purposes of terrorism and demoralisation
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2018 18:04
|
|
|
When did USPol Thunderdome get moved to QQCS? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2018 18:06
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I don't want to get sucked into a rabbit hole of defending/analyzing another mod's choices And that's why this issue will continue to fester until it inevitably results in some sort of big dramatic blow up. Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 18:20 on Aug 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2018 18:13
|
|
|
Prester Jane posted:Yo twodot- I'm just going to quote one of the definitions for one of my terms. This is one of the simplest and most commonly referenced concepts in my work. The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USPOL THUNDERDOME: "Democrats Bad" Containment Zone is a mistake. edit: I guess my second complaint is that psychohistory isn't real. I didn't read your made up term, but if it's being used to support psychohistory conclusions, the reason it doesn't exist in the literature is that the literature doesn't have a psychohistory subsection, because psychohistory isn't real. twodot fucked around with this message at 18:31 on Aug 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2018 18:26
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/pwoodreporter/status/1027201805548249089
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2018 18:30
|
|
|
twodot posted:You have thoroughly misunderstood my complaint. I never said that you definitely weren't producing novel research in psychology, I said that if you were indeed producing novel research in psychology, you shouldn't expect a bunch of posters on an Internet political forum to take your novel research in psychology seriously. I don't know poo poo about "the psychological literature", I'm a loving poster on an Internet political forum, I wait for actual researchers to publish their findings in the open where there is peer review and such, and then I don't even read that, I wait for other aggregators to read those and re-publish a subset in other areas. Me being unable or refusing to answer the question is simply a concession that publishing psychology research on: Your complaint is that I'm posting here at all and people are discussing my ideas. You consider me subhuman and a lesser than and are upset that anyone is paying attention to me. You have made your agenda here perfectly clear. quote:edit: Psychohistory is in no way even vaguely related to my work you mush-brained idiot. Way to go admitting that you haven't bothered to read any of the ideas that you're objecting so strenuously to. Your entire problem here is that people are paying attention to me at all and you don't feel I deserve it. Because I'm beneath you. Go gently caress yourself. Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 18:41 on Aug 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2018 18:31
|
|
|
Wonder how long it'll take for the usual suspects to hail this as a sensible and bipartisan decision.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2018 18:33
|
|
|
Prester Jane posted:Your complaint is that I'm posting here at all and people are discussing my ideas. You consider me subhuman and a lesser than and are upset that anyone is paying attention to me. You have made your agenda here perfectly clear. quote:Edit: Psychohistory is in no way even vaguely related to my work you loving idiot. Way to go admitting that you haven't bothered to read any of the ideas that you're objecting so strenuously too. Your entire problem here is that people are paying attention to me at all and you don't feel I deserve it. Because I'm beneath you. Go gently caress yourself. twodot fucked around with this message at 18:48 on Aug 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2018 18:43
|
|
|
*whines about the green party* *endorses the republican*
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2018 18:43
|
|
|
Prester Jane posted:The Trump thread is wear a specific clique of posters (who are both fairly popular here and extremely privileged in their personal life) go to circle jerk each other. The moderation team of D&D has gotten swept up into supporting this circle jerk and cracks down arcely on anyone who dares disagree with what the popular kids think. I am not even remotely the only poster who thinks so and there are a fair number of posters who will readily tell you that they don't post in the Trump thread because they're afraid that disagreeing with a certain clique will get them a lengthy probation. This is a significant problem that the administration of this website is permitting to fester. *initiates ten-page doughnut derail*
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2018 18:44
|
|
|
Horseshoe theory posted:When did USPol Thunderdome get moved to QQCS?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2018 18:45
|
|
|
twodot posted:No you. What even is this? I'm claiming to be able to make predictions about the behavior of radicalizing extremists. It just so happens that said radicalizing extremists happen to have control over one of the two major political parties in the United States. My work doesn't apply outside of the particular type of extremist (Narrativist) that I study. If the entire global population was dominated by Narrativists, then yeah I probably could predict global events. But my god do you not want to live in that alternate universe.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2018 18:46
|
|
|
MSDOS KAPITAL posted:No see it's because every time it comes up it devolves into a massive shitstorm that goes on forever. Yea I would buy the whole "no discussions that make us feel bad, we're just making sure the thread is clear for important things" bullshit excuse if they ever discussed anything important.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2018 18:54
|
|
|
MSDOS KAPITAL posted:If you bring this up in QQcs you'll get probated or banned. In fact this whole discussion we're having is likely to result in some probations and bans once it's died down. Wow I've got butterflies in my stomach
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2018 19:13
|
|
|
Never stop doing the Calibanibal thing, Calibanibal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2018 19:15
|
|
|
twodot posted:Prester Jane's ideas seem to mostly boil down to "it was unjust I got probated on the Internet forums SomethingAwful", which I most assuredly don't give a poo poo about. Dude you've been posting about these ideas you "most assuredly don't give a poo poo about" for three plus pages.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2018 19:30
|
|
|
guess he doesn't feel like resisting trump today
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2018 19:38
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/AlexCKaufman/status/1027993096641040384 Even taking assumptions about green party voting habits at face value you could probably undercut the problem by not doing things like this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2018 20:40
|
|
|
MSDOS KAPITAL posted:If you bring this up in QQcs you'll get probated or banned. In fact this whole discussion we're having is likely to result in some probations and bans once it's died down. truly, today is the day we become the thunderdome
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2018 21:03
|
|
|
Why wont idiot greens vote dem *guzzles gasoline*
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2018 21:07
|
|
|
Office Pig posted:https://twitter.com/AlexCKaufman/status/1027993096641040384 There really isn’t a single reason to vote democrat, is there?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2018 21:21
|
|
|
Dirk Pitt posted:There really isn’t a single reason to vote democrat, is there? if we vote for them, they'll try to make sure the babies in our baby prisons don't die as easily! are you gonna sit there and tell me the babies will be better off with a republican in charge? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2018 21:28
|
|
|
I personally have trouble reading PJ's word salad and rely on the kindness of goons to simplify her arguments. Also I'm not sure how much credit she should get for predicting the rise of the alt-right when I've been occasionally reading 4chan's /pol/ since Obama was elected and saw them form in real time. Like, it was really obvious. It's like pointing out an acorn properly planted would grow into a tree.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2018 21:34
|
|
|
Office Pig posted:https://twitter.com/AlexCKaufman/status/1027993096641040384 Look guys if you'd just get off Perez's back, he'd have the freedom to start doing GOOD poo poo, not just uniformly awful poo poo like this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2018 22:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 15:24 |
|
|
Office Pig posted:https://twitter.com/AlexCKaufman/status/1027993096641040384 lol the TDP is loving over everyone this is what you get for writting the state off and letting it fester quote:At the Texas Democratic Party’s convention two weeks later, a state party official opposed a state-level proposal to ban fossil fuel donations and new gas extraction, arguing that the DNC’s own resolution was not set in stone.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2018 00:21
|
|
