I think that yon is referring to the tendency of new dems to include themselves in stuff like repealing glass steagal, or providing the votes required to pass trickle down policies.  It's a thing, it happened.  It was dems that initially tanked obamacare, as well.  It was a democratic senate that refused to hold a vote on cap and trade, under a dem potus. That wing of the party is nothing more or less than a set of socially liberal (and not always) neoconservatives. Neoconservatives were nothing more or less than socially conservative neoliberals. From clinton to bush to obama..both parties have flirted with this strategy, which is more a game theory of wining elections than anything else.

Troublingly...recent polls indicate that "electability" s the most important criteria in a dem challenger to the current admin. That means dino.

(February 8, 2019 at 9:17 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: I think that yon is referring to the tendency of new dems to include themselves in stuff like repealing glass steagal, or providing the votes required to pass trickle down policies.  It's a thing, it happened.  It was dems that initially tanked obamacare, as well.  It was a democratic senate that refused to hold a vote on cap and trade, under a dem potus.  That wing of the party is nothing more or less than a set of socially liberal (and not always) neoconservatives.  Neoconservatives were nothing more or less than socially conservative neoliberals.  From clinton to bush to obama..both parties have flirted with this strategy, which is more a game theory of wining elections than anything else.

Troublingly...recent polls indicate that "electability" s the most important criteria in a dem challenger to the current admin.  That means dino.

Then it seems to me that Yonadav has a problem with the Republicans and the specific Democrats who vote with them, rather than with the Democratic party as a whole.  Or perhaps he has a problem with the ignorance of the voters who support Republicans and their policies, as I do as well.  Those are the kinds of problems we have in a big-tent party.

My own solution is fairly simple: you can't compromise with liars.  That's why I support Pelosi in refusing to compromise with Trump, who is obviously lying about a border emergency.  Democrats need a backbone if anything.  Our policies are just fine as far as I can see (until someone actually points out what's specifically wrong with our platform).

(February 8, 2019 at 10:03 am)Thoreauvian Wrote:

(February 8, 2019 at 9:17 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: I think that yon is referring to the tendency of new dems to include themselves in stuff like repealing glass steagal, or providing the votes required to pass trickle down policies.  It's a thing, it happened.  It was dems that initially tanked obamacare, as well.  It was a democratic senate that refused to hold a vote on cap and trade, under a dem potus.  That wing of the party is nothing more or less than a set of socially liberal (and not always) neoconservatives.  Neoconservatives were nothing more or less than socially conservative neoliberals.  From clinton to bush to obama..both parties have flirted with this strategy, which is more a game theory of wining elections than anything else.

Troublingly...recent polls indicate that "electability" s the most important criteria in a dem challenger to the current admin.  That means dino.

Then it seems to me that Yonadav has a problem with the Republicans and the specific Democrats who vote with them, rather than with the Democratic party as a whole.  

We have had this confrontation over and over. I have corrected you about this more times than I can count. When have I ever argued against the Democratic Party as a whole? My criticisms are primarily directed at The New Democrats and vapid negative partisans who keep supporting them.

(February 8, 2019 at 11:12 am)Yonadav Wrote: We have had this confrontation over and over. I have corrected you about this more times than I can count. When have I ever argued against the Democratic Party as a whole? My criticisms are primarily directed at The New Democrats and vapid negative partisans who keep supporting them.

You are correct that we have discussed this enough. I need to trust my own perspectives about such ideas.

(February 9, 2019 at 9:46 am)Thoreauvian Wrote:

(February 8, 2019 at 11:12 am)Yonadav Wrote: We have had this confrontation over and over. I have corrected you about this more times than I can count. When have I ever argued against the Democratic Party as a whole? My criticisms are primarily directed at The New Democrats and vapid negative partisans who keep supporting them.

You are correct that we have discussed this enough.  I need to trust my own perspectives about such ideas.

You certainly do trust your own perspectives.  Even when presented with rock solid proof that you distort the things that you read. Be well, my friend.

(February 9, 2019 at 11:34 am)Yonadav Wrote:

(February 9, 2019 at 9:46 am)Thoreauvian Wrote: You are correct that we have discussed this enough.  I need to trust my own perspectives about such ideas.

You certainly do trust your own perspectives.  Even when presented with rock solid proof that you distort the things that you read. Be well, my friend.

That is the problem with "perspectives" in our species. They are more often than not, flawed.

In a very real sense, it is the same as why a person can confuse a clean glass door as being open, and walk right into it. Our species perceptions of reality are notoriously flawed. 

Most humans in antiquity, thought the earth was flat. There also was a time when most humans thought the heart, and not the brain, did the thinking. 

The key to universal consensus is to filter out personal bias, which is what the principle concept of scientific method does through data collection, established formulas, good sample rates, control groups, and independent peer review.

All the religions of the world are NOT objective universal agreed upon facts. Neither are political or economic views. Those are human invented constructs that really are nothing more than our species excuses to form groups to justify control over resources. What is universal is the fact we are the same species. What is universal is that no matter where we live in the world, we are all made up of Adenine, Guanine, Thymine and Cytosine.

(February 9, 2019 at 11:49 am)Brian37 Wrote:

(February 9, 2019 at 11:34 am)Yonadav Wrote: You certainly do trust your own perspectives.  Even when presented with rock solid proof that you distort the things that you read. Be well, my friend.

That is the problem with "perspectives" in our species. They are more often than not, flawed.

In a very real sense, it is the same as why a person can confuse a clean glass door as being open, and walk right into it. Our species perceptions of reality are notoriously flawed. 

Most humans in antiquity, thought the earth was flat. There also was a time when most humans thought the heart, and not the brain, did the thinking. 

The key to universal consensus is to filter out personal bias, which is what the principle concept of scientific method does through data collection, established formulas, good sample rates, control groups, and independent peer review.

All the religions of the world are NOT objective universal agreed upon facts. Neither are political or economic views. Those are human invented constructs that really are nothing more than our species excuses to form groups to justify control over resources. What is universal is the fact we are the same species. What is universal is that no matter where we live in the world, we are all made up of Adenine, Guanine, Thymine and Cytosine.

Perception and information aren't the same thing. Most modern people do not perceive the world to be round. They believe that it's  round because they have been told that it is round, heard of Magellan travelling around the world, and have seen pictures from space. But most modern people still perceive the world as if it were flat. Roughly the same percentage of people perceived the world to be round in antiquity as today. That is to say, you perceive the world to be round if you have actual experience of its roundness. The sailor who climbs up into the rigging, knowing that this allows him to see further over the curvature of the earth has actual perceived experience of the earth being round. That the surface of the earth curves away from you and you can see further by climbing to high places was pretty common knowledge in antiquity. The guy who calculated the circumference of the earth from sunlight shining directly down a well at solar noon and comparing it to the angle of the sun's shadow a known distance away didn't discover that the earth was round, which was already known. He discovered how big the earth was. The angle of the sun at different latitudes only proves that the earth is round if the sun is understood to be so far away that its rays strike the earth in parallel. Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the earth from the presupposition that it was round, since the math would have worked out the same on a flat earth with a near sun. He presupposed that the earth was round for pretty solid reasons that were pretty commonly known at the time-- phases of the moon, the seasons, constellations changing, seeing further over the curvature of the earth from high vantage points, and such.

Most of what we think that we know about the world around us is just nonsense that our brains filled in to make our worldview seem coherent to us. We tend to believe things or disbelieve them in accordance with our mostly nonsensical worldview. We tend to only see what we are looking for. We tend to not see what we are not looking for. So we pick information that affirms our worldview and don't even see the stuff that contradicts it. I enjoy watching people trip over themselves when they don't even realize it. I don't enjoy it for malicious reasons. I enjoy it because while watching for them to trip over themselves, I sometimes catch myself in the act of tripping over myself. Lost people will pretty much always travel in a circle, because they favor one side over the other. One side of their body is more powerful than the other, so they will drift to one side exclusively until they go in a circle, and they tend to veer around obstacles in favor of one direction over the other. Lech lecha is usually translated as 'go for yourself', but more literally it is 'go to yourself'. We wander the same circles, tripping over ourselves all the time. We return to the same spot, over and over again. The better you, the you that doesn't trip over itself, is one that learns to walk a straight line and never trips over itself. To do that, you have to be specifically watching for you to trip over yourself. If you aren't watching for it, you don't see it.

(February 8, 2019 at 10:03 am)Thoreauvian Wrote: Democrats need a backbone if anything.  Our policies are just fine as far as I can see (until someone actually points out what's specifically wrong with our platform).

Yeah that's the thing globally. The left in the 80s equated the collapse of the Soviet Union and the takeover of the right by Maggie the Milk Thief and Ray-gun as a permanent refutation of all left wing political theory (despite a) Marxism being a utopian dream and not a workable political theory and b) the Soviet Union being effectively closer to feudal oligarchy than anything socialist for at least fifty years) and the permanent victory for right wing unfettered capitalism.

Hence why the likes of Clinton, Bliar and Schrodinger tacked very far to the right on economic issues abandoning their parties' core voters in favour of a chimerical middle class voter who'd vote on social issues (like gay and abortion rights) while refusing to vote on economic ones. When what happened with all three was they were up against an unnecessarily demoralised left and a right that had self destructed in the aftermath of Maggie and Ronnie. They won not because their "third way" was different or attractive but because they were the only ones left standing (and, in fact, Bliar's win in 97 {his wins in 01 and 05 were much reduced and even the Maybot would have beat him both times, that's how bad the Tories were under Michael "all immigrants bar my parents are evil" Howard and Ian "even Howard's parents were evil" Duncan Smith were at the time} was under the guise of him acting like a social democrat in the Jeremy Corbyn mould).

Hence why the Democrats need to hold strong on voter rights, sex rights, reproductive rights, the green new deal and all the other more imaginative and left-wing policies that are being proposed currently. Yes, vet them to within an inch of their lives and discard ruthlessly, but the ones that survive, the ones that will work, do your damnedest to promote. That's what create the long ascendancy of the Democrat left between 32 and 74.

(February 9, 2019 at 1:08 pm)Yonadav Wrote:

(February 9, 2019 at 11:49 am)Brian37 Wrote: That is the problem with "perspectives" in our species. They are more often than not, flawed.

In a very real sense, it is the same as why a person can confuse a clean glass door as being open, and walk right into it. Our species perceptions of reality are notoriously flawed. 

Most humans in antiquity, thought the earth was flat. There also was a time when most humans thought the heart, and not the brain, did the thinking. 

The key to universal consensus is to filter out personal bias, which is what the principle concept of scientific method does through data collection, established formulas, good sample rates, control groups, and independent peer review.

All the religions of the world are NOT objective universal agreed upon facts. Neither are political or economic views. Those are human invented constructs that really are nothing more than our species excuses to form groups to justify control over resources. What is universal is the fact we are the same species. What is universal is that no matter where we live in the world, we are all made up of Adenine, Guanine, Thymine and Cytosine.

Perception and information aren't the same thing. Most modern people do not perceive the world to be round. They believe that it's  round because they have been told that it is round, heard of Magellan travelling around the world, and have seen pictures from space. But most modern people still perceive the world as if it were flat. Roughly the same percentage of people perceived the world to be round in antiquity as today. That is to say, you perceive the world to be round if you have actual experience of its roundness. The sailor who climbs up into the rigging, knowing that this allows him to see further over the curvature of the earth has actual perceived experience of the earth being round. That the surface of the earth curves away from you and you can see further by climbing to high places was pretty common knowledge in antiquity. The guy who calculated the circumference of the earth from sunlight shining directly down a well at solar noon and comparing it to the angle of the sun's shadow a known distance away didn't discover that the earth was round, which was already known. He discovered how big the earth was. The angle of the sun at different latitudes only proves that the earth is round if the sun is understood to be so far away that its rays strike the earth in parallel. Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the earth from the presupposition that it was round, since the math would have worked out the same on a flat earth with a near sun. He presupposed that the earth was round for pretty solid reasons that were pretty commonly known at the time-- phases of the moon, the seasons, constellations changing, seeing further over the curvature of the earth from high vantage points, and such.

Most of what we think that we know about the world around us is just nonsense that our brains filled in to make our worldview seem coherent to us. We tend to believe things or disbelieve them in accordance with our mostly nonsensical worldview. We tend to only see what we are looking for. We tend to not see what we are not looking for. So we pick information that affirms our worldview and don't even see the stuff that contradicts it. I enjoy watching people trip over themselves when they don't even realize it. I don't enjoy it for malicious reasons. I enjoy it because while watching for them to trip over themselves, I sometimes catch myself in the act of tripping over myself. Lost people will pretty much always travel in a circle, because they favor one side over the other. One side of their body is more powerful than the other, so they will drift to one side exclusively until they go in a circle, and they tend to veer around obstacles in favor of one direction over the other. Lech lecha is usually translated as 'go for yourself', but more literally it is 'go to yourself'. We wander the same circles, tripping over ourselves all the time. We return to the same spot, over and over again. The better you, the you that doesn't trip over itself, is one that learns to walk a straight line and never trips over itself. To do that, you have to be specifically watching for you to trip over yourself. If you aren't watching for it, you don't see it.

Nice giant wall of word salad.

If it is possible to confuse a clean glass door as being open and walk into it, it is possible to project your own qualities into fictional form.

If it makes sense to you that the Ancient Egyptians made up their gods in Ra/Osiris/Isis and Horus, and you accept that Apollo and Zues are NOT REAL, why would all the needles battles they fought between each other and outside tribes over those false beliefs be any more or less true than the position you hold currently?

Why should it frighten you to accept there is no deity/god/gods/God/ super cognition? 

Does your pre life frighten you? Did you exist before you were born? NO! So please do not try to claim that our species current popularity or claims of antiquity constitute provable fact.

This is it. Humans are finite. There is no super cognition helping us. I still find good in life. I still want to live. I simply do not assign anything good or bad that happen to old mythology or the super natural.

(February 9, 2019 at 2:54 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(February 9, 2019 at 1:08 pm)Yonadav Wrote: Perception and information aren't the same thing. Most modern people do not perceive the world to be round. They believe that it's  round because they have been told that it is round, heard of Magellan travelling around the world, and have seen pictures from space. But most modern people still perceive the world as if it were flat. Roughly the same percentage of people perceived the world to be round in antiquity as today. That is to say, you perceive the world to be round if you have actual experience of its roundness. The sailor who climbs up into the rigging, knowing that this allows him to see further over the curvature of the earth has actual perceived experience of the earth being round. That the surface of the earth curves away from you and you can see further by climbing to high places was pretty common knowledge in antiquity. The guy who calculated the circumference of the earth from sunlight shining directly down a well at solar noon and comparing it to the angle of the sun's shadow a known distance away didn't discover that the earth was round, which was already known. He discovered how big the earth was. The angle of the sun at different latitudes only proves that the earth is round if the sun is understood to be so far away that its rays strike the earth in parallel. Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the earth from the presupposition that it was round, since the math would have worked out the same on a flat earth with a near sun. He presupposed that the earth was round for pretty solid reasons that were pretty commonly known at the time-- phases of the moon, the seasons, constellations changing, seeing further over the curvature of the earth from high vantage points, and such.

Most of what we think that we know about the world around us is just nonsense that our brains filled in to make our worldview seem coherent to us. We tend to believe things or disbelieve them in accordance with our mostly nonsensical worldview. We tend to only see what we are looking for. We tend to not see what we are not looking for. So we pick information that affirms our worldview and don't even see the stuff that contradicts it. I enjoy watching people trip over themselves when they don't even realize it. I don't enjoy it for malicious reasons. I enjoy it because while watching for them to trip over themselves, I sometimes catch myself in the act of tripping over myself. Lost people will pretty much always travel in a circle, because they favor one side over the other. One side of their body is more powerful than the other, so they will drift to one side exclusively until they go in a circle, and they tend to veer around obstacles in favor of one direction over the other. Lech lecha is usually translated as 'go for yourself', but more literally it is 'go to yourself'. We wander the same circles, tripping over ourselves all the time. We return to the same spot, over and over again. The better you, the you that doesn't trip over itself, is one that learns to walk a straight line and never trips over itself. To do that, you have to be specifically watching for you to trip over yourself. If you aren't watching for it, you don't see it.

Nice giant wall of word salad.

If it is possible to confuse a clean glass door as being open and walk into it, it is possible to project your own qualities into fictional form.

If it makes sense to you that the Ancient Egyptians made up their gods in Ra/Osiris/Isis and Horus, and you accept that Apollo and Zues are NOT REAL, why would all the needles battles they fought between each other and outside tribes over those false beliefs be any more or less true than the position you hold currently?

Why should it frighten you to accept there is no deity/god/gods/God/ super cognition? 

Does your pre life frighten you? Did you exist before you were born? NO! So please do not try to claim that our species current popularity or claims of antiquity constitute provable fact.

This is it. Humans are finite. There is no super cognition helping us. I still find good in life. I still want to live. I simply do not assign anything good or bad that happen to old mythology or the super natural.

I didn't say a single thing about anything supernatural there, dude. You are having a bit of a perceptual problem, perhaps?