Politics thread (USA Elections 2016) - Page 287

On April 28 2021 21:05 Santafairy wrote: Show nested quote + On April 26 2021 11:14 Spitfiree wrote:   On April 21 2021 15:35 Santafairy wrote: friends where can i gamble on 2024 that will be a solvent website in 3.5 years https://www.binance.com/en/futures/BTCUSDT I realize you're a foreigner so you don't understand American democracy but no matter how much you like the crypto pyramid we can't elect it president

I like how you turned a misunderstanding into an American democracy topic

You'd need to find a site with boomers on it to find someone to defend the idea of trying to recruit an army of Karens

Otherwise he is pretty on point. Masking outside is stupid. Here in the San Francisco area I'm still one of the few people on hiking trails without a mask, no doubt because it's such a liberal area. I heard a recent Gallup poll that shows 41% of democrats think your chance of being hospitalized from covid is over 50%. Another 27% though it was 20-49%. The correct answer is 1-5%. Republicans did better at guessing the correct numbers but even they overestimated the risks.

A little corrective violence never hurt anyone right?

You can continue to call me conservative if you want as a synonym for disagreeing person, but I would draw the line at traditional

On April 29 2021 10:04 Spitfiree wrote: Show nested quote + On April 28 2021 21:05 Santafairy wrote:   On April 26 2021 11:14 Spitfiree wrote:   On April 21 2021 15:35 Santafairy wrote: friends where can i gamble on 2024 that will be a solvent website in 3.5 years https://www.binance.com/en/futures/BTCUSDT I realize you're a foreigner so you don't understand American democracy but no matter how much you like the crypto pyramid we can't elect it president I like how you turned a misunderstanding into an American democracy topic

"Turned"

Gamble on 2024 as in the election you fucking idiot

You entering a conversation ends in nothing but misunderstandings

Spitfiree would make the most tilting coworker of all time lol.

On April 29 2021 06:31 Liquid`Drone wrote: I mean Santafairy can write his own replies but I never pictured him as a traditional conservative.

Oh I know very well he isn't just swallowing up republican propaganda but Spitfire totally dodged a bet and didn't walk back his dumb take I felt like havnig some fun with an easy cheek clap since Loco isn't here to post his inane views and you and Stroggoz are way more reasonable and less confrontational.


Ok since there is no topic here is an update about Mexico's politics that nobody asked for and nobody cares about:

The appointed in this thread as "the best president in the world", is now trying to dissolve the election national institute (they oversee and control the legality of all elections), he also extended the supreme court president's mandate (violating the constitution) in an attempt to control it, these two are the only ones in his way to attempt a re-election and become a dictator.

How did this start?
Well his very close friend (his son's god father) is running for governor, he has 5 rape allegations from different women, and this is no Kavanaugh situation about some date-rape acusation from 30 years ago, this is the real deal full violent rapes, well apparently he didn't report his campaign expense sources on time so he lost his right to be a candidate, and well the president wants his buddy as governor and is now calling the election institute as the enemies of democracy.

Things are really bad and I'd estimate theres about a 75% chance he attempts to re-elect himself, and about a 50% he manages to do it, these two institutions are the only things in his way (It would be impossible for him to lose in an alection since he is popular and he would also commit fraud since there would be no regulators), for conntext "no-reelection" is probably the most famous motto in the nation, its in our currency, in our monuments and the most sacred law in our constitutions, we had a revolutino in 1910 to topple a reelectionist dictatorship, 2 million people died so if anybody were to violate the constitution and reelect themselves becoming a dictator it would mean the literal destruction of the country it would likely devolve into a civil war so these are very scary times for us, so if it wasn't clear enough.... fuck the left.

On April 29 2021 10:16 blackjacki2 wrote: You'd need to find a site with boomers on it to find someone to defend the idea of trying to recruit an army of Karens Otherwise he is pretty on point. Masking outside is stupid. Here in the San Francisco area I'm still one of the few people on hiking trails without a mask, no doubt because it's such a liberal area. I heard a recent Gallup poll that shows 41% of democrats think your chance of being hospitalized from covid is over 50%. Another 27% though it was 20-49%. The correct answer is 1-5%. Republicans did better at guessing the correct numbers but even they overestimated the risks.

Agreed, the US at-risk population of 60+ is almost fully vaccinated and we now know that ventilation is a huge factor regarding contagion.

It's so crazy that it became such a strong partisan issue, republicans don't want to get vaccinated and think its child abuse and democrats want to use masks while swimming till 2022.

There has been a constant paternalistic attitude full of "white lies" because the state thinks they know better, they lied about masks not working early in 2020 in an attempt to avoid shortages and they keep doing that kind of lie over and over and over.

I've been posting in the TL politics thread since this one has been pretty dead. I thought some of you guys were pretty "out there" but that place takes it to a whole other level. Yesterday 3 different people tried to tell me that posting something "anti-vax" on the internet is basically the same as an "incitement of violence." Then they argued the government was within its right to protect people from this violence by creating some kind of internet censorship or truth police to crack down on all false statements about vaccines on the internet or anyone trying to persuade people not to take the COVID vaccine.

It's basically one giant echo chamber over there. If you're on the same side you can basically say anything you want no matter how ridiculous or how hyperbolic and nobody will bat an eye or say a word. But if you're not on their side people will nitpick everything you post or argue semantics on the most insignificant parts of your argument.

So yeah, this thread needs a revival...

On May 01 2021 07:28 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On April 29 2021 06:31 Liquid`Drone wrote: I mean Santafairy can write his own replies but I never pictured him as a traditional conservative. .... but Spitfire totally dodged a bet and didn't walk back his dumb take

I did what now? I get it when someone like hiems and Santafairy stretch their words and jump to conclusions that make zero sense but didn't expect this of you

Was I supposed to bet on a 2024 election for candidates that we wouldn't even know the options of considering Biden nor Trump will be there? Why would I lock any amount of money for a 4 year bet as well, that's probably the dumbest decision one can make unless the odds are insane. Imagine locking in a bet and after 3 years you get a refund cause your candidate didn't even run, would be better to just wipe your ass with those bills right now.

On May 01 2021 11:06 Spitfiree wrote: Show nested quote + On May 01 2021 07:28 Baalim wrote:   On April 29 2021 06:31 Liquid`Drone wrote: I mean Santafairy can write his own replies but I never pictured him as a traditional conservative. .... but Spitfire totally dodged a bet and didn't walk back his dumb take I did what now? I get it when someone like hiems and Santafairy stretch their words and jump to conclusions that make zero sense but didn't expect this of you Was I supposed to bet on a 2024 election for candidates that we wouldn't even know the options of considering Biden nor Trump will be there? Why would I lock any amount of money for a 4 year bet as well, that's probably the dumbest decision one can make unless the odds are insane. Imagine locking in a bet and after 3 years you get a refund cause your candidate didn't even run, would be better to just wipe your ass with those bills right now.

Spitfiree is a performance art piece

On May 01 2021 11:06 Spitfiree wrote: Show nested quote + On May 01 2021 07:28 Baalim wrote:   On April 29 2021 06:31 Liquid`Drone wrote: I mean Santafairy can write his own replies but I never pictured him as a traditional conservative. .... but Spitfire totally dodged a bet and didn't walk back his dumb take I did what now? I get it when someone like hiems and Santafairy stretch their words and jump to conclusions that make zero sense but didn't expect this of you Was I supposed to bet on a 2024 election for candidates that we wouldn't even know the options of considering Biden nor Trump will be there? Why would I lock any amount of money for a 4 year bet as well, that's probably the dumbest decision one can make unless the odds are insane. Imagine locking in a bet and after 3 years you get a refund cause your candidate didn't even run, would be better to just wipe your ass with those bills right now.

Some math 101 for you. Stroggoz feel free to check that it works out.

Spitfiree is Bulgarian
Grigor Dimitrov is also Bulgarian.
Grigor Dimitrov likes to dress in vibrant colors such as pink
Grigor Dimitrov is famous for being a choke-artist.

Therefore, Spitfiree likely fellates men.

All I heard from this is "I'm too insecure of a man to wear pink". Don't worry we accept you as who you are

On May 01 2021 16:31 Spitfiree wrote: All I heard from this is "I'm too insecure of a man to wear pink". Don't worry we accept you as who you are

This is what we are talking about. The joke here just ... doesn't quite work lol.

On May 01 2021 11:06 Spitfiree wrote: Show nested quote + On May 01 2021 07:28 Baalim wrote:   On April 29 2021 06:31 Liquid`Drone wrote: I mean Santafairy can write his own replies but I never pictured him as a traditional conservative. .... but Spitfire totally dodged a bet and didn't walk back his dumb take I did what now? I get it when someone like hiems and Santafairy stretch their words and jump to conclusions that make zero sense but didn't expect this of you Was I supposed to bet on a 2024 election for candidates that we wouldn't even know the options of considering Biden nor Trump will be there? Why would I lock any amount of money for a 4 year bet as well, that's probably the dumbest decision one can make unless the odds are insane. Imagine locking in a bet and after 3 years you get a refund cause your candidate didn't even run, would be better to just wipe your ass with those bills right now.

WTF are you talking about?

Drone said that only a fringe of extremists use the "Racism is privilege + prejudice" definition, and I said he was delusional and that definition is used by many people, its so common that even social media platforms use it and don't polilce all "hate speech" the same way.

You doubled down on that take.

I proposed a bet, that we create many profiles and we put half of them typing racist tweets against blacks and the other half identical ones but against whites and we see which kind of tweet gets banned more.


Neither of you took the bet, It's cheap to say dumb things when you don't have to back them up isn't it?

On May 01 2021 15:56 hiems wrote: Show nested quote + On May 01 2021 11:06 Spitfiree wrote:   On May 01 2021 07:28 Baalim wrote:   On April 29 2021 06:31 Liquid`Drone wrote: I mean Santafairy can write his own replies but I never pictured him as a traditional conservative. .... but Spitfire totally dodged a bet and didn't walk back his dumb take I did what now? I get it when someone like hiems and Santafairy stretch their words and jump to conclusions that make zero sense but didn't expect this of you Was I supposed to bet on a 2024 election for candidates that we wouldn't even know the options of considering Biden nor Trump will be there? Why would I lock any amount of money for a 4 year bet as well, that's probably the dumbest decision one can make unless the odds are insane. Imagine locking in a bet and after 3 years you get a refund cause your candidate didn't even run, would be better to just wipe your ass with those bills right now. Some math 101 for you. Stroggoz feel free to check that it works out. Spitfiree is Bulgarian Grigor Dimitrov is also Bulgarian. Grigor Dimitrov likes to dress in vibrant colors such as pink Grigor Dimitrov is famous for being a choke-artist. Therefore, Spitfiree likely fellates men.

It's unclear what the argument is, at least in propositional logic.
Some notes:
-no need to add 'also' before Bulgarian.
-the statements need 'or', 'and', 'if-then', 'for all', 'exist', ' words to be made coherent, otherwise no computer is going to understand this. You did have 'therefore' though, and that is commendable.

It seems like your argument wants to have the following form though. (P and Q and R and S)->T. In this case the argument is valid so long as one of P, Q, R, S is false, or T is true. If that's the case then claiming the guy is Austrian would make the argument valid.

Should be added that most people don't know what logic is, concepts like 'valid', and 'sound', 'proof', 'argument', 'entails', ect, have completely different meanings in math and/or philosophy. But talking to non-experts I can pretend 'valid' and 'sound' means the same thing, for reasons of efficiency.

Example:

1=0,
therefore i'm the pope

is a valid argument. Actually proving that 1 isn't equal to 0 is done either in a course on abstract algebra (ring theory), or a course on logic where you can encounter the peano axioms. I know of three different ways of proving it heh. (nerd alert). But the number 1 means different things in different contexts. I don't know of any context where 1=0, but 2+2=0 is sometimes valid depending on the context. For example, it's true when looking at a clock with 4 numbers dividing the day.

You are allowed to derive anything from a contradiction. In fact proof by contradiction is probably the most common proof technique in math, and interestingly gallileo used it in his famous tower of pisa thought experiment. (In my view the greatest proof in history). There are quite a few other rules in propositional logic that seem a little strange. Logicians, particularly in philosophy, have come up with alternative logical systems because of this. Mathematics is a bit more subjective than the public realizes, every proposition in math is true once we choose some prioer axiom to be true. But there are many different logic's out there with many different consequences. The axiom of choice for example, is something that allows a theorem to be true, if we know it's true, but don't know how it's true. I'm not an expert on logic though so can't really go further into this. All of the mathematics in hs is based off some choices about which axioms and logic to accept, and they accepted many of them because the subject is more interesting once it is accepted.

On May 02 2021 01:02 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On May 01 2021 11:06 Spitfiree wrote:   On May 01 2021 07:28 Baalim wrote:   On April 29 2021 06:31 Liquid`Drone wrote: I mean Santafairy can write his own replies but I never pictured him as a traditional conservative. .... but Spitfire totally dodged a bet and didn't walk back his dumb take I did what now? I get it when someone like hiems and Santafairy stretch their words and jump to conclusions that make zero sense but didn't expect this of you Was I supposed to bet on a 2024 election for candidates that we wouldn't even know the options of considering Biden nor Trump will be there? Why would I lock any amount of money for a 4 year bet as well, that's probably the dumbest decision one can make unless the odds are insane. Imagine locking in a bet and after 3 years you get a refund cause your candidate didn't even run, would be better to just wipe your ass with those bills right now. WTF are you talking about? Drone said that only a fringe of extremists use the "Racism is privilege + prejudice" definition, and I said he was delusional and that definition is used by many people, its so common that even social media platforms use it and don't polilce all "hate speech" the same way. You doubled down on that take. I proposed a bet, that we create many profiles and we put half of them typing racist tweets against blacks and the other half identical ones but against whites and we see which kind of tweet gets banned more. Neither of you took the bet, It's cheap to say dumb things when you don't have to back them up isn't it?

Oh.. that 'bet'. I also know the earth isn't flat but don't go around taking bets that would take a significantly long setup and a vast amount of resources just to disprove someone's point.

If that's your 'GOTTEM' moment I have bad news for you

On May 02 2021 10:44 Spitfiree wrote: Show nested quote + On May 02 2021 01:02 Baalim wrote:   On May 01 2021 11:06 Spitfiree wrote:   On May 01 2021 07:28 Baalim wrote:   On April 29 2021 06:31 Liquid`Drone wrote: I mean Santafairy can write his own replies but I never pictured him as a traditional conservative. .... but Spitfire totally dodged a bet and didn't walk back his dumb take I did what now? I get it when someone like hiems and Santafairy stretch their words and jump to conclusions that make zero sense but didn't expect this of you Was I supposed to bet on a 2024 election for candidates that we wouldn't even know the options of considering Biden nor Trump will be there? Why would I lock any amount of money for a 4 year bet as well, that's probably the dumbest decision one can make unless the odds are insane. Imagine locking in a bet and after 3 years you get a refund cause your candidate didn't even run, would be better to just wipe your ass with those bills right now. WTF are you talking about? Drone said that only a fringe of extremists use the "Racism is privilege + prejudice" definition, and I said he was delusional and that definition is used by many people, its so common that even social media platforms use it and don't polilce all "hate speech" the same way. You doubled down on that take. I proposed a bet, that we create many profiles and we put half of them typing racist tweets against blacks and the other half identical ones but against whites and we see which kind of tweet gets banned more. Neither of you took the bet, It's cheap to say dumb things when you don't have to back them up isn't it? Oh.. that 'bet'. I also know the earth isn't flat but don't go around taking bets that would take a significantly long setup and a vast amount of resources just to disprove someone's point. If that's your 'GOTTEM' moment I have bad news for you

It wasn't a GOTTEM moment until you just posted this.

The double standard of shit you can say about white people that you wouldn't be allowed to say about black people is like the #1 thing that certain white people complain about.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45052534

Imagine thinking this person wouldn't lose their job if the shit she said was about black people or another minority.

And neither I nor Drone was saying that this isn't happening or isn't an issue. We were saying something else entirely...

Oh word. I thought you were saying you wouldn't take the bet because it would take too long for you to win, not because you knew you would lose

I was not saying anything about the frequency of black on white or black on asian racism or x on x racism, and I said that racism can exist in any of those x on x situations.

What I did say, is that racism is worse if it's backed up by power structures found within society - e.g. (hypothetically) if all police officers and employers are white racists who arrest or refuse to hire black people, that is more problematic than if all black people are racists who dislike white people, even if the amount of racism is the same.

Then I believe it to be true that more black people are subject to this type of systemic racism while the racism white people encounter is less likely to influence their life in any significant way.

On May 02 2021 21:36 blackjacki2 wrote: Show nested quote + On May 02 2021 10:44 Spitfiree wrote:   On May 02 2021 01:02 Baalim wrote:   On May 01 2021 11:06 Spitfiree wrote:   On May 01 2021 07:28 Baalim wrote:   On April 29 2021 06:31 Liquid`Drone wrote: I mean Santafairy can write his own replies but I never pictured him as a traditional conservative. .... but Spitfire totally dodged a bet and didn't walk back his dumb take I did what now? I get it when someone like hiems and Santafairy stretch their words and jump to conclusions that make zero sense but didn't expect this of you Was I supposed to bet on a 2024 election for candidates that we wouldn't even know the options of considering Biden nor Trump will be there? Why would I lock any amount of money for a 4 year bet as well, that's probably the dumbest decision one can make unless the odds are insane. Imagine locking in a bet and after 3 years you get a refund cause your candidate didn't even run, would be better to just wipe your ass with those bills right now. WTF are you talking about? Drone said that only a fringe of extremists use the "Racism is privilege + prejudice" definition, and I said he was delusional and that definition is used by many people, its so common that even social media platforms use it and don't polilce all "hate speech" the same way. You doubled down on that take. I proposed a bet, that we create many profiles and we put half of them typing racist tweets against blacks and the other half identical ones but against whites and we see which kind of tweet gets banned more. Neither of you took the bet, It's cheap to say dumb things when you don't have to back them up isn't it? Oh.. that 'bet'. I also know the earth isn't flat but don't go around taking bets that would take a significantly long setup and a vast amount of resources just to disprove someone's point. If that's your 'GOTTEM' moment I have bad news for you It wasn't a GOTTEM moment until you just posted this. The double standard of shit you can say about white people that you wouldn't be allowed to say about black people is like the #1 thing that certain white people complain about. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45052534 Imagine thinking this person wouldn't lose their job if the shit she said was about black people or another minority.

It's true that this is a double standard, but there are many other double standards that favour white people. For example, you can get away with bombing, or terrorizing a country that is coloured-majority, much more easily than you can do the same to a country full of white people.
It only really makes sense to focus on one case of double standards (the ones that affect your own race), if you are a hypocrite.

Twitter is just an extremely irrational place where the loudest idiots get the biggest voice, capitalists do seem to generate a lot of money over these irrational culture wars though.