Politics thread (USA Elections 2016) - Page 306

Another brilliant take hiems, have you thought about becoming an analyst of some sort

On September 26 2021 23:31 Spitfiree wrote: Another brilliant take hiems, have you thought about becoming an analyst of some sort

Obv didn't know for sure. You don't post much about yourself so I thought/still think that there was a decent chance you are a homosexual, trans woman, bi, or at least had those closet thoughts. I think given your post history its a reasonable take.

On September 25 2021 03:09 Spitfiree wrote: On another note I was wondering the past few weeks how many of the great anti-communism republicans took Biden's social welfare checks and then returned them or sent them to charity... after all any social measures are communism and they definitely don't want that so gotta do everything in their power to prevent it, no?

On September 25 2021 19:11 Santafairy wrote: BERNIE SANDERS BELIEVES IN REDISTRIBUTION SUPPOSEDLY SO WHY DOESN'T HE DONATE HIS EXTRA 2 HOUSES TO AXE THE NATIONAL DEBT MY NAME IS SPITFIREE AND I HAVE THE MIND OF A THIRD GRADER

On September 26 2021 18:22 Spitfiree wrote: You're like a child that sees everything in black and white. It's exhausting to have to explain very basic concepts. You should be old enough to be able to wield simple logic. Obviously Bernie Sanders wouldn't fucking give out his property in a system that doesn't allow him to change shit EVEN if he was a Marx type socialist, which he is not. There are so many things wrong with that statement. I would have to spend a day to respond to all your stupidity and at this point I give up.

it went way over your head buddy

everyone else was able to get this right?

On September 26 2021 23:46 hiems wrote: Show nested quote + On September 26 2021 23:31 Spitfiree wrote: Another brilliant take hiems, have you thought about becoming an analyst of some sort Obv didn't know for sure. You don't post much about yourself so I thought/still think that there was a decent chance you are a homosexual, trans woman, bi, or at least had those closet thoughts. I think given your post history its a reasonable take.

I wonder in your head how does that change things, even if I was a part of the rainbow community, which is mostly an American problem.

On September 27 2021 07:32 Spitfiree wrote: Show nested quote + On September 26 2021 23:46 hiems wrote:   On September 26 2021 23:31 Spitfiree wrote: Another brilliant take hiems, have you thought about becoming an analyst of some sort Obv didn't know for sure. You don't post much about yourself so I thought/still think that there was a decent chance you are a homosexual, trans woman, bi, or at least had those closet thoughts. I think given your post history its a reasonable take. I wonder in your head how does that change things, even if I was a part of the rainbow community, which is mostly an American problem.

Well I guess I believe you aren't gay now lol.

imagine being homophobic just to spite hiems

Spit "Those Pesky Fags Are A Yankee Thing" Firee

Your conclusions jumping is the best. I'm quite far from homophobic and you're probably projecting your insecurities as usual.

The constant LGBT propaganda ran all across the board is getting quite annoying though with Netflix trying to make the 50 genders a thing, when it's not. My main issue is that instead of focusing on gaining equal rights and negating discrimination they're promoting utter bullcrap. Obviously, that's a more complex topic as the corporations are hypocritical assholes that exploit them for profits, but either way, they should pick their fights. I fail to see how or when has the public accepted an opinion that they feel strongly against with a massive outburst of propaganda, instead of forcing the opposite effect instead.

Gender seems socially constructed to me, I think people have inferred them from phenotypes and now it's more associated with mental states people have. Doesn't really make sense to me that there are 2 genders or 50 genders. People can characterize human beings however they want but the only thing that really matters is scientific understanding of biology, which currently tells us nothing, and an empathetic understanding of how people think. Generally I think it's irrational for people to care about being identified as a man or woman, or some other gender, outside of the various benefits and downsides of having the associated gender, but this is probably because I fail to understand and empathize with other people on this. Phrases like "X is what defines masuclinity/what being a man is", make zero sense to me, since it seems there is a tacit assumption that people should strive to be that gender.

I fully agree with that. Characterizations should indeed be quite flexible, however we live in a world of structure and I don't mind having flexibility but that flexibility needs to be defined for each of those structures e.g. just because you're a transgender woman doesn't mean you should be allowed to compete in female sports. Your biology traits give you a huge advantage and how you identify socially doesn't change shit when it comes to your biological specifications. It's discrimination towards women to allow such occurrences.

The only thing i'd say to that is that you (and me) are excluding people's mental states from 'biology', when in fact whether someone identifies as a gender is going to be heavily influenced by biology. We don't understand how, but I think it's a reasonable assumption. So you can't conclude that your preferred system is somehow more biological than what the transgender one wants, I think what you really want is to consider very specific biological traits-much like how boxing considers the specific trait of how much someone weighs when determining who they can fight. We could also grade basketball leagues by height. Personally I don't have any strong views on this issue.

On September 29 2021 10:18 Stroggoz wrote: Gender seems socially constructed to me, I think people have inferred them from phenotypes and now it's more associated with mental states people have. Doesn't really make sense to me that there are 2 genders or 50 genders. People can characterize human beings however they want but the only thing that really matters is scientific understanding of biology, which currently tells us nothing, and an empathetic understanding of how people think. Generally I think it's irrational for people to care about being identified as a man or woman, or some other gender, outside of the various benefits and downsides of having the associated gender, but this is probably because I fail to understand and empathize with other people on this. Phrases like "X is what defines masuclinity/what being a man is", make zero sense to me, since it seems there is a tacit assumption that people should strive to be that gender.

Almost every civilization in history has biology based gender roles, these derive from natural habilities and affinities, the most obvious one male superior athleticism, you won't find many civilization with female warrios/hunters and child-caring men.

Agreed that there is no intrinstic value in gender and "being a man/woman", values associated with genders should be pursued because of the virtue not because of its a masculine or femenine trait, also in our modern complex society where traditional gender roles start losing meaning and clear advantages people should be free to feel and identify however the fuck they want, however they don't get tu dictate how other's percieve and adress them at threat of force, freedom goes both ways.

Found this tweet and agree 100%, as I've said before leftoids dont truly care about global warming, and thats why most of them don't talk about nuclear power, it's simply a tool to spread their political ideology while also feeling more virtuous by trying to "save the world"

meh.

There is a certain mass'ness of the size of a nuclear project but if planned well globally it seems like such a cinch to me especially with generation IV reactors and beyond. Just throw 1 in the best possible position on Earth and then move forward. I don't agree with dropping like 100 down all at the same time willy nilly. Just go slow and steady. In 40 years there is the groundwork for some serious sustainable energy.

I'm bull'ish on nuclear but bear'ish on maniacs like Bill Gates wanting to throw up dust into space to block the sun. Anything that is from a plot-line to a dystopic film I am a bit leery of (Snowpiercer) as well as any opinion outside a certain realm of knowledge from people who have billions of dollars.

Anyone have any thoughts on this graph? 65% of Democrats want the government to decide what is true and what is not and to restrict anything they deem to be false even if it limits freedom of info. Are these the same people that spent the last 4 years telling us Trump was going to take us to fascism/authoritarianism? Are you shitting me...

On October 08 2021 23:47 Baalim wrote: Found this tweet and agree 100%, as I've said before leftoids dont truly care about global warming, and thats why most of them don't talk about nuclear power, it's simply a tool to spread their political ideology while also feeling more virtuous by trying to "save the world"

You know that feeling you get when you read those extremely retarded tweets from SJWs/radical feminists or whatever?

That's the equivalent of that for me. This is some of the most obvious extremist propaganda on the other side of the spectrum. You have to be so deep into ideology and denial to fail to realize how ideological it is. What it basically asks us to do is to deny that climate change and its consequences is a social problem. It's instead viewed as a problem of "not enough technology" or not enough faith in rich technocrats to solve problems that far exceed their understanding and resources.

And who is going to decide whose lives are worth sacrificing until you get to your magic invention? Climate change doesn't affect everyone the same way. If your favorite billionaire has a plan to "end climate change" with some science fiction-worthy technology that he claims will arrive in 30 years, how many people's lives are you willing to sacrifice during those 30 years, and from what area of the world? And how many species is it "reasonable" to drive into extinction in the process? Oh right -- the ones that can be sacrificed are the ones that earn them the less money. That is always the answer. So, totally not a social problem, right?

Even if we entertained the preposterous idea that climate change is a simple problem that could be solved by a technological solution, it would not be the billionaire who invents it, obviously. Billionaires are not inventors, they are investors. So they'd invest in some special team of Einsteins who figure out the solution. You think those Einsteins would therefore be ultra-capitalists? It makes no sense. Einstein's socialist politics would not have changed if you had a retard like Naval fund his work.

Ever heard of Naval's argument against UBI? "It can't work because everyone always wants more. It's a slippery slope fallacy but by the way guys it's not a real fallacy".

He also says that specialization is for insects, but argues that if we were smart all human beings would specialize in the hard sciences to move society forward into some kind of post-scarcity society. He doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about. Then he fails to realize he himself is nothing but a specialist at making money - he literally has no talent other than this. A money-making insect. He even looks like one. The guy even admits that "as a kid" he used to bullshit people and make stuff up all the time to try to sound smart, but when the internet came along it became harder to do this so he became more careful lol.

Like a child throwing a tamper tantrum you have already decided that it's not worth listening to what the "big baddies" on the opposite side of the political spectrum are saying about nuclear energy and climate change -- your goal is only to maintain your belief that they don't really care about climate change if they don't believe in your hopium.

On October 09 2021 03:53 blackjacki2 wrote: Anyone have any thoughts on this graph? 65% of Democrats want the government to decide what is true and what is not and to restrict anything they deem to be false even if it limits freedom of info. Are these the same people that spent the last 4 years telling us Trump was going to take us to fascism/authoritarianism? Are you shitting me...

The poll presents a false dichotomy. We could just let journalists decide on what the news is instead of bankers, advertisers, or the government. Same goes for internet influencers, there have been quite a few suggestions on how to overturn things like demonetizing and algorithmically suppressing people because of their political views, that don't involve the government in any way.

I don't think the media went far enough in warning about the dangers of Trump. Last I checked fox news was the most viewed media in the US and they were licking his boots up until jan 6th. The liberal media focused on the wrong issues when it came to Trump, and he was clearly a dangerous demagogue. I didn't actually expect him to go that far. Would it be hyperbolic if someone in 2010 said a presidential candidate would be able to convince a good share of the public that an election was rigged against them? I would've bet against it.

On October 08 2021 23:47 Baalim wrote: Found this tweet and agree 100%, as I've said before leftoids dont truly care about global warming, and thats why most of them don't talk about nuclear power, it's simply a tool to spread their political ideology while also feeling more virtuous by trying to "save the world"

I would still be calling a billionaire an anti-environmentalist if they developed some climate tech all by themselves, because of the fact that they could use a large part of their wealth to fund climate efforts. Being a billionaire is a choice to not do nearly as much as they could.

It doesn't make sense to point to nuclear, most modern scientific research in that area is hugely collaborative between specialists in the sciences. If someone was going to innovate a climate-related technology all by themselves, it would be something small like making a cooking stove more efficient. But that would be unlikely, as even those kinds of innovations usually pretty collaborative.

Once again you have an unrealistically cynical view of who climate activists are.

Let me explain the point more clearly: The scenario pictured is precisely a random deux-ex-machina where Jeff Bezos tomorrow gets some de-carbonizing towers and returns C02 levels to normal, in that scenario leftoids like yourself would sulk

Ironically you proved my point"

Even if we entertained the preposterous idea that climate change is a simple problem that could be solved by a technological solution, it would not be the billionaire who invents it

Does that sound like rejoicing or sulking to you? lol

-------------------------------------------------------


Elon Musk didnt design the rockets or even those cars, what an observation!, you must be in fact a genius unlike that hack right?, who would have known that complex tech of the XXI century requires big multi-disciplinary teams, Elon should have designed the whole thing to the last bolt to get the credit.

Who the fuck is talking about Naval? are you doing the "a Nazi sympathizer also like that tweet" bit again?

You've rejected nuclear energy from the start many years ago before you even had the slightest idea about it because as you just displayed, climate change is nothing but a koyaanisqatsi fantasy for you to justify your ideology, "if only we ushered in socialism we would advert certain doom, there is no other alternative, my political belief is salvation for humanity and the only one!".... clown.


I don't think I've ever witnessed a sharper intellect decline, you still use the same tools but they get duller and duller with time.

[Skip to 1:00] emotional appeal of child leader to UN, 1992

Society prepares for devastating mass software malfunctions, 1999