The Democrat Primary Race Is Filling Up

[JettaKnight]

Suspicious I am. Too good to be true it seems

It's a trap!

It's OK, he'll survive,..... unless the driver of the car was in blackface.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Reuters had evidence in 2017 that Beto may have committed multiple felonies—which Beto confirmed on the record—but deliberately withheld the story for over a year to help him win his Senate race

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-backstory-usa-politics-orourke-idUSKCN1QX02M

 

[Mikey1911]

Reuters had evidence in 2017 that Beto may have committed multiple felonies—which Beto confirmed on the record—but deliberately withheld the story for over a year to help him win his Senate race

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-backstory-usa-politics-orourke-idUSKCN1QX02M

How about that—British collusion with a Democrat political candidate?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Sens. Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren and Kirsten Gillibrand said they would not rule out expanding the Supreme Court if elected president

 

[jamil]

Sens. Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren and Kirsten Gillibrand said they would not rule out expanding the Supreme Court if elected president

Let that become precedent and we’ll be ratcheting up the number of justices every time there’s a party change in the Whitehouse.

 

[Ingomike]

Let that become precedent and we’ll be ratcheting up the number of justices every time there’s a party change in the Whitehouse.

True, but lacking sight of the goals, they do not like our current system of government and want to blow it up so they can remake it...

Only people that want our people control government structure actually care about this...

 

[JettaKnight]

True, but lacking sight of the goals, they do not like our current system of government and want to blow it up so they can remake it...

Only people that want our people control government structure actually care about this...

Wait, I thought we Conservatives didn't like the current government and wanted to blow it up - that's why we voted in Trump.

 

[jamil]

Wait, I thought we Conservatives didn't like the current government and wanted to blow it up - that's why we voted in Trump.

That seems like a facile sort of take on it. Some missing but relevant information:

The core Trumper is right wing but isn't necessarily a small-government conservative. Many are. Many aren't. They want to blow things up for different reasons. Authoritarians want to blow up the leftness out of government and replace it with rightness. Conservatives want to blow up the crony bloated welfare state and replace it with nothing.

 

[JettaKnight]

That seems like a facile sort of take on it.

Yeah. It was meant to be a facile response to a facile statement.

 

[BugI02]

That seems like a facile sort of take on it. Some missing but relevant information:

The core Trumper is right wing but isn't necessarily a small-government conservative. Many are. Many aren't. They want to blow things up for different reasons. Authoritarians want to blow up the leftness out of government and replace it with rightness. Conservatives want to blow up the crony bloated welfare state and replace it with nothing.

That's a pretty hagiographic view of the motives of 'Conservatives' (as opposed to small 'c') for someone who professes to not believe in tribes

 

[Leadeye]

Sens. Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren and Kirsten Gillibrand said they would not rule out expanding the Supreme Court if elected president

I'm figuring those three will be among the early casualties. It will be interesting to see who's got the real sugar daddies that are in for the long haul, and who they are.

 

[jamil]

That's a pretty hagiographic view of the motives of 'Conservatives' (as opposed to small 'c') for someone who professes to not believe in tribes

Okay. You made me look that one up. And you've hit on something I'm just going to stream on for awhile.

Let's start with the concept of "believe in". I believe in tribes in that they're actually a biological kind of instinct, which helped humans be more successful in reproducing than other rivals. That's about as far as I could say "believe in" or "not believe in" supports my view.

I think it is more rational to recognize the extent to which our values are intertwined with the identify of our tribe, and then strive to override the instinct for tribal thinking. That doesn't mean that we can't agree with many principles we've learned from our tribe. So the extent to which I agree with principles in conservatism, I don't want the agreement to be because of my identity with that tribe. If I agree with a principle, I want it to be purely an issue of it conforming to my values and not conforming with a tribal instinct. It's been my observation in myself and others, that we tend to follow "the team" on issues that if it weren't for the identity, we might not have taken on that belief or position.

For example, I've changed some positions and softened up on libertarianism, because some of those views I thought I held strongly had a dissonance with other values I hold. In trying to resolve the dissonance, I had to admit to myself that there wasn't a genuine reason why I should hold some of those libertarian views so strongly, other than identity with libertarians. I mean, who wants to be a statist? It's not that I believed what they believed because it's the team. It's that I accepted some things into belief because I was less critical of those ideas because I identified with libertariansm. Another example from the Left is Trump and Russia. People can't accept the thought that Trump might not be guilty of treason with the Russians. I asked someone at work how he would feel if Mueller's report didn't find anything. He said that's impossible. Couldn't even entertain the suggestion. That's tribalism on display.

I'm aware that it's really hard to reject "team" in favor of individual rationality, just like it was impossible for the guy to even ponder what it would feel like if Trump were not guilty of whatever crimes he imagined. I'm aware that I can't do reject tribalism as completely as I want. I'm biased as anyone. However, failure to live up to one's standards is not hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is holding others to standards I don't actually hold myself. So there's a subtle difference there. I'm an advocate for people eschewing "teams" because you at least have a shot at accepting the truth over bias. I'm not an enforcer of that view though. Just an advocate. That's because we're very deterministic creatures, and we mostly can't help it.

I'm not going to go so far as to accept Sam Harris's belief that we're 100% deterministic. But there are plenty of studies that suggest we're far more deterministic than ruled by free will. Bias rules our beliefs and values, which means that we're not anywhere near as rational as we think we are. But, I want my 10% to override the 90% as much as possible. Maybe that's wrong. Maybe we're not wise enough to override instinct with rationality, yet. Maybe doing so makes some things worse. Maybe we need to learn a lot more about the social and physical world before rationality can truly overtake our deterministic nature. But, I think about the times rationality won, and that we've been better off for it. Rationality defeated tribal tyranny in battle after battle from the dark ages into the Enlightenment. It brought about the US and the best implementation of idea of individualism. And now tribalism is bringing us ever closer to regressing as we watch the culture war tear apart what we gained.

 

[BugI02]

Okay. You made me look that one up. And you've hit on something I'm just going to stream on for awhile.

Let's start with the concept of "believe in". I believe in tribes in that they're actually a biological kind of instinct, which helped humans be more successful in reproducing than other rivals. That's about as far as I could say "believe in" or "not believe in" supports my view.

I think it is more rational to recognize the extent to which our values are intertwined with the identify of our tribe, and then strive to override the instinct for tribal thinking. That doesn't mean that we can't agree with many principles we've learned from our tribe. So the extent to which I agree with principles in conservatism, I don't want the agreement to be because of my identity with that tribe. If I agree with a principle, I want it to be purely an issue of it conforming to my values and not conforming with a tribal instinct. It's been my observation in myself and others, that we tend to follow "the team" on issues that if it weren't for the identity, we might not have taken on that belief or position.

For example, I've changed some positions and softened up on libertarianism, because some of those views I thought I held strongly had a dissonance with other values I hold. In trying to resolve the dissonance, I had to admit to myself that there wasn't a genuine reason why I should hold some of those libertarian views so strongly, other than identity with libertarians. I mean, who wants to be a statist? It's not that I believed what they believed because it's the team. It's that I accepted some things into belief because I was less critical of those ideas because I identified with libertariansm. Another example from the Left is Trump and Russia. People can't accept the thought that Trump might not be guilty of treason with the Russians. I asked someone at work how he would feel if Mueller's report didn't find anything. He said that's impossible. Couldn't even entertain the suggestion. That's tribalism on display.

I'm aware that it's really hard to reject "team" in favor of individual rationality, just like it was impossible for the guy to even ponder what it would feel like if Trump were not guilty of whatever crimes he imagined. I'm aware that I can't do reject tribalism as completely as I want. I'm biased as anyone. However, failure to live up to one's standards is not hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is holding others to standards I don't actually hold myself. So there's a subtle difference there. I'm an advocate for people eschewing "teams" because you at least have a shot at accepting the truth over bias. I'm not an enforcer of that view though. Just an advocate. That's because we're very deterministic creatures, and we mostly can't help it.

I'm not going to go so far as to accept Sam Harris's belief that we're 100% deterministic. But there are plenty of studies that suggest we're far more deterministic than ruled by free will. Bias rules our beliefs and values, which means that we're not anywhere near as rational as we think we are. But, I want my 10% to override the 90% as much as possible. Maybe that's wrong. Maybe we're not wise enough to override instinct with rationality, yet. Maybe doing so makes some things worse. Maybe we need to learn a lot more about the social and physical world before rationality can truly overtake our deterministic nature. But, I think about the times rationality won, and that we've been better off for it. Rationality defeated tribal tyranny in battle after battle from the dark ages into the Enlightenment. It brought about the US and the best implementation of idea of individualism. And now tribalism is bringing us ever closer to regressing as we watch the culture war tear apart what we gained.

If you're not familiar with Scott Adams' take on ... well, everything that's been going on since late 2015 - you should be. Especially the parts about how we only think we make rational decisions based on facts. I do agree with many points you make, we just differ on where to go from there

 

[jamil]

I’m familiar with Scott Adams. I subscribe to his YouTube channel, and I do losten to some of his views. And now I think I understand a little better why you and I disagree on where we go from an understanding of bias.

 

[BugI02]

I find the concept of people running separate movies in their heads off the same set of facts to be persuasive. In my movie, I see it all the time

 

[mmpsteve]

I'm aware that it's really hard to reject "team" in favor of individual rationality,I'm biased as anyone. However, failure to live up to one's standards is not hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is holding others to standards I don't actually hold myself. So there's a subtle difference there. I'm an advocate for people eschewing "teams" because you at least have a shot at accepting the truth over bias. I'm not an enforcer of that view though. Just an advocate. That's because we're very deterministic creatures, and we mostly can't help it.

Rationality defeated tribal tyranny in battle after battle from the dark ages into the Enlightenment. It brought about the US and the best implementation of idea of individualism. And now tribalism is bringing us ever closer to regressing as we watch the culture war tear apart what we gained.

Jamil, sir, have you read 'Atlas Shrugged', by Ayn Rand? If not, do so as soon as possible. It will solve all your doubts about collectivism and rationality.

.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Jamil, sir, have you read 'Atlas Shrugged', by Ayn Rand? If not, do so as soon as possible. It will solve all your doubts about collectivism and rationality.

.

did you just assume his gender

 

[BugI02]

I’m familiar with Scott Adams. I subscribe to his YouTube channel, and I do losten to some of his views. And now I think I understand a little better why you and I disagree on where we go from an understanding of bias.

Is that some kind of compression algorithm? I'm familiar with 'lossy' but ...

 

[jamil]

Jamil, sir, have you read 'Atlas Shrugged', by Ayn Rand? If not, do so as soon as possible. It will solve all your doubts about collectivism and rationality.

.

Yes. I found it kinda boring. Rand isn’t a particularly good fiction writer. I’ve heard people say that fountainhead is actually better written but I have not read it. I like her nonfiction works better. In nonfiction I’ve read The Virtue of Selfishness, and Capitalism. The fundamental problem with Rand is she has, what seems to me, an ideologically derived view of human nature.

About rationalism, it’s probably better than just running instinctive algorithms. But instinct may be better in some cases where we don’t have a complete knowledge and understanding of the facts. So maybe on some things we’re full of **** and don’t really know it. Maybe leaving it to instinct in those cases where we’re full of **** could produce a better result.

 

[mmpsteve]

Yes. I found it kinda boring. Rand isn’t a particularly good fiction writer. I’ve heard people say that fountainhead is actually better written but I have not read it. I like her nonfiction works better. In nonfiction I’ve read The Virtue of Selfishness, and Capitalism. The fundamental problem with Rand is she has, what seems to me, an ideologically derived view of human nature.

About rationalism, it’s probably better than just running instinctive algorithms. But instinct may be better in some cases where we don’t have a complete knowledge and understanding of the facts. So maybe on some things we’re full of **** and don’t really know it. Maybe leaving it to instinct in those cases where we’re full of **** could produce a better result.

Fountainhead is worth reading.

.