• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

Are we there yet? Anybody still in doubt that a Trump Presidency is a national disaster?

Page 32 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
15,249
3,475
136
Jeepers I consider myself to be a progressive liberal who attempts to apply critical thinking skills in every decision I make. I am progressive in that my thoughts are free to adjust for corrections when new information is presented to my brain which critically sifts through it and if it is valid I can immediately apply it and make a course correction. I refuse to go along with group think just because it might be a group norm and I am liberal in that I believe that each person has the right of self governance even if I don't agree with what you are doing as long as it only affects you and perhaps other consenting adults around you..

I reject religion just like Jesus did. Just in case you didn't know it Jesus had issues with organized religion and they were always butting heads about principles since Jesus was God in the flesh I believe that his views take precedence over those of any other person. Kindness, respect and tolerance trump hate and stone throwing all day long.
His aim is to make all descriptions of non conservatives as a pejorative.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,503
3,260
126
Jeepers I consider myself to be a progressive liberal who attempts to apply critical thinking skills in every decision I make. I am progressive in that my thoughts are free to adjust for corrections when new information is presented to my brain which critically sifts through it and if it is valid I can immediately apply it and make a course correction. I refuse to go along with group think just because it might be a group norm and I am liberal in that I believe that each person has the right of self governance even if I don't agree with what you are doing as long as it only affects you and perhaps other consenting adults around you..

I reject religion just like Jesus did. Just in case you didn't know it Jesus had issues with organized religion and they were always butting heads about principles since Jesus was God in the flesh I believe that his views take precedence over those of any other person. Kindness, respect and tolerance trump hate and stone throwing all day long.
This is what I see:

werepossum is profoundly morally convinced on a gut level as other conservatives are, that the progressive section of the liberal wing is deeply morally reprehensible, disgusting, threatening to the established order of things, etc etc etc. So he needs to demonize and make it clear to all who will listen that those other types are dangerous freaks. And we have had a steady drum beat of this liberal demonetization throughout the lifetimes of almost every American. It's what conservatives from their morally superior high-ground are wont to do. They have a moral duty to save us from evil and if they didn't act that way they wouldn't be good people. Thjs is their moral condition, morally all jacked up. So they are the best of the best in their own eyes.

What they fail to see however is how they got so morally jacked up and why being morally jacked up like that is an evil. They have been taught to hate the parts of themselves that were naturally liberal, things like not pointing fingers, not bearing false witness, not paying respect to authority that is not earned, not honoring father and mother's mental illness, caring for the least among us, etc etc etc., all the kinds of things that liberals with their pointy little heads are really good at teasing out.

The end result, of course, is that conservatives create via condemnation of the other, the other they fear, the part of themselves that they suppress in the name of morality, violent angry irrational vengeance seeking progressives that want them to suffer the same suffering they brought with them and handed out liberally to liberals. Fear causes us to create what we fear, the monstrous part of ourselves we hold in abeyance.

We need to love our neighbors because out neighbors are the external manifestation of how we really feel about our selves.

Liberal contempt for conservatives just reverses the process.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,503
3,260
126
Yes. (In doubt)

And update your av, you lazy fuck
If you mean me and av means avatar it's not because I'm a lazy fuck but because I'm a stupid fuck and don't know what happened to it or how to get it back. Please try to be more precise in what you call me if in fact you did mean me.
 

Puffnstuff

Lifer
Mar 9, 2005
14,947
3,701
136
His aim is to make all descriptions of non conservatives as a pejorative.
Actually people who call themselves conservative by name are actually the most immoral people I've ever encountered with absolutely no respect for others. Their self righteous blinders prevent them from seeking any truth, especially when it would lead them to change their position on a given matter hence the confirmation bias. I laugh when they point fingers because Jesus set the tempo for conservatism and they are well away from his position on pretty much anything yet they spout garbage in the name of God. A God that they do not know in any way!

Jesus would have no problem with speaking to a member of the LBGT community with respect nor would he condemn women who are unfortunate enough to find themselves at an abortion clinic. He would have compassion for drug addicts and would visit the orphanages to comfort the discarded children therein. I'm sick of people calling themselves Christians when they are anything but. Every time I try to point out what Jesus did at the well with the prostitute when Organized Religion (OR) was stalking her through town to kill her by stoning they make up excuses why it doesn't apply to them or say that isn't what he meant. Well if plain language isn't what he meant do tell?

Jesus was an outcast of OR and never had anything to do with them preaching mainly in common areas. He also didn't get up in peoples faces with the gospel either and allowed people to learn of him by word of mouth so they could attend his services. Jesus worked as a carpenter to pay for his living expenses and his disciples worked as commercial fishermen to pay for their living expenses. OR's being paid to preach is not a biblical doctrine so keep that in mind.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,131
13,071
136
Progressives are the ones who establish group identities so that individuals must be judged ONLY by race or creed or ethnicity or religion or sexual orientation.
So, uhh, where did White Power! come from?
 

agent00f

Lifer
Jun 9, 2016
12,203
1,242
86
agent00f: They work through differing mechanisms but the tautological relationship of designs fit for their environment surviving is identical. The horseshoe crab makes for a perfect example of human misconception about its simple yet effective design proven incorrect by the factual reality of it out-competing/surviving any alternative.

M: What is a tautological relationship of designs? What are the designs specifically and how are they related. Isn't a tautology a linguistic phenomenon where the same idea is repeated like calling something an empty void rather than describing two processes as having similar properties? Or were you striving to be tautological by saying the tautological relationship is identical. Furthermore, what does environment surviving mean. I would think you meant fit for surviving in their environment not that they are fit in a way that makes their environment survive which is what you seem to have actually said. I believe that you reach for a level of erudition beyond what your English abilities can support. I am not trying to belittle your abilities but to suggest that you are difficult enough to understand without sounding, what, professorial?.
Annotated:
"They work through differing mechanisms, but the (tautological relationship) of ((designs fit for their environment) surviving) is identical. " The two bold words reference the same two examples.

Tautology means correct by definition. "Fit" designs survive, and ones that die out aren't fit, through how fit is define. That is the trivial logic structure of the argument. The only facts in contention are whether the designs in question survive or not, and you readily admit the crabs and reward-religion survived; ergo by the logic they are fit for their respective environments.

As for the horseshoe crab, the point I was making is that it hasn't changed because its simple and effective design hasn't faced selective pressure because the environment in which it successfully functions hasn't changed. And the grammar in your sentence is also messed up. When you place 'proven incorrect' behind 'effective design' it sounds like the effective design was proven incorrect rather than the human misconception. And we don't prove misconceptions to be incorrect since that is implied in the mis part of misconception.
The HC has certainly face selective pressure through all sorts of organisms & mutations over eons which compete for food/energy, and it kept winning because it's the best fit for that environment.

The "proven incorrect" refers to the underlying basis of the conception, thus the apt label of misconception. I pondered whether to reworded that sense when writing it, but figure you of all people wouldn't be pedantic about it.

a: And therefore tautologically unfit for mass appeal/direction, whereas the simple/direct methods continue to prove effective. In any case what religion should be is irrelevant to this conversation of what is (see: is-ought) in the real world of the religious right, who certainly do believe a very favorable transactional exchange of external salvation for doing what needs to be done in this life.

M: My brain just flat lined......
You make claims about what religion should be or could be; this is different from what religion as seen IRL in the US is. This is a basic argument fallacy called is-ought.

This is evident from your own claim of "It is a state of mechanical programming from which it is profoundly difficult to awaken." So you don't dispute what *is*, namely religion offered self-interested sizable reward for services rendered, but argue it *should be* some other thing you admit isn't terribly feasible for the masses.

a: The categorical imperative (argument for the greater good) & such as key point of ethics in continental idealism was rather influential on western liberalism. You know, the kind of ideas & values that informed the french & american revolutions and founded the nation we speak of, which I hope you're not disputing as matter of opinion. I would also think using smaller words than most appropriate to be patronizing for people who have the capacity to understand.

Recall this came up as a contrast between a straight reward, ie self-interest, based system vs doing what is right in itself. If it makes you feel better it was never implied the latter is necessarily secular, and if anything much closer to what jesus was talking about than jerry falwell.
M: I am all for high ideals. The problem isn't the size of the words but that they are so abstractly applied I think only you know what was intended.[/QUOTE]

You questioned the applicability of a categorical imperative in this context. I'm arguing it very much applies as an underlying argument for western liberalism, which is in large part why the US was not an authoritarian nation with success of individuals based on quid-pro-quo of services rendered to its leadership. This is in contrast to fascist nations where success is predicated on serving the strongman, or theocratic society where salvation is predicated on service to the priesthood (eg falwell types). IIRC much of the message of the new testament was about being good to others as its own reward; and yet we see the religious right voting for falwell/trump.

I think that makes the argument clear enough. Some people just take to high minded liberalism, and others to self-interested authoritarianism.
 

agent00f

Lifer
Jun 9, 2016
12,203
1,242
86
Another incorrect ASSumption from angentidiot. No surprise. Keep up the wild swinging though. It is major lols.
No, you literally had no idea what empirical means, still don't, and likely never will, because it takes some minimal level of intelligence.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
58
86
No, you literally had no idea what empirical means, still don't, and likely never will, because it takes some minimal level of intelligence.
lol. Underestimating your opponents is the same thing that lost the Dems the election. Good to see you continue to follow in their idiotic footsteps. Punks like you are prime examples of why Hillary lost.
 

agent00f

Lifer
Jun 9, 2016
12,203
1,242
86
lol. Underestimating your opponents is the same thing that lost the Dems the election. Good to see you continue to follow in their idiotic footsteps. Punks like you are prime examples of why Hillary lost.
Democrats along with the GOP establishment were all rather optimistic that the country had moved passed the klanning days when the head birther & alt-right recruiter in chief could be elected president. Too bad your new friends proved that was quite the overestimation.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,503
3,260
126
agent00f: Annotated:
"They work through differing mechanisms, but the (tautological relationship) of ((designs fit for their environment) surviving) is identical. " The two bold words reference the same two examples.

Tautology means correct by definition. "Fit" designs survive, and ones that die out aren't fit, through how fit is define. That is the trivial logic structure of the argument. The only facts in contention are whether the designs in question survive or not, and you readily admit the crabs and reward-religion survived; ergo by the logic they are fit for their respective environments.

M: Nope. Horseshoe crabs have survived millions of years virtually unchanged because the niche they occupy is stable over that time period. What you refer to as reward-based religion is profoundly maladaptive but survives because of the pervasiveness and force by which it is inculcated.

a: The HC has certainly face selective pressure through all sorts of organisms & mutations over eons which compete for food/energy, and it kept winning because it's the best fit for that environment.

M: Two things seem to be required for evolution to take place. One is selective pressure and the other is an isolated sub population small enough for mutations accumulate and express. Probably nothing is best fit fit for any one environment. It just needs to be sufficiently fit to survive.

a: The "proven incorrect" refers to the underlying basis of the conception, thus the apt label of misconception. I pondered whether to reworded that sense when writing it, but figure you of all people wouldn't be pedantic about it.

M; As I said, you give me the end of a stick that requires the hard work of communicating take place on my end.

a: You make claims about what religion should be or could be; this is different from what religion as seen IRL in the US is. This is a basic argument fallacy called is-ought.

M: Yes, your fallacy. Your argument about what religion is is wrong.

a: This is evident from your own claim of "It is a state of mechanical programming from which it is profoundly difficult to awaken." So you don't dispute what *is*, namely religion offered self-interested sizable reward for services rendered, but argue it *should be* some other thing you admit isn't terribly feasible for the masses.

M: I'm arguing that you have no choice to argue as you do because you are asleep.

M: I am all for high ideals. The problem isn't the size of the words but that they are so abstractly applied I think only you know what was intended.[/QUOTE]

a: You questioned the applicability of a categorical imperative in this context. I'm arguing it very much applies as an underlying argument for western liberalism, which is in large part why the US was not an authoritarian nation with success of individuals based on quid-pro-quo of services rendered to its leadership. This is in contrast to fascist nations where success is predicated on serving the strongman, or theocratic society where salvation is predicated on service to the priesthood (eg falwell types). IIRC much of the message of the new testament was about being good to others as its own reward; and yet we see the religious right voting for falwell/trump.

I think that makes the argument clear enough. Some people just take to high minded liberalism, and others to self-interested authoritarianism.

M; I have no problems with that. I have problems with where you go with that, that conservatives are consciously aware and make conscious choices to be what they are and should be condemned for it. You are blaming people who are asleep and you have to be asleep to do that. You are looking at people who were made to be who they are through the terror or punishment and your answer to that is to punish them more.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
58
86
Democrats along with the GOP establishment were all rather optimistic that the country had moved passed the klanning days when the head birther & alt-right recruiter in chief could be elected president. Too bad your new friends proved that was quite the overestimation.
And now you've gone rhetorically insane.

btw, I can't stand Trump, but you can't quite seem to grasp a position that sees both you and Trump as complete morons. But somehow you both are, just on opposite ends of the spectrum. Imagine that? Despite all of your self-professed brilliance and arrogance you remain absolutely blinded to the fact that you're the left's version of Trump.
 

agent00f

Lifer
Jun 9, 2016
12,203
1,242
86
And now you've gone rhetorically insane.

btw, I can't stand Trump, but you can't quite seem to grasp a position that sees both you and Trump as complete morons. But somehow you both are, just on opposite ends of the spectrum. Imagine that? Despite all of your self-professed brilliance and arrogance you remain absolutely blinded to the fact that you're the left's version of Trump.
Pretty obvious the GOP only needs you to believe "both sides" and not show up to get what they want out of it. Keep in mind the easily played are the morons, and this play is remarkably simple; simple enough to be implemented by their dullard agitprop squad, and effective enough that the target audience evidently swear up and down they're the smart ones.

Makes perfect sense why you choose to remain willfully ignorant of this rather simple reality.
 

agent00f

Lifer
Jun 9, 2016
12,203
1,242
86
agent00f: Annotated:
"They work through differing mechanisms, but the (tautological relationship) of ((designs fit for their environment) surviving) is identical. " The two bold words reference the same two examples.

Tautology means correct by definition. "Fit" designs survive, and ones that die out aren't fit, through how fit is define. That is the trivial logic structure of the argument. The only facts in contention are whether the designs in question survive or not, and you readily admit the crabs and reward-religion survived; ergo by the logic they are fit for their respective environments.

M: Nope. Horseshoe crabs have survived millions of years virtually unchanged because the niche they occupy is stable over that time period. What you refer to as reward-based religion is profoundly maladaptive but survives because of the pervasiveness and force by which it is inculcated.
The absolute pervasiveness of reward-based religion proves it's well-adapted and therefore evolutionary effective.

a: The HC has certainly face selective pressure through all sorts of organisms & mutations over eons which compete for food/energy, and it kept winning because it's the best fit for that environment.

M: Two things seem to be required for evolution to take place. One is selective pressure and the other is an isolated sub population small enough for mutations accumulate and express. Probably nothing is best fit fit for any one environment. It just needs to be sufficiently fit to survive.
Evolution doesn't distinguish between "best" or "sufficient" or whatever designs as judged by people, only effective ones that survive in their environment, which boy do reward-based religion and simple anthropods not only survive but thrive.

a: The "proven incorrect" refers to the underlying basis of the conception, thus the apt label of misconception. I pondered whether to reworded that sense when writing it, but figure you of all people wouldn't be pedantic about it.

M; As I said, you give me the end of a stick that requires the hard work of communicating take place on my end.

a: You make claims about what religion should be or could be; this is different from what religion as seen IRL in the US is. This is a basic argument fallacy called is-ought.

M: Yes, your fallacy. Your argument about what religion is is wrong.
I'm simply describing religions as it exists, eg the religious right, anything that promises (usually overwhelming) supernatural returns on investment, etc. But one of us is proclaiming it should be some other thing purportedly rather untenable for the masses.

a: This is evident from your own claim of "It is a state of mechanical programming from which it is profoundly difficult to awaken." So you don't dispute what *is*, namely religion offered self-interested sizable reward for services rendered, but argue it *should be* some other thing you admit isn't terribly feasible for the masses.

M: I'm arguing that you have no choice to argue as you do because you are asleep.
Waking up here doesn't change the basic facts or logic of our current shared reality (ie religions as it's practiced) which you or anyone else can see is plain and evident, even if they absolutely hate the implications and thus want to argue differently.

a: You questioned the applicability of a categorical imperative in this context. I'm arguing it very much applies as an underlying argument for western liberalism, which is in large part why the US was not an authoritarian nation with success of individuals based on quid-pro-quo of services rendered to its leadership. This is in contrast to fascist nations where success is predicated on serving the strongman, or theocratic society where salvation is predicated on service to the priesthood (eg falwell types). IIRC much of the message of the new testament was about being good to others as its own reward; and yet we see the religious right voting for falwell/trump.

I think that makes the argument clear enough. Some people just take to high minded liberalism, and others to self-interested authoritarianism.

M; I have no problems with that. I have problems with where you go with that, that conservatives are consciously aware and make conscious choices to be what they are and should be condemned for it. You are blaming people who are asleep and you have to be asleep to do that. You are looking at people who were made to be who they are through the terror or punishment and your answer to that is to punish them more.
This isn't "punishment" so much as producing the right pavlovian responses. Similar to evolution or some individual animal, "intent/will" doesn't matter here, only the effect a design might have. A dog doesn't need to know why it shouldn't climb on the bed, and can't anyway, only that it gets smacked if it does. We've tried rewarding the red areas for civilized behavior, and it's pretty clear carrots are not doing the job. I'm hardly the one insisting on doubling down with a failed strategy.

Also, I don't blame you for kindness towards fellow men, but know that we can erroneously anthropomorphize animals without a conscience.
 

Puffnstuff

Lifer
Mar 9, 2005
14,947
3,701
136
No, you literally had no idea what empirical means, still don't, and likely never will, because it takes some minimal level of intelligence.
Pavlov would approve of your message and Seligman would get the battery cables out.:eek::p:D
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
58
86
Pretty obvious the GOP only needs you to believe "both sides" and not show up to get what they want out of it. Keep in mind the easily played are the morons, and this play is remarkably simple; simple enough to be implemented by their dullard agitprop squad, and effective enough that the target audience evidently swear up and down they're the smart ones.

Makes perfect sense why you choose to remain willfully ignorant of this rather simple reality.
Now there's something we can agree on; because the Democrats certainly got played in this election by the polls and the media, who both missed the mark. So we agree, the easily played ARE the morons.

btw, it appears that "agitprop" was recently the word of the day in your high-school poli-sci class. Congrats on your incessant use of it.

Also, I will remind you once again, since you can't actually seem to get it straight, but I was not any sort of target. I didn't vote for Trump. But it's readily apparent that you have no clue how to deal with anyone that falls outside of the talking-points memo. Such a position clearly confuses the holy hell out of you.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
28,200
8,044
136
Now there's something we can agree on; because the Democrats certainly got played in this election by the polls and the media, who both missed the mark. So we agree, the easily played ARE the morons.

btw, it appears that "agitprop" was recently the word of the day in your high-school poli-sci class. Congrats on your incessant use of it.

Also, I will remind you once again, since you can't actually seem to get it straight, but I was not any sort of target. I didn't vote for Trump. But it's readily apparent that you have no clue how to deal with anyone that falls outside of the talking-points memo. Such a position clearly confuses the holy hell out of you.
The media/polls didn't get it wrong, Hillary was looking to win the popular vote by 2-3 points and she did. Trump had a slim chance of winning and the media said as much. The only insurance I can think of where the media got it wrong was maybe their call for Pennsylvania.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,503
3,260
126
The absolute pervasiveness of reward-based religion proves it's well-adapted and therefore evolutionary effective.


Evolution doesn't distinguish between "best" or "sufficient" or whatever designs as judged by people, only effective ones that survive in their environment, which boy do reward-based religion and simple anthropods not only survive but thrive.


I'm simply describing religions as it exists, eg the religious right, anything that promises (usually overwhelming) supernatural returns on investment, etc. But one of us is proclaiming it should be some other thing purportedly rather untenable for the masses.


Waking up here doesn't change the basic facts or logic of our current shared reality (ie religions as it's practiced) which you or anyone else can see is plain and evident, even if they absolutely hate the implications and thus want to argue differently.



This isn't "punishment" so much as producing the right pavlovian responses. Similar to evolution or some individual animal, "intent/will" doesn't matter here, only the effect a design might have. A dog doesn't need to know why it shouldn't climb on the bed, and can't anyway, only that it gets smacked if it does. We've tried rewarding the red areas for civilized behavior, and it's pretty clear carrots are not doing the job. I'm hardly the one insisting on doubling down with a failed strategy.

Also, I don't blame you for kindness towards fellow men, but know that we can erroneously anthropomorphize animals without a conscience.
It's pretty simple. You are doubling down on a failed strategy. It's there strategy to do that to you that makes you feel the same way. You nail yourself to the wheel of Karma when you do that.
 

agent00f

Lifer
Jun 9, 2016
12,203
1,242
86
Now there's something we can agree on; because the Democrats certainly got played in this election by the polls and the media, who both missed the mark. So we agree, the easily played ARE the morons.
The democrats sure got played by the rust belt non-college white demo. That should show them to have any optimism in the face of clear racial identity & resentment data. The same democrats which saved half their good jobs not long ago and should've known who places race before honor or econ.

Seems they'll get played again because many have about your intellect at figuring things out.

btw, it appears that "agitprop" was recently the word of the day in your high-school poli-sci class. Congrats on your incessant use of it.
That's how words are used, when some entity identified by them are referenced. Consider reviewing grade school english if this is confusing.

Also, I will remind you once again, since you can't actually seem to get it straight, but I was not any sort of target. I didn't vote for Trump. But it's readily apparent that you have no clue how to deal with anyone that falls outside of the talking-points memo. Such a position clearly confuses the holy hell out of you.
Hilarious you still can't figure how you got so easily play. They don't need you to vote for Trump, just not vote against him. Appears this is just one of those things like "empirical" you're not meant to grasp.

Also hilarious accusation about talking-points memos when the official party line to appease the rust belt even more is exactly what you're parroting. There's literally nothing in your head that's not PR copy.


It's pretty simple. You are doubling down on a failed strategy. It's there strategy to do that to you that makes you feel the same way. You nail yourself to the wheel of Karma when you do that.
Pretty hard to double down on a strategy that's not currently employed. Democrats have been centrist since at least the first Clinton, and Trump just found the way to beat that, likely for perpetuity given the democratic response.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,503
3,260
126
Pretty hard to double down on a strategy that's not currently employed. Democrats have been centrist since at least the first Clinton, and Trump just found the way to beat that, likely for perpetuity given the democratic response.
I'm not talking about the Democratic response. I'm talking about yours.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY