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

agent00f

Lifer
Jun 9, 2016
12,203
1,242
86
Can you state your solution in terms of the dilemma.
Stop assuming they'll reciprocate appeasement. Play hardball with budgeting anything to red areas esp. the rust belt, and generally start preparing for a divorce from this poisonous relationship.

They can have their ethnofascist state; don't get dragged down with the sinking ship.
 

KMFJD

Lifer
Aug 11, 2005
20,981
20,128
136
Stop assuming they'll reciprocate appeasement. Play hardball with budgeting anything to red areas esp. the rust belt, and generally start preparing for a divorce from this poisonous relationship.

They can have their ethnofascist state; don't get dragged down with the sinking ship.
Your coming unhinged, acting like the gop has for the last 8 years isn't a great solution.
 

agent00f

Lifer
Jun 9, 2016
12,203
1,242
86
Your coming unhinged, acting like the gop has for the last 8 years isn't a great solution.
People too naive to play the game intelligently deserve to lose, which is why democrats will for the foreseeable future.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,500
3,260
126
Stop assuming they'll reciprocate appeasement. Play hardball with budgeting anything to red areas esp. the rust belt, and generally start preparing for a divorce from this poisonous relationship.

They can have their ethnofascist state; don't get dragged down with the sinking ship.
Sorry, I wanted to be clear on how you solve the actual, the classic prisoner's dilemma puzzle, not the red blue thing although I appreciate the clarity there too.
 

agent00f

Lifer
Jun 9, 2016
12,203
1,242
86
Sorry, I wanted to be clear on how you solve the actual, the classic prisoner's dilemma puzzle, not the red blue thing although I appreciate the clarity there too.
There are nuances depending on variations, but the classic formulation is "solved" by both sides screwing each other to some degree to avoid one side (ie yours) stupidly trusting the other and getting majorly hosed.

Typically IRL studies find humans tend to be more magnanimous than follow optimal strategy, but pretty obvious in this case which parties can't be trusted.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,130
13,070
136
Stop assuming they'll reciprocate appeasement. Play hardball with budgeting anything to red areas esp. the rust belt, and generally start preparing for a divorce from this poisonous relationship.

They can have their ethnofascist state; don't get dragged down with the sinking ship.
Clinton lost by slim margins in the Rust Belt, and that was more an issue of turnout than anything else. We're not a banana republic unless we manage to talk ourselves into being one.
 

agent00f

Lifer
Jun 9, 2016
12,203
1,242
86
Clinton lost by slim margins in the Rust Belt, and that was more an issue of turnout than anything else. We're not a banana republic unless we manage to talk ourselves into being one.
Do you take Bannon to be a stupid guy who can't figure out how to use the full funding of the american government to buy loyalty? A turnout issue is not responsible for Trump swinging that non-college white vote 14%, and that's without the federal checkbook. All those fascist regimes this playbook is from must a figment of historical imagination. That erdogan guy must only be successful cus those dummy muslims, right?

Just as I thought. You cannot name a one.

Nice try at deflection though. Unfortunately it's FAIL for you.
LOL @ dunning kruger posterchild not even smart enough to figure out how he's being mocked.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,130
13,070
136
Do you take Bannon to be a stupid guy who can't figure out how to use the full funding of the american government to buy loyalty? A turnout issue is not responsible for Trump swinging that non-college white vote 14%, and that's without the federal checkbook. All those fascist regimes this playbook is from must a figment of historical imagination. That erdogan guy must only be successful cus those dummy muslims, right?
Thrashing about just a little bit, huh?

Beating up on swing state voters is impossible when you've lost & undesirable when you've won. It's not like Trump controls the federal purse, either. That falls to the HOR, so whatever those folks get has to fit through the orifice of Repub ideology. It won't be much. It can't be.
 

agent00f

Lifer
Jun 9, 2016
12,203
1,242
86
Thrashing about just a little bit, huh?

Beating up on swing state voters is impossible when you've lost & undesirable when you've won. It's not like Trump controls the federal purse, either. That falls to the HOR, so whatever those folks get has to fit through the orifice of Repub ideology. It won't be much. It can't be.
Seems only one of us is engaged in wishful thinking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ivwshane

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,130
13,070
136
Seems only one of us is engaged in wishful thinking.
Heh. The rust belt phenomenon didn't just pop up recently. The term has been in use since the 80's. The current situation is the result of Jerb Creator activity, make no mistake about that, and it's all driven by the underlying Repub ideology of free markets, limited regulation, smaller govt & tax policy favoring the very wealthy above everybody else. Greed is good, remember?

The only way Trump & the Repubs can deliver to the Rust Belt would be to act like Dems & that obviously won't happen. They're ideologically opposed to such things because there's less profit in it.

The only venue in which they can deliver is the Culture War & that's just by beating everybody else down to rust belt status with those at the wrong end of the economic food chain suffering the worst.

As I've offered, prosperous blue states don't mind subsidizing our poorer brothers & sisters in areas ravaged by Capital migration & technological progress. Repubs will likely prevent that from working well with savage cuts to federal social welfare spending of all sorts. That means blue states need to raise taxes & services as Repubs cut them to better take care of our own. Sadly enough, we'll actually come out ahead being forbidden to act at the federal level because we get to keep all the money, not just some of it.
 

agent00f

Lifer
Jun 9, 2016
12,203
1,242
86
Heh. The rust belt phenomenon didn't just pop up recently. The term has been in use since the 80's. The current situation is the result of Jerb Creator activity, make no mistake about that, and it's all driven by the underlying Repub ideology of free markets, limited regulation, smaller govt & tax policy favoring the very wealthy above everybody else. Greed is good, remember?

The only way Trump & the Repubs can deliver to the Rust Belt would be to act like Dems & that obviously won't happen. They're ideologically opposed to such things because there's less profit in it.

The only venue in which they can deliver is the Culture War & that's just by beating everybody else down to rust belt status with those at the wrong end of the economic food chain suffering the worst.

As I've offered, prosperous blue states don't mind subsidizing our poorer brothers & sisters in areas ravaged by Capital migration & technological progress. Repubs will likely prevent that from working well with savage cuts to federal social welfare spending of all sorts. That means blue states need to raise taxes & services as Repubs cut them to better take care of our own. Sadly enough, we'll actually come out ahead being forbidden to act at the federal level because we get to keep all the money, not just some of it.
These are obviously people who'll do what it takes to keep winning that EC, and they've seen what happens to people who defy trump.

Why so keen on the american exceptionalism that it can't happen here?
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
13,026
2,581
126
There are nuances depending on variations, but the classic formulation is "solved" by both sides screwing each other to some degree to avoid one side (ie yours) stupidly trusting the other and getting majorly hosed.

Typically IRL studies find humans tend to be more magnanimous than follow optimal strategy, but pretty obvious in this case which parties can't be trusted.
Just wanted to point out that the correct solution to the Prisoner's Dilemma is to cooperate. That is the rational solution. The whole thing was designed as a thought experiment to show how people make bad decisions that lead to the worst possible solution.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
Eew. I'm going to have to start calling myself a ham sandwich. What would you call somebody who has all the range of moral values of a conservative in pure form and none of the moral blindness and hypocrisy? I can't just run around calling myself God.
Claiming that you have "all the range of moral values of a conservative in pure form and none of the moral blindness and hypocrisy" IS calling yourself G-d, dude.

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.
I agree with what you are saying, but your deciding that one group (the left) is morally correct on every issue nullifies your premise. And I've seen you exercise zero "kindness, respect and tolerance" for anyone who disagree with you. Hint: EVERYONE respects and tolerates those who think exactly the same. Even people in cults. Even people in secular cults.

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.
<sigh> You guys on the far left really need to apply for government assistance to hire people to read things for you, understand them, and explain them to you in ways that you can understand. I ascribed all the benefits of Western civilization to LIBERALS. NOT TO CONSERVATIVES. TO LIBERALS.

Conservatives are good for maintaining good, not necessarily so good in developing new good. We tend to want to conserve the status quo because there is invariably good in any successful system. That can be good if the proposed change is toward less freedom, less individual liberty, less economic opportunity. It can also be bad if the proposed change is toward more freedom, more individual liberty, more economic opportunity. Change is not inherently good or bad, it's just different. Conservatism is neither inherently good nor evil. Neither is progressivism either inherently good or evil. The most we can do is point out how often progressives are opposed not just to conservative principles, but also to liberal principles. Even that is not totally diagnostic - what may be most desirable in an agrarian nation of 100 million may not be most desirable (or even tolerable) in a large urban nation of 330 million, so yesterday's Western liberalism ideals may be less than practical. But it certainly is striking to see how often the left today is running 180 degrees from Western liberalism's core principles.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
So, uhh, where did White Power! come from?
From the far right. I was contrasting only within today's American left, for unlike yourself, I don't think that any one party, outlook, or movement has anything near a monopoly on either being morally correct, or being morally incorrect. Even to the point of being evil.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,130
13,070
136
Conservatives are good for maintaining good, not necessarily so good in developing new good. We tend to want to conserve the status quo because there is invariably good in any successful system. That can be good if the proposed change is toward less freedom, less individual liberty, less economic opportunity. It can also be bad if the proposed change is toward more freedom, more individual liberty, more economic opportunity. Change is not inherently good or bad, it's just different. Conservatism is neither inherently good nor evil. Neither is progressivism either inherently good or evil. The most we can do is point out how often progressives are opposed not just to conservative principles, but also to liberal principles. Even that is not totally diagnostic - what may be most desirable in an agrarian nation of 100 million may not be most desirable (or even tolerable) in a large urban nation of 330 million, so yesterday's Western liberalism ideals may be less than practical. But it certainly is striking to see how often the left today is running 180 degrees from Western liberalism's core principles.
Trumpian level bullshit. You toss about terms so vague as to be pure gibberish.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,130
13,070
136
From the far right. I was contrasting only within today's American left, for unlike yourself, I don't think that any one party, outlook, or movement has anything near a monopoly on either being morally correct, or being morally incorrect. Even to the point of being evil.
Yes, of course you were... not.

You're just sliming progressives.

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.
You qualify that only after being called on it. It's still bullshit.
 

Puffnstuff

Lifer
Mar 9, 2005
14,947
3,701
136
I agree with what you are saying, but your deciding that one group (the left) is morally correct on every issue nullifies your premise. And I've seen you exercise zero "kindness, respect and tolerance" for anyone who disagree with you. Hint: EVERYONE respects and tolerates those who think exactly the same. Even people in cults. Even people in secular cults.
No more than you've decided that the right is more correct than the left. When I weigh things out I don't fully agree with either party's line, however I do agree with the left more so than the right and legislated morality from people who have very low standards themselves is just plain hypocritical.
 
Last edited:

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,500
3,260
126
There are nuances depending on variations, but the classic formulation is "solved" by both sides screwing each other to some degree to avoid one side (ie yours) stupidly trusting the other and getting majorly hosed.

Typically IRL studies find humans tend to be more magnanimous than follow optimal strategy, but pretty obvious in this case which parties can't be trusted.
Just wanted to point out that the correct solution to the Prisoner's Dilemma is to cooperate. That is the rational solution. The whole thing was designed as a thought experiment to show how people make bad decisions that lead to the worst possible solution.
I think that agent's point is that conservatives don't act rationally against rational players and thereby obtain a game advantage and his idea is that you have to punish the irrational for making irrational choices in order to cause them to abandon that destructive strategy.

Furthermore, I would say to him, based on his instance that what we see in nature is a successful evolutionary strategy and that there are in human culture particularly, but in the animal world, examples of where altruism is the winning strategy. Bacteria will clump in the presence of poison leading to the survival of some, bats will share blood, and monkeys will shout warnings even though doing so exposes them to danger more that the quiet ones because a temporary risk is offset over a lifetime amongst other screamers.

But there are huge swathes of human activities that ameliorate against the normal dangers that most animals face. We cook food, wear clothes and make tools, etc. We use reason to improve our chances at survival.

So the simple answer to the dilemma we face regarding altruism is to reward it when it takes place and to punish it when it does not. This relates to what I call creating what you fear. If you fear losing and are full of mistrust you will create opponents who will seek to destroy you. agent enters our picture here. This is what would happen in nature. The reward for selfishness is enmity and the reward for altruism, or as I like to call them, progressive values, is friendship and greater success.

So among humans the job should be to create a society that moves away from punishment to enforce altruism by working toward an enlightened citizenship that understands its benefits and chooses it consciously.

How can that be done?

It seems to me that the wellspring upon which human cooperation is built is genetically ingrained empathy. It is what we were born to be, our true nature if you will, the product of a social evolution that allows us to feel what others feel, and in part a mammalian desire tto protect our offspring vastly extended. So the job we have, in my opinion, is to understand what the forces are that replace that empathy with selfishness, suspicion, and fear of losing. And the answer to that, I believe, is that we learned to use language that has the power to transmit imaginary ideas painfully, putting our children down for behaviors we think are worthless without carefully delineating that it's the behavior that's unacceptable not the person. The result of this, of course, is that we have come to hate ourselves and are thus full of imaginary and selfish needs.

Put simply, what we are in need of as liberals, in my opinion, is a message that has moral and emotional appeal to the part of ourselves that is real, that every person is of value and the greatest sense of purpose and value a person can have is his innate love of others. The love of others goes hand in hand with real self respect and nobody who respects himself will allow others free reign to walk over him.
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
28,043
2,546
126
I was convinced that a Trump presidency would be a national disaster before the election and I posted my ideas concerning that. Since the election, I haven't given as much time to the national political situation. I have a lot of other concerns, I can't and won't bother keeping up with everything. For one thing, Trump disgusts me and I'll be damned if I'm going to pay attention to him if I don't have to. People are fascinated by odd and wrenching spectacles. I think I should spare myself when appropriate.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY