Forestluv

She is not a stage green professor. She is orange criticizing green from below, not from above. I work a liberal arts college with very similar demographics and dynamics as Smith college. She is in the same Orange realm as Jordan Peterson as she criticizes Green. One way to identify this is to look at their underlying orientation. When high/mature green and yellow criticize low/immature green they do so in a way that pulls green up and helps improve green. Blue/Orange has a very different orientation when criticizing Green. They may have some legitimate criticisms, yet their orientation is to pull green down and impede green. The second way to identify is how sensitive and fragile the person is. Someone at a lower developmental stage has a personal filter that internalizes a lot of guilt and shame. They can't see things from a meta-personal perspective. Notice how this woman talks about how the college is telling her that she is a privileged white woman with implicit biases responsible for oppression of minorities. The college may be approaching it in an awkward / inefficient / immature way. Yet she strongly personalizes it, rather than being meta-mature to it. For example, she could have framed it like "The administration is not educating faculty and staff about issues of systemic racism, white privilege and implicit biases. There are advantages to taking an aggressive approach in some contexts, yet it can also create a toxic atmosphere in which white professor's are put on the defensive and feel like they are being guilted, shamed and blamed. That there is something inherently wrong with us. A more effective approach to deal with issues of white privilege and implicit biases would be to do X, Y, Z and allow a create an environment in which we are introspecting ourselves and comfortable having discussing with each other".

Congratulations to Texas for passing the entirety of its 2016 vote total today with more than 9 Million votes already in, with 1 more day of in-person voting left today and 5 more days of mail-in-ballots receiving and drop offs. 2016 was a record Texas turnout. Surpassing that turnout in 2020 with five voting days left (including election day), means Texas will obliterate the previous record. It's unknown which candidate the high turnout will benefit. Yet if the GOP can no longer take Texas for granted and it becomes a competitive swing state in presidential elections - the current GOP would not be a viable party. It would be like California or New York becoming a swing state for Democrats. Most impressive has been the turnout in Harris County, a democrat-leaning county which includes Houston. As part of voter suppression, the Republican governor only allowed one drop off ballot box in Harris County - an geographic area larger than the state of Rhode Island and home to 5 million people. The Harris county clerk (a democrat) responded creativity: he set up over 100 polling locations. Many of these were drive-through stations and were open 24hrs on Thursdays. This had the added benefit of allowing social distancing during the covid pandemic. And where did he place the one drop off box the county was allowed? In NRG Park, Houston's largest sports stadium, home to the Houston Texans football team, an enticing way for county residents to see the inside of a ball park and maybe meet and greet some sports celebrities.

I don't know how big of a factor that would be. Perhaps 1-2%?

In Georgia, Biden is up 0.8% in the polling aggregate. Yet even if that is accurate, the Georgia GOP suppression machine can overcome that margin without breaking a sweat.

From a biologist's perspective, it's interesting how people use the term "parasite".

My impression is that Joe isn’t a strong ideologue. He goes with whatever the current moderate positions are. I’d like magi everyone he would be influenced by both neoliberals and progressives, with a tilt toward neoliberalism. Ne’s been known to engage with both democrats and republicans. There is a video of one conservative Lyndsey Graham speaking candidly years ago about how Joe is one of the nicest, most genuine people he’s known in his life. I also think Joe has a capacity for empathy for those struggling. He lost two of his children. Joe also worked hard to overcome a severe stutter and there are genuine moments of him connecting with children with disabilities. Yet I also don’t think Joe looks a couple layers deeper into the impact of some of his policies. His work on the 1994 the crime bill amplified the “war n drugs”, mass incarceration and for profit prisons. He has also been a staunch supporter for the credit card and health care industries and wars, including the Iraq war. He was against forced busing, has been sympathetic to segregationists and isn’t very culturally competent. He makes a lot of gaffes, yet a lot of people are forgiving since he seems sincere. He is the polar opposite of Trump’s personality. Joe doesn’t need to be in the spotlight and get all the credit. He is not conflict oriented and doesn’t demonize others. Joe can be self deprecating. Can see him being a low profile president who gives a lot of authority to his cabinet, He will likely retire after one term. A lot of the left doesn’t like idea due to enter-right positions he’s taken in the past. They assume he will be the same. I think Joe wants to restore dignity and decency to the presidency and often talks about “restoring the soul of America”. He’s not running on strong policy proposals. He’s running on not being Trump and returning to normalcy and the heart of being American, I don’t see as a fighter for any policy and being molded by those around him. If Bernie and Warren get his ear, I could see him trying to help unions and supporting environmental and corporate regulations, stimulus for working families, legalization of cannabis and a move toward M4A. If the Lincoln project and Bloomberg pg types get his ear, I can see him move in the direction of corporations and military.

Some videos of republicans describing how they got clean off of Trump reminds me of NA meetings. The harder cases were vaping 200mg of Trump freebase daily. Those that plugged are gone for good.

Classic southern blue.

Me-2 and Ne-2 are both Republican districts. Me-2 is R+6.2% and NE-2 is R+3.9%. Campaigning in those districts is playing defense. Like in sports, campaigns play both offense and defense, yet playing defense isn't a show of strength. It would be like a football team playing defense on their own 20 yard line. I agree with you that going to Me-2 and Ne-2 indicates Trump's team is playing for a close contest in which every EV is needed. Nearly all the forecasts predict the probability of either 1) A Biden landslide, 2) a fairly close Biden win or 3) a razor close Trump win. The probability of a big Trump victory is tiny (based on polling). If all the votes are counted, I'd give Trump about a 1 in 6 chance of winning. That is a decent chance. That would be like rolling a "six" on a six-sided die. It can happen. I think a lot of people think "the polls are predicting a Biden win". It's more accurate to say "The polls give Biden an 87% chance of winning". If Trump wins a fair election, it means the American populace are not interested in holding him accountable and gives him the green light. That would say a lot about the average conscious level of America right now. In 2016, there was the idea that "Trump is an anti-establishment businessman. He is crude now, yet he will take the job of presidency seriously if elected". That possibility has clearly come to pass. Americans have no excuse this time. They know exactly what they are getting with Trump. And I agree that Trumpism / MAGA is oriented against democracy. I've had too many conversations with MAGAs who argue against democracy.

The polling aggregate is currently 8.5%, which is down 2% from Biden's peak lead of 10.7% on Oct. 17th. That 2% is still background noise. Even if it's a real downward trend that continues, Biden would be at +7% nationally in the aggregate, which would mean a decisive victory for him. Keep in mind that about 50% of the population has already voted (while Biden was polling at +9-11% nationally) Rasmussen is a republican-leaning poll. If I remember correctly, 538 has them around +5R. I haven't looked at the internals of the polls you mentioned. Also, keep in mind that about 50% of the population has already voted. If the Rasmussen poll used a binary likely voter model and didn't weigh in those that already voted - their poll would be highly in favor of Biden. If their numbers are for likely voters that haven't voted yet, it's over for Trump. Trump needs to win states like Fla, MI, AZ by 10%+ to have a chance due to early + mail in vote. And there will be outlier polls, especially during the final week as polls position themselves for their final poll. Both republican and democrat leaning polls may publish outliers as a way to shift the narrative. As well, there is often poll "herding". To increase their credibility, many pollsters will release their final poll to match the polling aggregate (which has the highest chance of being accurate). The pollster wants to set themself up in the future to say "Our final poll was very close to the actual result". Statistician Nate Silver recently discussed how all final polls in the final week should be taken with a grain of salt. I think he said that he reduces the weighting of polls released the final week. Be careful cherry-picking republican leaning outlier polls. That poll had a small sample size, huge margin of error, uses a binary likely voter model and way outside the polling aggregate - which is Biden +5.6%. Could the Insider Advantage poll be more accurate than the aggregate? Yes, yet it is a low probability. Could Trump pull it off? Sure there is a chance of that. Yet in terms of polling, that chance is about 12% (assuming all votes are counted).

@Yali It depends on how you define "Sadhguru" and "human".

The 538 model just shifted Georgia and Iowa to Biden's column. Biden just needs to win 2 of 8 swing states decisively. Trump needs to win all 8 swing states. If Biden has less than a 1% lead in all 8 swing states, I can see Trump rallying republicans, FoxNews and judges that all the states are essentially "tied". Yet if Trump needs to win 3-4 states he is down 1%+ and his deficit is growing with more vote counting - that is a hard sell to 75% of the American public. Only the die hard Trumpers would go with it. This of course assumes somewhat fair counting of all ballots. Even a fair election has some error and background noise - perhaps 0.2%. To the best of my knowledge, leads over 0.2% are rarely reversed, yet leads under 0.2% have a decent chance. Yet Trumpers know they are way behind on early / mail in votes and that they have a lead in election day in-person voting. So they want to suppress the counting of early & mail in votes - and have the initial numbers released be election day in person. Trump then goes on offense by declaring victory (with about 40% of the votes counted) and rally republicans / FoxNews. As early votes / mail in ballots are counted, Trump's lead will vanish - yet he will start claiming that he already won - it's mail in fraud and Dems are stealing the election. Then he pressures judges to stop the vote counting. This is Trump's offensive style and MAGA will 100% fall for it. As well, Dems are notorious for playing defense, rather than offense. I can see Dems allowing Trump to frame it and then saying "Wait, wait the election isn't over yet. Trump hasn't won yet. Biden could come back with mail in ballots!". Dems absolutely suck at framing and narrative control. In this area, I hope conservative never-Trumpers, like the Lincoln Project, enter. They are the only Biden supporters willing to play Republican-style hardball. There are a couple swing states allowing early counting of early & mail in votes (Florida and North Carolina I think). If the early reports from Florida and North Carolina have Biden up big, due to early & mail votes, it will be much harder for Trump to claim early victory. Biden is crushing Trump in early / mail votes - if Trump is down 8% early on in Florida and N.C. there is no way he can claim early victory. This is why Trump / GOP are obsessed with preventing early counts of early / mail votes. And I think FoxNews will have more influence than they ever have. In particular, they have immense power in being the Biden King-Maker. Of course FoxNews will be the last to call a swing state for Biden, yet if they do it's all over for Trump. If FoxNews calls Pennsylvania or Florida for Biden - Trump is done. No way Texas goes blue in a landslide. Yet based on early vote turnout, I think it has a legit shot at overcoming voter suppression and going blue. Biden just needs decisive victories in a couple swing states. For Trump to win (or steal) a lot of variables need to align right.

For those wanting to see user friendly spreadsheets of both absolute and per capital numbers, this website is great. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

@Arcangelo That isn't the post I'm referring to. I can see he understands what per capita is. I'm just asking that people specify when they post absolute numbers. In the larger context, yes PurpleTree is correct. I missed that. Thank you for pointing it out.

I'm not saying that you don't understand this or that your intention was to mislead. I'm saying that presenting statistics as a basis of comparison without specifying they are absolute numbers is misleading. Whether you are aware of this or not is irrelevant to the inherent misleading nature.

It's obvious to you, yet without context it's not obvious to the reader. Citing data without specifying absolute or per capital leaves the reader vulnerable to misinterpretation. For example, showing data that the U.S. has less cases than Europe is misleading if it's not normalized. I'm not suggesting that this was the intention - just that the presentation of data in that manner is misleading. As well, its is not a fair comparison due to population differences. Presenting absolute numbers as a means of comparison is common with right wing Americans trying to push an agenda that Trump and the U.S. have done well relative to other countries. Yet a per capita graph (like Leo's upthread) shows this is not the case - that it is propaganda. If you post absolute numbers, please specify so - that way people know it isn't a fair comparison and won't get misled.

These are absolute numbers, which can be very misleading. For example, the U.S. has many more cases than Ecuador yet that isn't a fair comparison because the U.S. population is much greater than Ecuador. The per capital numbers should be used. The graph Leo posted upthread is per capita. Please be mindful of how statistics are framed - if statistics are inaccurately framed it is misleading.

I think the conservative judges have stronger loyalty to conservationist, the federalist society and corporate plutocrats than Trump. Same goes with FoxNews. I would use the analogy of a football team. They have a greater loyalty to the team than any one player. Trump just happens to be the alpha male quarterback right now. Yet if the alpha Trump goes down, they whole team isn't going to go down with him. They will want to survive to live and fight another day. It's hard to imagine now, yet there may come a day when conservatives are distancing themself as much as they can from Trump. Especially after Trump dies. In the 2024 republican primary, the candidates may all be pointing fingers at each other "I opposed Trump years before you did. You were a Trump lapdog until 2022!". We are already starting to see this with some republicans like McSally in Arizona - yet they are not yet able to repudiate Trumpism since Trump/MAGA still has control of the party. Yet if conservative scotus judges think the best bet is to protect Trump, they will do so. If the election comes down to one or two close states, I think they will give it to Trump. Yet if Trump needs to contest 4 states in which Biden is up 2%, that is much tougher. Yet in such a scenario, I think even some at Fox, like Chris Wallace wouldn't go along. If FoxNews is calling states for Biden, that would be a unanamous mainstream media for Biden and I can't see scotus over-ruling that. One of my concerns is that a lot of mainstream media like CNN, MSNBC, PBS, ABC, NYT, WP are slipping back into "both sides-ism" to try to appear non-biased. It also sucks that Biden needs to win the national vote and swing states by a solid margin to win. It's been like that for a while, yet is getting worse. With biases in the E.C., gerrymandering, Senate biases and voter suppression - Democrats need to win by 3%+ to win an election. That needs to change. A majority of Americans support ditching the E.C. for the popular vote and giving D.C., P.R. statehood. Yet establishment Democrats are so weak - they just can't exercise power boldly when they have the majority. This might be their last chance. If they win the Presidency, House and Senate - they need to immediately abolish the filibuster and push through reform bills. Yet unfortunately, I can't see them doing it. Biden has already talked about creating a nonpartisan "review panel" to consider various reform measures. Well that sucks up a year, we are looking at the 2022 midterms and establishment Dems start playing it safe again. They play "not to lose". A lot of people on the left are sick of it and are only voting for Biden because Trump is so horrific.

After Trump got busted for only paying $750 / yr in taxes, I noticed a lot of MAGAs thought it was a good thing. That Trump was so rich, powerful and cunning he could get away without paying taxes - and they wish they were that rich and powerful. Or that the government is evil and Trump want give any of those government bastards any of his hard-earned money. They do have a point, in a sense. If the U.S. is to successfully re-balance from hyper capitalism toward more governmental socialism - they do need to clean out a lot of the nepotism, greed, lobbying etc. and get people in their genuinely concerned for regular people, like Cory Bush, Jamaal Bowman, AOC, Bernie etc.

(These are general comments - not directed to the OP) I find the relationship conservatives have with "free speech" to be interesting. They really don't like being talked down to, called out for toxic language, "canceled" or "censored". The right is much more sensitive to this than the left. We see it on the forum as well. Some people detest the idea that they can't say whatever they want, wherever they want and whenever they want. That is by far the strongest anger and aggression I see on the forum, in particular males being told that their language is inappropriate, uneducated, has racist undertones, misogynistic etc. And there can be strong retaliation against them feeling they were "censored". We must have gone over this over hundred times on the forum. Yet I can't recall a woman ever having this reaction, it's always males. I would hypothesize that blue/orange level males are particularly sensitive to this. They don't like seeing being told that their speech is inappropriate. For example, that their speech is "mansplaining" or is racially insensitive. This is the anger over "political correctness" that blue hates from green. I've experienced this myself at times, yet at much lower intensities. For example, a Greenie may correct me for using terms like "marginalized" and "disadvantaged". They can use a condescending voice that is annoying. It can have an air of arrogance - which blue also detests from green. Yet it's not freedom of speech they want. They want the freedom to say what they want. They have this naive view that absolute freedom of speech is best, yet with a little scrutiny they start saying "Well, that doesn't count as 'speech'. No, that speech shouldn't be allowed, that's not what I'm talking about". It's quickly evident that they don't believe in blanket freedom of speech - they believe there should be limits, yet they are willing to really dig into the nuances of where we draw the lines - because they want to live in a fantasy world of absolute freedom of speech. As well, they are very biased toward resisting infringement of their speech. For example, they won't consider something like poc and LGBTQ don't truly have freedom of speech due to intimidation. The conservative may say "LGBTQ and poc are free to say whatever they want" - yet one his not truly free in an atmosphere of intimidation and threat. Those that want to maximize freedom of speech understand that limiting specific speech is necessary to maximize freedom of speech. An environment of "anything goes" absolute freedom of speech - devolves into restricted speech. It is nowhere near the maximum freedom of speech attainable. Even on this forum, if we want to maximize amount of free speech, there needs to be some restrictions on specific speech. This is counter-intuitive and conservatives have a really hard time seeing this. Or perhaps they don't want to see it. Vausch precisely described the dynamic of maximizing free speech by limiting free speech in one of his videos.

Things are getting interesting in Texas. . . As of Sunday, Texas has surpassed 80% of 2016 TOTAL voter turnout. They are on pace for shattering voter turnout records.

Rather than framing it in terms of conflict, we can re-frame it in terms of holism. Is Christianity part of the whole? Of course. Is science part of the whole? Sure. Is Jainism, Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam part of the whole? You betcha. Once we realize this, a whole new world of exploration opens up. We are no longer contracted and trapped. For example, if I say "I'm Christian", I've limited myself. If I'm Christian, that means "I'm not a Buddhist, Hinduist, Jainist, scientist" etc. Rather than saying "I'm Christian", we could say "I see some insight value in Christianity". This allows us to also see value in Buddhism, philosophy, Jainism etc. Thich Nhat Hanh wrote a great book called "Living Buddha, Living Christ". It's amazing what enlightened beings have in common. Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh weaves together Eastern enlightenment, Sufism, Zen, Western psychology and the mysterious aphorisms of Jesus Christ and the Gospel according to Thomas. A wild ride of insight and intrigue. And the Jainism concept of anekantavada is an ancient talisman against dogmatism and myopic fundamentalism. They were thousands of years ahead of their time. Even today, few minds can enter the realm of anekantavada.

Trump is great at protecting the freedom to go maskless, avoid social distancing and spread covid to the people around them.

I would just add: associating with you in a public way that would be visible to their students, colleagues and University administration. Going to the fringes with stuff like Quantum Mechanics and the relativity of perception would be fine - yet going to the center of the snowball together - fundamentally prior/meta to science could Deepak Chopra/Timothy Leary/Dean Radin the science academic. I think there are a lot of academic scientists are open to the fringes, yet few would be willing (or able) to go to the core with you in a public forum, especially if they don’t have psychedelic experience and have a reputation as a mainstream academic scientist. Imagine an academic scientist discussing with you how their psychedelic trips have expanded their understanding of science and reality. Mainstream academia just isn’t there yet. Yet times are changing.