Kamala-Trump Debate

[Forestluv]

56 minutes ago, Scholar said:

It would never appear that way because one side is absurdly bad faith. The AI would fact check and correct everything Trump is saying, because Trump is lying non-stop.

This would make the other side only more suspicious of the AI, and claim it is biased.

Yes. Even if it was theoretically possible to create unbiased fact check moderators, it would be seen as biased, particularly by MAGA due to the asymmetry of lying, believing in conspiracy theories etc.

[Joshe]

44 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

In some cases, that mindset may give a person a sense of control and self empowerment. 

Sorta like someone who wants to be courted by a potential gf / bf.

“I want her to earn me before I date her”. 

Ahh yes, I didn't think about that. Also, I think some of it is "I'm a careful thinker... I don't just make decisions for no reason". 

[Joshe]

Betting markets have Kamala up 5 points within 22 hours after debate. I feel like that's significant. 

[Joshe]

I think I figured out the deal with this Haitian cat stuff. I knew it was a part of their strategy but I couldn’t figure out why they would do something so stupid. Turns out, it might not be so stupid.

Springfield actually is overburdened by Haitian immigrants. The cats are irrelevant. What they wanted was to get everybody to look at the ridiculousness of the claims so the press would take cameras into Springfield and show the American people a real-world example of what danger is coming their way if Kamala wins. Has nothing to do with animals. They played it well. 
 

 

Edited September 13 by Joshe

[zurew]

6 hours ago, questionreality said:

The problem is that you expect everyone to be a leftist. Because you are so caught up in your ideological bubble, you are not able to see your own bias, not to mention the bias of the ideology that you adhere to. 

If having a balanced take, and seeing through the bias of both sides is playing a "centrist game", then so be it. 

It sure is much better than playing whatever game that you are playing - projecting, virtue signaling and continuing to be blinded by your ideological blindfolds.

Ironically you believe that you are different from the MAGA supporters, but you are not. You are just on the other side of the coin. How about that for a meta-take?

Again just as I expected, you have 0 substance to offer, just the empty talk about bias, but nothing specific to give.

Whats a meta-take my guy? Do you think you can spell out something useful for once, or you are here to gibberate about things you havent thought about more than 5 minutes in your life? Using actualized word salad and hitting the actualized bingo won't help you, because I will challenge you to actually deliver something which is not incredibly vague.

Do you think 'both siding' every issue and not being able to be nuanced is a balanced take? Spell out what it means to give a balanced take, but don't just use "its something that lacks bias", but actually explain what do you think the idea 'more correct' means and then spell out how your take adheres to that.

Lets see what you can offer - spell out what meta values you have in mind  and how they are different from leftist values and then make a deduction where you show how those values are being violated in this context.

Quote

Ironically you believe that you are different from the MAGA supporters, but you are not. You are just on the other side of the coin. How about that for a meta-take?

This is cute, but I would love a justification for that. 

If this "meta take" entails something to the quality of "but Hitler drank water as well", then thats not going to be substantive.

Quote

The problem is that you expect everyone to be a leftist

Would want a justification for this as well.

Edited September 13 by zurew

[Alex M]

On 12/09/2024 at 3:39 AM, Leo Gura said:

Megyn Kelly is such a cringey airhead.

FoxNews material.

She's such a hack.

[questionreality]

11 hours ago, Forestluv said:

5. There are two things here. . . Imagine a soccer game in which one team gets a free penalty kick every 5 minutes. That is an unfair opportunity. Now imagine the team is confused and shoots/scores on their own goal. The other team laughs and says @keep giving them free kicks!”. . . The unfair opportunities were used to harm themselves and it turns out to be a disadvantage.
You keep focusing on that part, which I don’t disagree with. I’m pointing to the other part. 

7. My impression is of a mind that believes its construct of  “raw reality” is true.  . . That offers enormous practical benefits at the human / personal level, including a sense of being grounded. Yet there is also an enormous price to pay for those personal benefits. 

One interpretation is “lost in a world abstraction’”, which is completely true from one vantage point. Yet it’s possible to go ‘prior’ to that vantage point. Prior to the world of grounded “raw reality” and prior to the world of ungrounded “abstraction”. . .

This can be viewed as abstraction, yet it also points to the simplest grounding point of source. 

5. I see what you are saying. From my perspective, it's not an advantage if you turn it into a disadvantage, and if the mods are biased, they certainly are aware of it.

7. Very true. I have explored both approaches in my life and came to conclusion that since we are dealing with humans and most of our problems have something to do with humans, I value the practical, grounded approach more vs the abstracted one. 

If I was living alone in the cave and away from the civilization, it would be the other way around for certain.

[questionreality]

@zurew I will not be taking your bait and play games with you.

You telling me that I offer 0 substance, while you yourself have offered nothing of value in this thread and also in the Lex Friedman thread.

In fact, in the Lex Friedman thread you have posted enough that clearly shows you are so stuck in your leftist echo chamber, and the concepts of "balance", "nuance" and "neutrality" are just too hard to understand.

Enjoy debating right-wingers, I will not be wasting my time on you.

 

[questionreality]

9 hours ago, Joshe said:

I think I figured out the deal with this Haitian cat stuff. I knew it was a part of their strategy but I couldn’t figure out why they would do something so stupid. Turns out, it might not be so stupid.

Springfield actually is overburdened by Haitian immigrants. The cats are irrelevant. What they wanted was to get everybody to look at the ridiculousness of the claims so the press would take cameras into Springfield and show the American people a real-world example of what danger is coming their way if Kamala wins. Has nothing to do with animals. They played it well. 
 

 

Wow, if this is true, that would be actually playing 4-d chess. Very nice observation!

11 hours ago, Joshe said:

Betting markets have Kamala up 5 points within 22 hours after debate. I feel like that's significant. 

Yea that's huge. No wonder Trump has now refused to do another debate with her.

[El Zapato]

10 hours ago, Joshe said:

I think I figured out the deal with this Haitian cat stuff. I knew it was a part of their strategy but I couldn’t figure out why they would do something so stupid. Turns out, it might not be so stupid.

Springfield actually is overburdened by Haitian immigrants. The cats are irrelevant. What they wanted was to get everybody to look at the ridiculousness of the claims so the press would take cameras into Springfield and show the American people a real-world example of what danger is coming their way if Kamala wins. Has nothing to do with animals. They played it well. 
 

 

heehee.  You have gained insight into the rightward mindset.  Totally pernicious and creepily malignant.

[zurew]

2 hours ago, questionreality said:

@zurew I will not be taking your bait and play games with you.

You telling me that I offer 0 substance, while you yourself have offered nothing of value in this thread and also in the Lex Friedman thread.

In fact, in the Lex Friedman thread you have posted enough that clearly shows you are so stuck in your leftist echo chamber, and the concepts of "balance", "nuance" and "neutrality" are just too hard to understand.

Enjoy debating right-wingers, I will not be wasting my time on you.

What bait, you make claims and once you are challenged on them you run away.

Don't be a snowflake, you know, you should question reality.

You are surely used to not being challenged on your takes and you are surely used to being able to just make accusations and claims freely without being challenged on any of them.

You have rambled so much on actualized being a leftist echochamber, but once you are challenged on your claims just a little bit, you are running as far away as you can.

It was your time to shine by destroying the libtards and leftist here and showing how they are biased and how that contradicts the meta approach and meta values ,but of course you lack the ability to do so .

It seems that there is no room for disagreement with you, because once a person disagrees with you on something you immediately bring out the "you are biased" card without engaging on the substance, and without considering that there is a reasonable room for disagreement there.

Go ahead, posture more about you being the clear headed guy who can see through all bias and who can give balanced takes. It will surely give you so much actualized cookies.

Edited September 13 by zurew

[Joshe]

1 hour ago, questionreality said:

Wow, if this is true, that would be actually playing 4-d chess. Very nice observation!

I'd call it just regular chess, although I think a better analogy is poker.

In poker, when your opponent realizes that you're aware of their tactics, they adapt and patch the exploit, necessitating the development of new exploits. Over time, the deceptions become increasingly sophisticated.

Now, apply this dynamic to society and those who seek to exploit/manipulate it. Marketers do their tricks and when those tricks become well-known—like many have become in recent years, thanks to the internet—marketers have to devise even trickier tactics. Just as in poker, once these new exploits are identified, they prompt an even deeper layer of deception.

If you want to manipulate society, you have to update your methods. Lex Fridman comes to mind. haha

1 hour ago, El Zapato said:

heehee.  You have gained insight into the rightward mindset.  Totally pernicious and creepily malignant.

I'm pretty sure Kamala's campaign is also engaging in similar trickery, which seems necessary. The whole point of every campaign is influence, which doesn't work if people know they're being manipulated, so the influence has to be hidden. But no doubt, the right is far less integrous in their pursuit of influence. 

[El Zapato]

34 minutes ago, Joshe said:

I'd call it just regular chess, although I think a better analogy is poker.

In poker, when your opponent realizes that you're aware of their tactics, they adapt and patch the exploit, necessitating the development of new exploits. Over time, the deceptions become increasingly sophisticated.

Now, apply this dynamic to society and those who seek to exploit/manipulate it. Marketers do their tricks and when those tricks become well-known—like many have become in recent years, thanks to the internet—marketers have to devise even trickier tactics. Just as in poker, once these new exploits are identified, they prompt an even deeper layer of deception.

If you want to manipulate society, you have to update your methods. Lex Fridman comes to mind. haha

I'm pretty sure Kamala's campaign is also engaging in similar trickery, which seems necessary. The whole point of every campaign is influence, which doesn't work if people know they're being manipulated, so the influence has to be hidden. But no doubt, the right is far less integrous in their pursuit of influence. 

yeah, but the motivations are likely different, excluding winning, of course.  It is part of the eternal battle...light versus dark.... And the Hegelian Dialectic plays on.

[Joshe]

24 minutes ago, El Zapato said:

yeah, but the motivations are likely different, excluding winning, of course.  It is part of the eternal battle...light versus dark.... And the Hegelian Dialectic plays on.

I'm not a fan of light vs dark. That is going on but if you've ever known an evil/dark person and saw they cannot help it, then you realize no one can help it and that it's no one's fault. You can try to trace it back to their parents but then you have to trace it back to their grandparents, on and on and on. It can't be traced back. No one is to blame. Sufficient contemplation on this point helped me a good bit. 

[El Zapato]

30 minutes ago, Joshe said:

I'm not a fan of light vs dark. That is going on but if you've ever known an evil/dark person and saw they cannot help it, then you realize no one can help it and that it's no one's fault. You can try to trace it back to their parents but then you have to trace it back to their grandparents, on and on and on. It can't be traced back. No one is to blame. Sufficient contemplation on this point helped me a good bit. 

well, I won't argue with you because you seem to have it together.  But, in truth, it can be traced, all the way to an evil gene that emerged before the last Ice Age, held in check by climate it was released after the thaw (origin Caucasus Mountains).  Unfortunately, the gene spread by way of 'conquerors' from the area to displace most of the European hunter-gatherers and farmers.  Now we gots what we gots!

[Joshe]

@El Zapato That's a badass movie idea! 

[Lews Therin]

35 minutes ago, El Zapato said:

well, I won't argue with you because you seem to have it together.  But, in truth, it can be traced, all the way to an evil gene that emerged before the last Ice Age, held in check by climate it was released after the thaw (origin Caucasus Mountains).  Unfortunately, the gene spread by way of 'conquerors' from the area to displace most of the European hunter-gatherers and farmers.  Now we gots what we gots!

is this a movie or do you have any credible sources for that?

[El Zapato]

2 minutes ago, Lews Therin said:

is this a movie or do you have any credible sources for that?

James H. Fallon (October 18, 1947 – November 20, 2023) was an American neuroscientist. He was professor of psychiatry and human behavior and emeritus professor of anatomy and neurobiology in the University of California, Irvine School of Medicine. His research interests included adult stem cells, chemical neuroanatomy and circuitry, higher brain functions, and brain imaging.

Fallon, who stated that he had the neurological and genetic correlates of psychopathy, categorized himself as a "pro-social psychopath". In October 2013 his book, The Psychopath Inside: A Neuroscientist's Personal Journey into the Dark Side of the Brain, was released by Current (acquired by Penguin).

Thank you for asking...It was my original hypothesis and was later corroborated by Dr. James Fallon.  I did have to make an 'intuitive' leap to correlate the gene spread with the 'evil' gene.  Doctor Fallon, in his research, discovered many genes are brought into the mix, but the primary one involved is characterized as the 'warrior' gene.  The rest is documented history.

 

 

[Joshe]

All eyes on Springfield. 

[Max1993]

@PurpleTree It was an experienced Prosecutor putting a bully in time out