politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Its so much more than that. Its that you had a wildly wrong opinion, an opinion that functionally hurt our ability to stop Trump. You had all the information you needed to make the right assessment, but your entire goal with your rhetoric was to shut down any kind of conversation that would allow for that right assessment to be made. It was fucking disgusting and it still is.
What it means, is that if your views only predict previous states of the universe but don't generalize to new states of the universe, we should ignore you.
"Wow, I think that maybe the actual data might be correct, and that the 'Biden Senile!' line that's been repeated for the past 4 years and not shown itself to be anything but typical GOP barking probably isn't correct; clearly the fact that I made the wrong decision in that light means I should throw away the idea that stopping fascism is bad, and embrace hope that if enough of America licks boots for long enough, they'll get tired of the taste and spontaneously spawn socialist movements across the country!"
And how the fuck are you supposed to determine that BEFORE new states of the universe come about? Do you... do you think prophecy is real or something? Like, this is materialism 101, I shouldn't have to explain this to anyone not trying to cast spells to cure their ailing grandmother - adjusting one's views in the face of new information is how solid theory is formed; that IS how theories advance to the point of being able to predict future events, it doesn't just come fucking birthed into a wunderkind's mind by the blessed seed of knowledge of the universe.
Its that your model of the universe is wrong and you dont seem to care. You only care if it predicts in reverse, which is functionally useless.
Okay, so you didn't read what I said, or didn't understand it. That's alright. You keep casting spells, I'm sure this whole 'hypothesis-action-analysis-revision' cycle is a passing fad.
Its about weighting. You take in many many opinions and you weight those where the prior maps more correctly to the posterior, then take the average. Weights can be positive or negative, and might be useful in either case. Its why I stick with dunces like you. I can apply a negative multiplier to your expressed opinions about what will happen and it better informs my prediction of future states.
I can basically take your view, look at whatever the opposite of it is, and use that to predict the future.
lol
Amen