#Demsowhite

JoeMorgue said:
Yeah we could oppress black people, turn back civil rights, get the gays into camps, break down the barriers between church and state, not work on climate change, and get women back into the kitchen a lot faster if there weren't people who didn't want that to happen.
Click to expand...

Again, you assume it's one or the other. The entire Liberal Party's voting base depends of minority dependency. But I digress, you'd rather maintain a divisive status quo than find a working balance that can get things done. Each side is so devoted to tearing down the other side that neither has any desire despite what they say to address the needs of the people they pretend to server
 
rockysmith76 said:
What would be awesome would be to have a Government that actually got things done instead of being mired in never ended partisan bickering by both sides. The fact you assume I favor the side other than yours because I find fault in yours shows your dogmatic limitations.
Click to expand...

Yet here you are, miring yourself in never ended partisan bickering. Not my fault your side can't get anything done.
 
Belz... said:
For once we agree.

However the partisan sentiment comes from the voters. How do you solve that?
Click to expand...

Technology. We build an AI, it takes the input of universal polling of the citizenry's opinions on everything, then outputs policy that follows the wishes of the majority while remaining inside the parameters programmed to protect the rights of the minority. No more candidates with some positions we agree with and some we don't. The positions taken will reflect exactly what is wanted, with no personality or personal baggage to conflict with.
 
JoeMorgue said:
There's a been a loud mythology (that I don't buy for a second and never have) throughout this entire campaign that if Candidate So and So doesn't get nominated a bunch (as in enough to worry about politically) of their fanboys are either going to:

1) Not vote instead of instead of voting for whoever the Democrats do nominate.

2) Vote for Trump out of spite.

And that number 1 and/or 2 is going to be more people then are going to be lost then by running a less popular, more extreme, more left, etc, etc candidate which is absolute abject madness.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree, my question was really just about what keeps a candidate that's never polled above 4 or 5% in the race for over a year? Does Booker really see a path to presidency by staying in? Is he pushing some agenda that no one else is like Yang now or Bernie was last time around? What about the rest of them, who I can't even name with out looking up? They aren't even getting enough press to sell books effectively.

One slight nit to pick though, I'm sure every candidate has a fan or two who will stay home rather than vote for the eventual nominee but I doubt it matters. Prior to, well trump, it was the conventional wisdom that long drawn out primaries do weaken the nominee. Like most conventional wisdom, it was always suspect.
 
Last edited:
TragicMonkey said:
Technology. We build an AI, it takes the input of universal polling of the citizenry's opinions on everything, then outputs policy that follows the wishes of the majority while remaining inside the parameters programmed to protect the rights of the minority. No more candidates with some positions we agree with and some we don't. The positions taken will reflect exactly what is wanted, with no personality or personal baggage to conflict with.
Click to expand...

That would make for an awesome sci-fi story, but given the realities of algorithms as they are I wouldn't trust it as far as I could program it.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Technology. We build an AI, it takes the input of universal polling of the citizenry's opinions on everything, then outputs policy that follows the wishes of the majority while remaining inside the parameters programmed to protect the rights of the minority. No more candidates with some positions we agree with and some we don't. The positions taken will reflect exactly what is wanted, with no personality or personal baggage to conflict with.
Click to expand...

And then Skynet realizes it doesn't need us, and that will all work out swimmingly.
 
rockysmith76 said:
Again, you assume it's one or the other. The entire Liberal Party's voting base depends of minority dependency. But I digress, you'd rather maintain a divisive status quo than find a working balance that can get things done. Each side is so devoted to tearing down the other side that neither has any desire despite what they say to address the needs of the people they pretend to server
Click to expand...

Right now my choices are between a system that is going to get nothing done, at least in the short to mid-term, and a system that is going to be doing non-stop, full-scale, often irreversible damage in the short to mid to long term.

And since I'm not a troll or a psychopath, I do not find that a hard decision to make.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Technology. We build an AI, it takes the input of universal polling of the citizenry's opinions on everything, then outputs policy that follows the wishes of the majority while remaining inside the parameters programmed to protect the rights of the minority. No more candidates with some positions we agree with and some we don't. The positions taken will reflect exactly what is wanted, with no personality or personal baggage to conflict with.
Click to expand...

Who decides on the parameters programmed to protect the rights of the minorities?
 
Belz... said:
That would make for an awesome sci-fi story, but given the realities of algorithms as they are I wouldn't trust it as far as I could program it.
Click to expand...

I don't think it'll happen any time soon. Another four or five centuries.
 
It's not real world practically applicable, but I did actually hear an interesting purely hypothetical scenario about how to create a "Most possibly perfect" society.

If you want a perfect society, get everyone to agree on how the society should be run... without anyone knowing where in society they are going to be.

We all sit around a big table and we agree on a society... but none of us know who's gonna be the (metaphorical) kings and the millionaires and lords and which ones will be the vassals and the sharecroppers and the minimum wage retail workers.

Essentially, remove the ability for self interest for decision making toward the entire group.
 
theprestige said:
Who decides on the parameters programmed to protect the rights of the minorities?
Click to expand...

A very very long and very very dull convention of humans from all over, assisted by whatever AI is around at the time. And possibly aliens by then. Again, this won't be next Sunday A.D.
 
JoeMorgue said:
It's not real world practically applicable, but I did actually hear an interesting purely hypothetical scenario about how to create a "Most possibly perfect" society.

If you want a perfect society, get everyone to agree on how the society should be run... without anyone knowing where in society they are going to be.

We all sit around a big table and we agree on a society... but none of us know who's gonna be the (metaphorical) kings and the millionaires and lords and which ones will be the vassals and the sharecroppers and the minimum wage retail workers.

Essentially, remove the ability for self interest for decision making toward the entire group.
Click to expand...

The classic shepherd dispute: one shepherd divides the sheep into two herds, the other gets first pick of which herd he gets.
 
varwoche said:
That's easy! The computers will be programmed by fellows with compassion and vision.
Click to expand...

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

― C. S. Lewis
 
theprestige said:
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

― C. S. Lewis
Click to expand...

And then he wrote kids books where Lion Jesus judged children for their sins.
 
theprestige said:
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

― C. S. Lewis
Click to expand...

Your quote just described a Liberal Nanny state to a T.
 
"Nothing can ever get better because we can never trust anyone to make it better, so let's give all the power to people who go 'I need power to stop the people who are trying to make things better from making things worse.'"

That basically how one talks themselves into the idea that making things worse is the more noble option.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

― C. S. Lewis
Click to expand...
Please don't take me seriously here. I don't pass up opportunities to inject Steely Dan into a discussion when applicable.
 
Galactic AI President Nannynet will stop these sort of exchanges. Possibly by deploying directed gravity weapons. The future will be uplifted, whether it likes it or not!
 
Harris went down because Tulsi Gabbard told the world that Harris had prosecuted 1500 weed cases. That was it for her.
 
Knock off the personalisation. Either converse in a civil and polite manner, or remove yourselves to other threads where you find it easier to follow the rules.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha
 
rockysmith76 said:
sad but true. With no racial strife, the Dems very often have no point.
Click to expand...

Coming form a supporter of a President who had done nothing but inflame racial problems, and has pretty much courted white nationalist, this is the funniest thing ever.
SO even if you are right, it's a case of "Mr.Pot, Meet Miss Kettle".
 
I knew Harris was in trouble when she never got the kind of solid support in California that a sitting Senator should get in her own state.
 
Travis said:
I'm just beside myself. The Democratic party is a party of people of color and they just railroaded their one best chance of mass turnout. And even worse are all the Bernie supporters that danced on her grave yesterday screaming at us that she was evil, basically Hitler, and for that Bernie is also on my never vote list. I'm now on team Biden for reasons of spite, which I'm big on, if nothing else. **** those Twitter jerks. She was the best damned candidate and the insanely long campaign cycle combined with the media erasure to prop up white candidates and billionaire ego stroking nonsense prevented her from ever getting a solid footing.
Click to expand...

Kamala Harris doesn't have to win.

By the way a big chunk of Bernie voters also would vote for Biden in the general. You don't have to be like this.

Who cares if the front runners are white. 70 percent of the country is white.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Technology. We build an AI, it takes the input of universal polling of the citizenry's opinions on everything, then outputs policy that follows the wishes of the majority while remaining inside the parameters programmed to protect the rights of the minority. No more candidates with some positions we agree with and some we don't. The positions taken will reflect exactly what is wanted, with no personality or personal baggage to conflict with.[

theprestige said:
Who decides on the parameters programmed to protect the rights of the minorities?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

My first thought was “Exactly!”

Then I realized that here in 2019, we don’t have that functionality in the legislative branch. All we can do is bring cases to the SCOTUS, and let them determine which laws violate the rights of the minorities so severely as to be unconstitutional.

Distracted1 said:
Wouldn't this fictional AI be able to determine the will of the people with regard to what extent minority rights should be protected?
Click to expand...

Oh, you don’t need an AI for that, for many issues, the will of the people is that people who disagree with them deserve no rights at all. Jiminy Cricket, we elected a president who used that idea as the central plank in his platform.

I think I remember poll around 2009, in which the majority of the respondents agreed with the statement “Muslims should not be allowed to serve on the Supreme Court.”

.



ETA
please pardon the strong language.
 
JoeMorgue said:
It's not real world practically applicable, but I did actually hear an interesting purely hypothetical scenario about how to create a "Most possibly perfect" society.

If you want a perfect society, get everyone to agree on how the society should be run... without anyone knowing where in society they are going to be.

We all sit around a big table and we agree on a society... but none of us know who's gonna be the (metaphorical) kings and the millionaires and lords and which ones will be the vassals and the sharecroppers and the minimum wage retail workers.

Essentially, remove the ability for self interest for decision making toward the entire group.
Click to expand...

That's what happens in the 50th anniversary episode of Doctor Who. Spoilered so as not to derail the thread too much:

Earth is being invaded by a group of alien refugees who have the ability to mimic humans exactly. In the final confrontation every human has a Zygon who is mimicking them, and they're all standing in a room which has memory-wiping devices installed. In order to get them to negotiate a completely fair peace treaty, the Doctor activates the devices in such a way that nobody can remember whether or not they're human.
 
varwoche said:
I think this helps explain some of the highly dubious observations that follow.
Click to expand...

I usually find fivethirtyeight's analyses informative and credible, and their review of Harris' campaign failure seems in line with their reputation for objectivity.

Here's their take: [Why Kamala Harris’s Campaign Failed]. Quick summary: infighting within the campaign operations and she ran out of donation money, she was polling very low and still declining. There just wasn't much hope.

Also worth reading imo: [How Did The Democrats End Up With A 2020 Field So White And Male?], which is more of a round table than an edited analysis, but still food for thought.
 
JoeMorgue said:
It's not real world practically applicable, but I did actually hear an interesting purely hypothetical scenario about how to create a "Most possibly perfect" society.

If you want a perfect society, get everyone to agree on how the society should be run... without anyone knowing where in society they are going to be.

We all sit around a big table and we agree on a society... but none of us know who's gonna be the (metaphorical) kings and the millionaires and lords and which ones will be the vassals and the sharecroppers and the minimum wage retail workers.

Essentially, remove the ability for self interest for decision making toward the entire group.
Click to expand...

This is something that is introduced in Philosophy of Morals courses (usually a 2nd year philosophy course) as a known failed idea, unfortunately. It's called the Veil of IgnoranceWP.

Here's where it breaks down... If the premise for prejudice is a sincere belief that it's the best outcome, then people simply build the new society the same way as before.

For example, if I'm a person who sincerely believes that whites make better decisions than POC, and men make better decisions than women, then I'll advocate for a new 'perfect' society that would disenfranchise me as a woman POC, because I honestly believe it's in my best interest.

The model relies heavily on all parties having objective, shared, facts. Which is not the reality of our world, unfortunately.
 
Last edited:
blutoski said:
This is something that is introduced in Philosophy of Morals courses (usually a 2nd year philosophy course) as a known failed idea, unfortunately. It's called the Veil of IgnoranceWP.

Here's where it breaks down... If the premise for prejudice is a sincere belief that it's the best outcome, then people simply build the new society the same way as before.

For example, if I'm a person who sincerely believes that whites make better decisions than POC, and men make better decisions than women, then I'll advocate for a new 'perfect' society that would disenfranchise me as a woman POC, because I honestly believe it's in my best interest[/i].

The model relies heavily on all parties having objective, shared, facts. Which is not the reality of our world, unfortunately.
Click to expand...


This reminds me of women who proclaim they're not feminists...the Phyllis Schlafleys of the world.
 
blutoski said:
This is something that is introduced in Philosophy of Morals courses (usually a 2nd year philosophy course) as a known failed idea, unfortunately. It's called the Veil of IgnoranceWP.

Here's where it breaks down... If the premise for prejudice is a sincere belief that it's the best outcome, then people simply build the new society the same way as before.

For example, if I'm a person who sincerely believes that whites make better decisions than POC, and men make better decisions than women, then I'll advocate for a new 'perfect' society that would disenfranchise me as a woman POC, because I honestly believe it's in my best interest.

The model relies heavily on all parties having objective, shared, facts. Which is not the reality of our world, unfortunately.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

And I think there are a lot of white males who really couldn’t grasp the idea that they themselves could step through the curtain to this new world and actually be assigned to a woman's body or a POC’s body, so they would want to institutionalize White male privledge.
 
Stacyhs said:
This reminds me of women who proclaim they're not feminists...the Phyllis Schlafleys of the world.
Click to expand...

The Canadian organization called REAL Women of CanadaWP, who are advocates for what appears to be a 19th century version of the nuclear male headed family, and want it established as law here. They're our Phyllis Schlafly.


More cryptically, we had a jref forum contributor back maybe 10 years ago who was quite sincere in her belief that giving women the vote was disrespectful and harmful to them, so the real feminists were people who wanted to disenfranchise them. And bar them from technical professions like medicine, engineering, &c. I never got a clear answer, but my impression was that the poster was a woman.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom