DocWatts

If we wanted to be more precise, the Dems are effectively a centrist party with a Center-Left (social-democrats like Bernie, AOC), and a Center-Right (neoliberals like Hilary Clinton and Obama) wing. With Biden and Harris falling somewhere in the between these two wings. If America has a parliamentary system, the Dems would probably be two or three different parties.

Going to stop you right there. Left-wingers didn't incite a violent coup because they lost an election. The gaslighting by folks who are trying to downplay and make excuses for the MAGA Cult is insane (though its completely in line with how fascism tends to operate).

Q: How did the website 4chan come to be a breeding ground for far right politics? Claude AI: The evolution of 4chan into a space associated with far-right politics is a complex phenomenon that occurred over time. Here's an overview of some key factors: 1. Anonymous nature: 4chan's design allows users to post anonymously, which can encourage more extreme views and reduce accountability. 2. Counterculture origins: 4chan began as a place for anime fans and internet subcultures, fostering an "outsider" mentality that sometimes aligned with anti-establishment views. 3. Trolling culture: The site's ethos of provocative humor and "trolling" sometimes blurred lines between ironic and genuine extremism. 4. Lack of moderation: Minimal content moderation allowed fringe ideas to spread more easily compared to mainstream social media platforms. 5. Echo chamber effect: Like-minded individuals found each other, reinforcing and amplifying certain viewpoints. 6. Gamergate controversy: The 2014 Gamergate controversy, which began on 4chan, drew in many users sympathetic to anti-feminist and right-wing views. 7. Political shifts: During the 2016 US election, some boards became hubs for pro-Trump activism and alt-right rhetoric. 8. Spillover from other sites: As other websites banned extremist content, some users migrated to 4chan. 9. Media attention: Increased scrutiny from mainstream media paradoxically attracted more users interested in far-right content. 10. Recruitment ground: Some extremist groups began deliberately using 4chan to spread propaganda and recruit new members. It's important to note that not all of 4chan is focused on far-right politics, and the site remains diverse. However, certain boards have become particularly associated with these ideologies.

4Chan, for those of you lucky enough not to know, is an online message board where incels, white nationalists, and Nazis would go to look at porn, post memes, and share brain-rot conspiracy theories. In short : a breeding ground for online extremists, some of whom went on to become right-wing terrorists. Adam Conover has a fascinating discussion with journalist Elle Reeve, about how 4Chan culture went from being a fringe corner of the Internet to the mainstream culture of the Republican Party

If Trump wasn't such a self-saboteur who's almost completely impenetrable to feedback, the smart money would have been on picking Haley or Gabbard as his VP. (Of course the drawback is they wouldn't be bootlickers to the same degree as JD, so there's a tradeoff, I guess). Not that I'm going to complain about Trump shooting himself in the foot over and over again through.

I see what you did there.

Can confirm that is indeed the case in the crucial battleground state of Michigan where I live. If I what I see on flyers, billboards, and TV ads is any indication.

Thanks for this! Was excited to put my Harris Walz yard sign on display in my neighborhood, and will start canvassing in the next few weeks. Crazy how much the seas have changed in just over a month.

Here ya go, the demented octogenarian who the basement dwellers (Trump's words for his supporters) are debasing themselves for

How about "don't incite an insurrection when you lose an election" as an example of abiding by democratic norms. A norm so simple that a 10 year old would have no trouble understanding it, which Trump and his Cult have failed to abide by. If someone can't get even this simple precept right, then the appropriate response to their political "opinions" is derision, not debate. Fascists cynically use democratic tolerance to undermine democracy. They're a perfect case study of the 'free rider' problem. Treating thier rhetoric as toxic bullshit unworthy of serious consideration or debate is %100 warranted.

On the flip side of the coin, well-meaning optimists will sometimes understate the severity of the problem, and how challenging it's going to be to navigate our way out of the epistemological crisis were facing. Obama comes to mind - hard to take the idea that "there's not a Red America and a Blue America, only a United States of America" seriously when liberals and conservatives are living in completely different epistemological and social realities. A sizeable minority of the country has been steadily abandoning basic democratic norms, and our antiqued political institutions enables them to impose their will on the other %70 of the country through mechanisms that allow for minoritarian rule. Trump's Cult has been conditioned into thinking that some semblance of equality for LGBTQ folks, and a handful of desperate people coming across the southern border carrying all of their belongings in a plastic bag, is tantamount to a slowly unfolding cultural genocide against 'white Christian culture'. (Fox News has more or less been propagating this exact point).

So called 'free speech absolutism' is a really dumb take. Most people who parrot this line are doing so in bad faith (many of these are the same folks that try to gaslight us that inciting a violent insurrection is 'free speech'). Free speech requires a commitment to democratic norms, which Trump and his followers shit in the face of. Bad actors like Trump can spew a firehose of harmful lies than than those lies can be debunked, because truth requires far more effort and time than spreading noxious bullshit does. What Trump is doing is a well know propaganda technique, that's commonly employed by autocrats https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firehose_of_falsehood Not every idea deserves to be given a hearing in the public square. It gives the misleading impression that Trump's noxious bullshit is worthy of consideration and debate, instead of being rejected out of hand.

It's the Joe Rogan effect all over again. A huge platform with millions of listeners used in a highly irresponsible way. Handing Trump a megaphone to spread noxious lies that are endangering our democracy isn't responsible journalism, nor is it a defense of 'free speech'.

The more interesting question is whether IQ is mainly indicative of one's ability to take IQ tests, or whether it points to something more substantive about a person's intelligence. (I don't have a horse in the game here, largely agnostic on the value of IQ tests).

'Scum and villainy' makes them sound way cooler than they are. Socially awkward, basement-dwelling racists with self esteem issues is closer to the mark.

Appreciate it! And thanks for the book suggestion. 'Metamodernism - The Future of Theory' hasn't been on my radar, but I definitely want to check it out. And the Facebook group as well, would be happy to post there.

I thought I might share this write-up from my philosophy book, 7 Provisional Truths. This section is a follow up to a previous post where I distinguish genuine science from scientism, as part of a broader exploration of conceptual distinctions. (That previous write-up is here: Transcendental Illusions- The Scientism Trap ) In this section, I explore the idea that our conceptual categories are indeed 'real', rather than 'imaginary'. But not in the sense that they point to 'objective' features of a mind-independent Reality. Instead, I suggest that conceptual distinctions are 'Interactionally real'. That they have substance because they’re grounded in our shared experience of Reality. I also explore how we can make a meaningful differentiation between 'Interactionally real' phenomena and 'imaginary' experiences (such as dreams and hallucinations). _________________________________________________________ Categories As Interactional Realities Our exploration into the nature of categories has carved a path through certain entrenched intuitions about everyday reality. The journey, however, has been fraught with obstacles that have the potential to trip up this newfound understanding. Our first major hurdle was to recognize that human limitations aren’t a bug but an essential feature of how we categorize. And our second was to reconcile this experientially-grounded approach to categories with the scientific method. Having cleared these obstacles, our task at this juncture is to take a snapshot of our implicit, folk-understanding of what qualifies as ‘real’. Developing this image will reveal how this conventional wisdom shapes our intuitions about what these categories ultimately mean in the grand scheme of things. Right at the outset, however, a perplexing question emerges. This conundrum arises from our rejection of Transcendental assumptions. In essence, if our conceptual categories aren’t a retrieval of absolute features of a mind-independent Reality, then what, if anything, makes the distinctions they embody ‘real’? The short answer? These distinctions are ‘real’. Just not in the absolute, mind-independent sense espoused by Transcendental viewpoints. Instead, our conceptual distinctions are ‘real’ in a different way; they’re interactionally real. They have substance because they’re grounded in our shared experience of Reality, distilling actionable generalizations that are attuned to our needs, capacities, and interests. These generalizations matter because they’re how we reflect upon our embodied experience. In essence, they’re the basis for the mental models that allow us to draw inferences, predict patterns, and solve problems. Essentially, they’re the key hallmarks of our distinctly human brand of intelligence; refined yet rooted in our shared evolutionary heritage with other animals. Crucially, this grounding within a shared, experiential Reality is what allows us to meaningfully differentiate these interactional realities from ‘imaginary' phenomena. Consider dreams and hallucinations, to list a familiar example. Though these mental phenomena may echo aspects of our shared world, their connection to it is inherently tenuous and inconsistent. The erratic nature of what we encounter within these domains renders them too unreliable to serve as a stable conduit to our shared, experiential Reality. If we return our gaze to the conventional wisdom about categories, the unrealistic assumptions of this familiar folk-theory come more clearly into focus. The crux of the matter is that our conceptual distinctions aren’t a glimpse into a ‘neutral’ Reality that exists apart from us. When this goes unacknowledged, it’s all too easy to treat these distinctions as if they’re variables in a universal equation with one right answer. Where it’s imagined that Reality will spill its secrets to whoever cracks this universal cipher. While this makes for an alluring metaphor, it’s a misunderstanding of our situation within the world. While we certainly have access to a staggering array of stable truths about our universe, the core illusion comes from how this relationship is framed. The crux of the matter is that Reality isn’t a ‘problem’ that can be ‘solved’. We put these distinctions into the world. They exist for us, inseparable from how we interact with Reality. By dropping this insistence that our categories are only ‘real’ insofar as they correspond to mind-independent features of Reality, we clear the fog that obscures their true purpose. Which is to help us grapple with our existential situation within Reality. Bottom line: ‘Transcendental Categories’, step aside. ‘Interactional Categories’, take the stage. For we conclude by sweeping into an existential tango with our intuitions about the ‘realness’ of the everyday world.

This is the main headline right here. Trump and RFK are actually perfect for one another, since they're both opportunistic con artists which are emblematic of the brain rot that's infected a large part of the country. My money is that Trump tries to bump Vance off the ticket for ol' 'brain-worms'. Of course that's probably not legal by this point, when has that ever stopped Trump?

Here's my short list, with the more accessible reads near the top: The Listening Society by Hanzi Frienacht Sapiens by Yuval Noah Harrari The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt The Structure Of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn The Varieties Of Spiritual Experience by Yaden Newberg Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond Metaphors We Live By by George Lakoff The Embodied Mind by Fransisco Varella Sex, Ecology, Spirituality by Ken Wilber

Republican 'Jesus' is like one of those old Star Trek episodes where the characters enter an alternate Reality and encounter their evil goatee'd doppelgangers. 😆

This is as delusional as thinking that Hitler would have treated Jewish people humanely if only he had better advisors in his cabinet. In reality, the Heritage Foundation (which Trump is just a useful idiot for) is trying to destroy the very regulatory agencies that are responsible for keeping poison out of our air and food, and bullets out of our children's bodies.

The Dunning-Krueger effect seems relevant here. Classic example is all of the big brained 110 IQ pseudo- intellectuals who supposedly know more about COVID than an epidemiologist, because they listened to a Joe Rogan podcast. (Actually Joe Rogan himself is an excellent example of this).

As of August 23, Five Thirty Eight is currently giving Harris 58 to 41 odds of winning against Trump. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-election-forecast/ (Make of that what you will. Not sure offhand if this factors in RFK dropping out of the race).

While it's not good, the bump that Trump is actually going to get from his remains to be seen. On the surface, it looks bad, since RFK has been polling around %5. A few things to keep in mind however. 1) Not all of those supposed RFK supporters will even bother to vote. 2) Not all of them will vote for Trump 3) Kamala and the DNC have been knocking it out of the park with consistently good decisions since Biden dropped out. A more realistic assessment is that Trump probably gets a %1 to %2 bump from this, that he's able to sustain into the actual election. Again, not good, but it doesn't do anything to shift the underlying momentum and enthusiasm towards Harris and away from Trump. Also, it's worth keeping in mind that events have been moving so fast that an RFK endorsement may not mean nearly as much as the election gets closer. Trump's criminal sentencing is in a few weeks, it's not out of the realm of possibility that he gets house asset, or even spends time in prison due to violating the terms of a potential parole or suspended sentence. Pundits were declaring that the race was over when Trump got shot, when in reality after a few weeks nobody outside of the MAGA cult really remembers or cares all that much. Quite the contrary, as it doesn't really seem to be having an noticable impact at all in fact. It may have gotten closer, but this is still a VERY winnable race for Dems if they keep up their good decisions going forward.

@Princess Arabia @Jodistrict More detail than you would ever want on exactly what kind of person RFK Jr is, from the excellent Behind the Bastards podcast.