DocWatts

Member
 View profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    2,203

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by DocWatts

  2. Posted · Edited by DocWatts

    1 hour ago, wk197 said:

    When was the last time the US had a good president? most people didn't like obama either but trump is something else it seems

    Well 'good' is going to be somewhat subjective, and subject to the political bias of the person answering the question, but I'd argue the last president that was respected by a broad cross section of the American public (regardless of political affiliation) would probably be Dwight Eisenhower, or possibly JFK to a much lesser degree. Keep in mind that this is more than half a century ago, with things getting increasingly fragmented the closer we get to the present day.

  4. Posted

    Here's a link to the article;

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.detroitnews.com/amp/5922301002

    Tldr version: the FBI thwarted a plot for an armed militia group to storm the Michigan capital building and kidnap Governor Whitmer with the express intent to try her for treason and/or execute her. This came largely as a response to Trump's 'Liberate Michigan' tweets.

  5. Posted

    13 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

    Changing demographics is the biggest issue. Around 2004 or so, the GOP saw the writing on the wall and intentionally modified their platform to tone down white supremacy and be more inclusive. George Bush, McCain and Romney all made efforts. Yet Trump saw he could squeeze one last election if he leveraged traditional GOP platforms targeting conservative/moderate white voters. By intensifying the appeal to white grievances - Trump pulled out a lot of non-voting uneducated whites with grievances. These voters did not resonate with the "compassionate conservatism" of the neo-GOP. Yet Trump has lost moderates that were willing to give Trump a chance - thinking he was a successful businessman. 

    Trump is trying to energize his base, yet it's not enough to win. And his chaotic, contradictory messaging on the election is awful for GOTV of his base. One day Trump is trying to win the election and encouraging his base to vote early and mail in. The next day he says the election and voting is fraudulent. Trump is trying to have it both ways and it's a terrible strategy. Why would a Trumper vote early if early voting is fraudulent? Why wait in line on election day if the election is rigged against you? 

    Early voting data suggests Dems have a huge advantage. Trump telling his base to wait to vote on election day has a huge risk. Putting all of his eggs into the election day basket is a terrible strategy. All sorts of things can happen on election day to dissuade voters from going to the polls. In some areas, the weather will be bad. Some people will be sick on election day. Some people leave work late and are tired, they don't feel like waiting in line. Some people will have a problem pop up in their life to deal with. 

    Things have gotten so bad I'd count a Conservative party that's not actively trying to undermine democracy, doesn't deny the reality of Climate change, and has an economic platform that's not just 'loot the country' as a major win for the long term prospects of our country.

  6. Posted · Edited by DocWatts

    It's not just Trump who's out of touch, of the last 7 presidential elections, the Republican party has only managed to win the popular vote one time.

    I'm hoping they either implode and are replaced by something better, or eventually change thier policy platform to a more moderate one that appeals to more people, so they don't have to resort to fanning the flames of racist resentment and voter disenfranchisement to win elections.

    Of course all evidence points to them just furthering thier attempts to subvert democracy to win elections, so my hopes aren't exactly high...

  7. Posted

    5 minutes ago, Preety_India said:

    @DocWatts your country needs to do away with all the stagnant orthodox ways of voting with all the gerrymandering and electoral farmer college and these improperly distributed ballots and even how they throw out ballots or make ballot decisions 

    Trump threw out like what, 100,000 ballots? 

    I feel like something fishy is going on 

     

    The Republican Party literally needs this to win elections, as their voting base is shrinking due to societal and demographic changes (appealing primarily to wealthy people but more importantly to whites who harbor racial resentment), and are going to do everything in thier power to block reforms to make the system more fair and democratic.

  10. Posted

    @Leo Gura (or @ anyone here who's knowledgeable about psychology as a field of study).

    Just out of curiosity, how rigorous is the Myers-Briggs personality profile as a psychological model? From what I've heard from various people in the psychological community is that the Myers-Briggs profile is something that isn't taken seriously by professionals; just wondering if it's possible that I'm missing something here. 

  12. Posted

    1 hour ago, Forestluv said:

    I see this as significant since Zuckerberg is standing up to Trump and MAGA. It’s like the alpha wolf is weakening and the other wolves are getting bolder. 

    From a corporate view, Zuck may be setting himself up for a Biden presidency. 

    It will be interesting to see if corporations start to re-position themselves for a post-Trump world. Keep an eye out for media outlets like FoxNews and if they start aligning with other GOP candidates and shift toward saving the senate with frames like “Don’t give Biden a blank check. Checks and balances are important”. 

    The rats are leaving the sinking MAGA ship.

  13. Posted

    We're in uncharted territory here. I don't think anyone really know what's going to happen, but Trump will almost certainly contest the election results, and even if Joe Biden wins in a landslide I would expect Civil Unrest during in the immediate aftermath.

    Also lots of ignorant posts by right wingers quoting '1984' because of the conspiracy theories vomiting out of the mouth of the candidate who ran the country in to the ground and then lost the election.

  15. Posted · Edited by DocWatts
    Clarity

    19 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

    Orange Libertarians may support LGBTQ from a personal-rights, small government ideological position, yet they are not going to *fight* for LGBTQ rights and inclusion. It would simply be on principle. 

    Neither Blue nor Orange would value and fight for the inclusion of a marginalized out-group. A good example is Jordan Peterson. He may 'talk' about LGBTQ personal rights in principal, yet he resists the actual inclusion actions to manifest that as reality. They would see the actuality of inclusion and equality as encroaching upon their own personal freedoms. 

    Correct. And of course it's a progression from being uncomfortable /morally opposed towards LGBTQ people, then a transition to being passively accepting of LGBTQ people, and if they continue developing that will transition in to actively fighting for LGBTQ rights and inclusion.

    Also from a developmental level, most Orange folks still have a limited understanding of what discrimination and exclusion looks like, and are only cognizant of the most direct and obvious forms of it.

  17. Posted · Edited by DocWatts

    7 minutes ago, Thewritersunion said:

    It’s not wise to apply Spiral Dynamics to an engineer or scientist.

    Any reason for this in particular? Being an engineer or a scientist encompasses a particular worldview, and for scientists in particular many of them have changed the world for good or ill in lasting and profound ways. Especially for some one like Oppenheimer whose life and work can't really be separated from the moral and ethical dimensions of the world changing discoveries he helped usher in. 

  18. Posted · Edited by DocWatts

    Not sure whether this would be more at home here or in the Society and Politics section, but alas...

    I've been thinking back lately on a book a read earlier this year : 'Making of the Atomic Bomb' by Richard Rhodes. It's a fascinating and nuanced look at the creation of the atomic weapons program by the United States during World War II, and goes in to quite some detail about the lives and personalities of several of the key scientists involved in the creation of the Bomb including Einstein, Niels Bohr, Edward Teller, Leo Szilard, and John von Neumann just to name a few. 

    But the most fascinating portrait to emerge of the was that of Robert Oppenheimer, the director of the Los Alamos laboratory where the world's first atomic explosion was made a terrifying reality. Robert Oppenheimer himself was a man full of contradictions; a brilliant lab director who was able to understand a multitude of scientific disciplines, he was also someone who was deeply interested in Eastern religions and spirituality (keep in mind this was the 1940s before this sort of thing was common in the West). A person who had the interpersonal skills to manage the titanic egos of the scientists involved in the project, he was also someone who was deeply depressed for much of his life.

    But most importantly, this is someone arguably responsible for one the greatest crimes in the history of mankind by ushering in the age of nuclear weapons, who developed a deep sense of shame and regret after seeing the horrific consequences of their use on two cities full of civilians. And understanding the threat that he had helped unleash on the world, this is a man who had his life and career destroyed in his attempts to advocate for peace and make sure that these weapons were never used again.

    I'd be curious as to where someone like this would map on to Spiral Dynamics, as he was far from a static person, and seems kind of hard to map.

  19. Posted

    6 minutes ago, Roy said:

    The fact that everyone capitulates so easily and doesn't hold their ground for who they truly want to vote for is EXACTLY  why there is a limited two party system.

    God North Americans are dumb.

    If you want to support third parties, vote in candidates who are willing to support electoral reforms such as Ranked Choice voting. As it stands now, there's not even a remotely level playing field for third parties and independents.

    48 minutes ago, tuckerwphotography said:

    People have been singing this song for decades. It hasn't worked. What has worked is infiltrating the two party system. Trump with Republicans. Bernie with Democrats. The problem is not enough Americans currently support the Green Party (or Bernie's) positions. If Bernie can't even win, how do you expect the Green Party to? Especially when they make such cringe-worthy low quality ads as the one above ;) 

    The Republican Party is united behind Trump. If we divide up the left, we're stuck with Trump. How is that helping anyone?

    This ^ ^ ^.   If you want to see a Green party policy platform enacted (as I do), your best bet is to support progressive Democrats that will help move the Democratic party's policy platform left. Also be appreciative of the fact that a Democratic Socialist and a candidate supporting Universal Basic Income have not only moved from the fringes towards the mainstream, but are having an active influence on the policy platform for the Democratic Party.

  20. Posted

    35 minutes ago, Scholar said:

    This just popped up in my recommendations.

     

    Kind of shows how things degenerated in america. Bush was a complete clown back then, but I guess we didn't really know the full spectrum of insanity that could be the american presidency.

    Also, it will be interesting to compare this to how Trump will react if he loses.

     

    Even with someone like him being the leader, there was still prestige and respect around the title of presidency of the US. That's gone now. Biden will not change that, something died when Trump became president.

    Bush was both better and worse. Better in the sense that he was just kind of a simple guy pushing a Blue / Orange ideology rather than a blatant authoritarian trying to subvert democracy, but I'd argue that he was also worse in the sense that the veneer of respectability obfuscated the looting of the country that's been a staple of the Republican party for decades. At least with Trump, the plutocratic tendencies have moved out in to the open, and unclothed the Emperor, so to speak.

    Not arguing some sort of false equivalency between the two, as Trump is obviously much more dangerous, but there is a clear progression from Reagan to Bush to Trump at work here.

  22. Posted · Edited by DocWatts

    Recently came across this show made by Duncan Trussel and Pendleton Ward (creator of Adventure Time). It's more or less an animated version of Duncan's podcast where he talks about frankly about a host of topics including grief, spirituality, psychedelics...

    The context for this clip is Duncan having a Conversation with his mother who was diagnosed with stage 4 cancer, knowing this is one of the last conversations he's going to have with her (she passed away before the show went on the air).

     

  23. Posted · Edited by DocWatts
    Clarity

    No mention of Undertale? Shame on you good sir ;)

    Undertale : A deconstruction of Role Playing video games that asks you to empathise with the monsters you come across, and encourages you to find non-violent resolutions to conflict.

    It's a game that asks you to take a deep look at the morality of your actions, and explores the topic of forgiveness. It also has positive representation for LGBT characters in a medium that still struggles with inclusivity.

    It's a deeply empathetic work of art with an incredibly life affirming and positive message. It's also incredibly playful and filled to the brim with lighthearted humour.

    Playing Undertale fills you with determination.

     

  24. Posted · Edited by DocWatts
    grammar clarity

    Thomas Nagel is my favorite; he's a contemporary philosopher who dives deep into integrating subjective experience (phenomenology) into an external objective reality. A lot of his work deals with the nature of consciousness, and he's become well known for his rejection of materialist reductionism when it comes to understanding how the mind works.

    He's also written quite a bit on law and ethics, and deals with questions such as Moral Luck and what it means to live a Good Life.

    One thing I really appreciate about Nagel is that he illuminates really interesting questions, but is also humble enough to admit that not every question is going to have a satisfying answer, and goes on to examine ways to cope with that uncertainty.

  25. Posted

    2 hours ago, Forestluv said:

    That would be a form of retributive justice. After Larry Nassar got busted I noticed a range of retributive justice sentiment. Some people wanted him to pay for his crimes by serving time in prison. Others hoped and fantasized that he would be abused and suffer in prison. One person even described graphic images of how other prisoners should abuse him. In a way, that is proportional since Nassar inflicted abuse and suffering onto others. At a healthy Blue level, there is serving a prison sentence. Throw in some Red and we get into an “eye for an eye” justice served mentality.

    Utilitarian justice would have a very different perspective. This is focused on rehabilitating criminals so they can return to society as contributing members. Yet it seems very unlikely that Trump can be rehabilitated. This itself is a relative view, many believe Trump is a hero the way he is.

    From the perspective that Trump is a criminal, in what form will there be justice? He has an impeachment on his record, yet that is merely a wrist slap. Is losing an election ‘justice’ for crimes? I’d say that is a consequence, not justice. Will Trump ever be tried in court and serve a prison sentence? I’d say unlikely. Is Trump’s karmic discomfort in living life as a narcissist sufficient justice? I’d imagine most people would say no. . . So this brings us back to the virus. Many people see the virus as a form of justice that Trump cannot escape - yet he is trying to do so with the best medical doctors and science. In this framing, it would be similar to Trump facing a trial for his crimes and his team of lawyers (doctors) are trying to use legal arguments (anti-viral treatment) to save him. Rooting for the prosecuting attorney’s and a life-long prison sentence (or death sentence) would be like rooting for the virus. From this perspective, the virus within Trump is the good guy of justice - the only chance for Trump to face justice. 

    Just one perspective of many. It’s amazing how many perspectives are flying around right now. It’s like a playground for minds that can perspective jump. 

     

    There are distinctions. A person can hope for the death of an individual as a form of retributive or utilitarian justice. Experiencing pleasure via the pain and suffering of another’s death is sadism. That is a different ballgame. Yet there are various degrees and forms of sadism. 

    Thank you for the thoughtful response, you've given me a lot to reflect on; like just how imperfect justice can be in the real world; what"s the proper perspective to take when restorative justice isn't a realistic possibility, or when institutions are unlikely to hold people to account for thier actions?

    I won't pretend to have all of this figured out, but my own inclinations are to be highly uncomfortable cheering on anyone's death, even an objectively terrible person's.