Recent posts

#21

Off the Record / Re: What does a TRUMP presiden...

Last post by Admiral Yi - Today at 04:03:42 PM

Sounds like justification. Here's what I think: you're not as awesome as you think you are. You're not as rational, smart and logical. You're just another dipshit, like the rest of us.

Fascinating.  I'd love to hear how you came to those conclusions.

#22

Off the Record / Re: What does a TRUMP presiden...

Last post by The Minsky Moment - Today at 04:02:08 PM

We constitute two broad camps guided by two different moral codes.  The camp I identify with i call the rationalists.  We believe in cost/benefit analyses, weighing of conflicting principles, and civil discourse as a means of resolving differences, and the primacy of reason, logic, facts and evidence as instruments in that discourse.

Yet when I pointed out that NATO behavior is rational from a cost-benefit perspective, your objection was based on fairness.

#23

Off the Record / Re: What does a TRUMP presiden...

Last post by Zoupa - Today at 03:57:21 PM

Civil discourse.

It's uncivil discourse justified on the *universal* principle of reciprocity. I don't feel the moral obligation to grant you more civility than you grant me.  Tit for tat.  Don't start shit, don't take shit.

Sounds like justification. Here's what I think: you're not as awesome as you think you are. You're not as rational, smart and logical. You're just another dipshit, like the rest of us.

#24

Off the Record / Re: What does a TRUMP presiden...

Last post by Admiral Yi - Today at 03:46:26 PM

Hillay, I think that covers your issues, yeah?

Maybe not. Who would I consider a rationalist that is not?

Raz? He's a work in progress.

#25

Off the Record / Re: Baseball

Last post by The Minsky Moment - Today at 03:46:07 PM

MLB is in bed with the gambling business; the gambling companies run ads and crawlers on televised games updating odds, and yet MLB is shocked, shocked, to find there is gambling going on in the game. This is least surprising scandal imaginable.

#26

Off the Record / Re: Baseball

Last post by Sophie Scholl - Today at 03:45:11 PM

Apparently 65 years in prison if they're convicted on all counts. I wonder if they'll get prison or deportation, though. I'd imagine deportation back to the DR would probably be a death sentence. 

#27

Off the Record / Re: Baseball

Last post by Admiral Yi - Today at 03:29:19 PM

Aw jeez.

[~ The deal would include a promised vote on extending Obamacare tax credits in December, the sources said.]

#28

Off the Record / Re: What does a TRUMP presiden...

Last post by Tamas - Today at 03:21:15 PM

https://www.axios.com/2025/11/09/deal-to-end-government-shutdown-in-reach

Senate Democrats on Sunday indicated they are ready to advance a package of bills that could end the government shutdown, multiple sources told Axios.

Why it matters: It is the most significant movement toward a bipartisan breakthrough in the talks to re-open the government in over a month.

~ At least 10 Senate Democrats are expected to support a procedural motion to advance a package of spending bills and a short term funding measure, multiple sources from both parties told Axios.

~ The deal would include a promised vote on extending Obamacare tax credits in December, the sources said.

A "promised vote" is what you got out of this? A promise?! The incompetence or complicity is just... there is no bottom, is there? 

If this is true the Dems prove they are just looking for an excuse to get out of having to work for it, and just want to hang on to their job as His Golden Majesty's Opposition.

#29

Off the Record / Re: What does a TRUMP presiden...

Last post by Admiral Yi - Today at 03:11:38 PM

Hillay, I think that covers your issues, yeah?

#30

Off the Record / Re: What does a TRUMP presiden...

Last post by Admiral Yi - Today at 03:08:23 PM

The first thought is that the descriptions are very biased (perhaps understandably so). The Rationalist description articulates how Rationalists like to see themselves; while the description of the Romantics is a collection of all the things that Rationalists find annoying or off-putting about the Romantic positions. IMO a better and more useful version of the model would describe both sides in terms they'd recognize and be willing to say "yeah that's fair, the represents my point of view" (and it's a limited number of people who are going to embrace "it's perfectly fine to lie" and "I think people who don't agree with me are evil and less than human" as the core values of their philosophy).

Bias means inaccurate, diverging from the truth.  It does not mean splitting the difference or pleasing everyone. I believe the romantic school is inferior. That's why I don't want to be a member. How can I possibly tell  someone their thinking is inferior and get a  response of "yeah that's fair?"

I'll also note that I believe the whole rudeness / respectful discourse thing is pure (and incorrect) bias. There are plenty of people who'd consider themselves to be in the Rationalist camp who are rude as fuck (some of them used to post here); and there are people who'd be in the Romantic side of things who are perfectly civil.

I think long departed poster throbby McVein is an example of someone with rationalist  pretensions who was unpleasant to    deal with. I'm  defending my concept of rationalism, not his.  Romantic is not synonymous with the left/woke/progressive (though I think there is a depressingly high correlation on this board).  Joe Squeeze is all those things I mentioned but quite civil and limits his discourse to the boundaries of the dialectic.  That's why I've praised him on several  ocassions.  Otto von Bismark is a romantic on the right. You're an interesting case study Jacob. My read on you is that you were a romantic in your salad days, you're transitioning to rationalism, but also trying to remain loyal to your friends and allies, and struggling to square that  circle. I wish you luck

My main point for now, however, is that one of the biggest weaknesses of the Rationalist camp is their ability to delude themselves and exclude data from their mental models, while convincing themselves that they are in fact being perfectly logical and rational. The classic example of that is the stereotype of the highly educated engineer who is profoundly confident that they're experts in fields they know little about, because they've logically reasoned themselves to a conclusion based on a small handful of facts they've selected; and it's basically just lucky coincidence that the only rational conclusion lines up with the engineers self-interest.

The beauty of the dialectic is you have to concede the *possibility* you are wrong to enter it. A  counter argument that is not refuted or conceded is proof you are playing a different game.