2020 US Election (Part 3)

[Ziggy Stardust]

For the third time (please read!) I am not making an accusation or saying there is solid proof. Do we understand, here?

What does plausible mean?

Should I have gone:"I never said innocent. PLEASE READ!!"?

 

[Patine]

Ah, the classic Glenn Beck defense. Only slightly less effective than the Chewbacca defense.

Sorry, what? I read or watch Glenn Beck, so I have no idea what his, "defense," is. Or what a "Chewbacca," defense is. Can you make a point without pop-culture references, buzzwords, and memes, please?

 

[Zardnaar]

Sorry, what? I read or watch Glenn Beck, so I have no idea what his, "defense," is. Or what a "Chewbacca," defense is. Can you make a point without pop-culture references, buzzwords, and memes, please?

I'm guessing satires not your strong point.

 

[Patine]

What does plausible mean?

Should I have gone:"I never said innocent. PLEASE READ!!"?

*rolls eyes*

 

[Cloud_Strife]

For the third time (please read!) I am not making an accusation or saying there is solid proof. Do we understand, here?

I am highly dubious of George W. Bush's inept, comical, innocent mascot for Cheney and Rove narrative. His father was a former Director, and long-time agent of the world's largest, most-prolific, and best-funded terrorist and organized crime group and den of assassinations and insidious strippers of liberty and self-determination of whole nations on the planet - the CIA - as well as VERY POSSIBLY, with significant evidence (but, I admit, not hard proof, and thus I won't outright accuse) who had a hand in JFK's assassination and the attempted assassination of Reagan. Barbara Bush, his mother, was also kind of macabre, in a hard to define sort of way. This is not an upbringing that usually produces the figure you're seeing in George W. Bush.

 

[cardgame]

I'm guessing satires not your strong point.

I have been sarcastic toward Patine on many occasions, none of which were picked up as sarcasm no matter how obvious

 

[El_Machinae]

What evidence?

There's a framing to watch out for here. I first noticed it with JollyRoger (pbuh) where 'evidence' just meant 'something to look at'. It didn't mean that the evidence was convincing or that it was verfiable. It merely meant that it would be something that would plausibly happen if the underlying hypothesis were true. I sometimes use it that way, and forget to clarify.

For example, 'evidence' that Native Americans are actually migratory Hebrews is that Joseph Smith claims to have had an angel tell him that. It cannot be confirmed and it cannot be replicated. But it would be evidence. If we were building a case both for and against this claim, we would happily slot it and then weight it.

Colloquially, most people mean 'useful evidence' when they say 'evidence'. But not always. And evidence can support multiple hypotheses at the same time. For example, there's a hard limit at which microscopy can resolve something due to the wavelengths of light. This would be evidence for both the Big Bang AND that we live in a simulation that doesn't want to spend processing power resolving the fine-grain resolution for us. In other words, if either scenario were true, we'd expect that evidence to be there.

 

[RobAnybody]

Can you make a point without pop-culture references, buzzwords, and memes, please?

Is Beth Harmon known for playing checkers?

 

[AmazonQueen]

Watches thread disappear down rabbithole

 

[cardgame]

Watches thread disappear down rabbithole

might as well, election's over.

 

[Zardnaar]

I have been sarcastic toward Patine on many occasions, none of which were picked up as sarcasm no matter how obvious

Yeah wouldn't be fun at a booze up.

 

[Sommerswerd]

This, with the caveat that he won't run if he's dead, a vegetable, or in jail. Somehow I don't think God will see fit to be so kind to us though. We're a sinful lot, and we need to be punished. Clearly.

I think the best we can hope for, is that he runs and it results in part of the Republicans splitting into a 3rd Party.

Hoping that Trump just willingly gives up the "campaign donations" and adoring crowds chanting his name is just... I guess naïve is a polite way of putting it. I mean maybe he lets one of his kids (or their spouses) run in his stead, maybe... but someone in the Trump family is running in 2024 and that's all there is to it.

Seventy-three million votes... and counting. Trump is running again. Write it down.

 

[Patine]

@Cloud_Strife Okay, Ms. Marple, where did I make an outright accusation?

 

[Cloud_Strife]

@Cloud_Strife Okay, Ms. Marple, where did I make an outright accusation?

You seem agitated my friend... is there anything we can do to assist you sir...

 

[Patine]

You seem agitated my friend... is there anything we can do to assist you sir...

I highly doubt it...

 

[Cloud_Strife]

I highly doubt it...

trump is still a fascist, an incompetent one, but a fascist nonetheless

 

[Patine]

I think the best we can hope for, is that he runs and it results in part of the Republicans splitting into a 3rd Party.

Hoping that Trump just willingly gives up the "campaign donations" and adoring crowds chanting his name is just... I guess naïve is a polite way of putting it. I mean maybe he lets one of his kids (or their spouses) run in his stead, maybe... but someone in the Trump family is running in 2024 and that's all there is to it.

Seventy-three million votes... and counting. Trump is running again. Write it down.

But if a Trump running in 2024 is NOT Donald, Sr., it won't be a new candidate for "Trumpism," for reasons I've explained several (and have elucidated on the nature of what "Trumpism," actually is, in truth), it'll be a different, but definitely also toxic, campaign, but likely have far less chance of clinching a nomination.

 

[Patine]

trump is still a fascist, an incompetent one, but a fascist nonetheless

Your insistence on using old, obsolete labels for modern movements in new contexts is a form of toxic nostalgia. Toxic nostalgia is a centre pillar of EVERY far-right-wing movement out there, whether they be old Fascists, or others (the non-Fascists in the great majority of that grouping - your obstenant denial of facts and reality changing nothing), as well.

 

[Birdjaguar]

@Patine but we all know exactly what she means. Being approximately right is often better than being precisely wrong. @Cloud_Strife, perhaps not perfect, use of fascist conveys what she wants to say far better than your ongoing obsession with definitions conveys the point you are trying to make.

 

[Patine]

@Patine but we all know exactly what he means. Being approximately right is often better than being precisely wrong. @Cloud_Strife, perhaps not perfect, use of fascist conveys what he wants to say far better than your ongoing obsession with definitions conveys the point you are trying to make.

It's the same kind of "fudging," where Ann Coulter calls Obama and Hillary Clinton Communists for crying out loud. It distorts the discourse into the most extreme, out-of-proportion, and vitriolic terms for everything, usually chosen to capitalize on a baggage of immense infamy that is only partially - often marginally - applicable, and definitely chosen moreso for slanderous epithet than genuinity. And then things return to the general tenor of rhetoric of the Revolutions of 1848...