Random Chat, Thoughts, Posts, and/or Rants Thread

[msufan]

This reminded me of what MJ always says:

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[ItsAJackal]

Breathe. Have a good night’s sleep. Start again tomorrow.

Nothing‘s so bad It couldn’t be worse. Think about what you’ve got and sit for a while being grateful for it. Sometime I’m grateful just to sit and watch the wind blow the leaves in the trees.

Now then, what’s your day job and why do you believe you need to learn something new?

It's a long story, but basically I've always chased what I thought I was "supposed" to do. So I've ended up with a 15 year career in Sales. It's been at several different companies, but right now it's Industrial Equipment.

My skill set now just revolves around selling equipment and customer service. That's it. I am an introvert, so being in what I call "reactionary" sells is exhausting. It's just incoming phone calls and emails all day without the time to ever focus on a single project.

My ideal situation would be something that I could completely devote all of my energy to a single project, then sell that project and move on to a new one while the original is either still generating something or the sell was enough to float for a while. Obviously there will be some interaction/reactions no matter what you do each day. You want to help the people that are trusting you. But I don't thrive when I'm being bombarded.

To be able to do something like that, I believe I need a skill set I do not currently have. Coding? Copywriting? I don't know. But I would need a product/skill first to utilize the sales experience I have, which means I need to start learning at a basic level.

I am the provider in my family of 4. Which means I would need to start a side business first and it would need to be off hours. And I find myself in the Analysis Paralysis spiral because I think of an idea, and then realize how much time I would need to move forward...so I stop.

I don't want to do what I'm "supposed" to do anymore. I am not passionate at all in what I'm doing from 7am-6pm each day. I know passion is a 4 letter word sometimes, but I at least would like to be somewhat interested and energized about what I'm doing. I haven't looked forward to a day of work in a very long time.

 

[ChrisV]

There was never a scientific consensus... To quote probably 90% of grandfathers... This has been like watching a bunch of monkeys trying to f*** a football.

Being devoid of biases doesn't mean you are right. That just means you democratized and crowdsourced your belief system. The funny thing is the arrogant subjectivist "intelligentsia" think they are universally correct with this type of belief system. The reality is that the middle is almost universally wrong about everything. The majority in Germany supported Hitler too. To be an unbiased German during the holocaust, you had to hold at least some of Hitler's views. Were the unbiased Germans right?

I am not going to do the math for you, but this "seeking to eliminate bias" that you say you do is not rooted in fact, it is rooted in idiosyncratic fluidity. This is an objectivist vs subjectivist argument.

In this argument, I am the exact opposite of you.

Almost none of my individual beliefs are moderate. I have chosen positions on everything from economics to individual liberties and criminal justice with full knowledge of the entire spectrum of beliefs on those topics. I was bold enough to pick a position based on my understandings. That just means I know what I believe and have reason for it.

The notion of being somehow enlightened because you have limited biases is a farce.

Being without bias doesn't mean you don't take any position. It means you're not beholden to any ideology. It means you don't fit neatly into a Left vs Right category. (Not implying I have no biases, but I intentionally try to mitigate them as much as possible.)

For example, I have weird beliefs. I own no guns but I'm against gun control, I think abortion is mortally wrong, but still support someone's right to get one. I support gay-marriage and the right of the business to not sell them a wedding cake. I'm pro-capitalism, but pro-social welfare programs, despite having to pay higher taxes for them.

Too liberal and you're a hippie, too conservative and you're Gestapo. But both are thinking emotionally - not rationally.

Someone who's Pro gun-control, pro minimum wage, pro gay-marriage, pro abortion and just sides with their 'team' on every issue is likely just thinking emotionally and engaging in team sports. If you agree with either side on all issues it generally indicates you're thinking with emotions.

They're thinking with the tribal brain, not the logical one.

It's a part of the brain that helped our ancestors when it was time to go to war, not to do science. What is Viewpoint Diversity? That's exactly what I witnessed in the COVID thread. Exactly. Exactly. Exactly.

Separating fact from fiction isn't a team sport. It involves gathering evidence from both sides then making a decision. A judge doesn't just hear one side then make a decision. They need to listen to both sides and come to a nuanced conclusion.

And that's for subjects I'm actually willing to learn about. I know nothing about physics and have no intention of learning, so I just trust the "crowdsources opinion" of physicists; and I firmly believe that's a good way of assessing truth. If that's not "thinking for myself" or "being a sheeple" I'm totally okay with that. I prefer that to making up my own physics. I have limited time and energy. I see people 'thinking for themselves' all the time on Facebook while they post illuminati videos. Unless you've studied a topic for years you really haven't earned the right to 'think for yourself.'

Dunning–Kruger effect - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

These people who 'think for themselves' are most often the people promoting things like Homeopathy or Energy Healing. I trust my doctors opinion more than I trust some article on mother jones. But then you also have to be aware of their incentives because being too trusting can lead to being taken for a ride.

But I'm not going to go get a PhD in economics just to answer 2 questions... I'll just consult economists. If that's crowd-sourcing, I'm totally fine with that. I'm not going to go to tax school just to fill out my 1099s. I'll just hire someone.

I think it's arrogant to come up with a position you're not educated on.

 

[ChrisV]

And actually crowdsourcing is a pretty damn accurate way of assessing truths:

The Wisdom of Crowds - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Kak]

And actually crowdsourcing is a pretty damn accurate way of assessing truths:

View attachment 33088

The Wisdom of Crowds - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Just because someone wrote a book about it doesn't make it so.

What you are talking about here is a democracy of the mind wherein the collective is basically deciding one's beliefs for them despite the fact that their own beliefs are one of the few things they actually get to decide for themselves.

It is absolutely subjectivist vs objectivist.

This is a dangerous and also lazy way to run your mind.

 

[ChrisV]

Just because someone wrote a book about it doesn't make it so.

What you are talking about here is a democracy of the mind wherein others are basically deciding one's beliefs for them when their beliefs are one of the few things they actually get to decide for themselves.

It is absolutely subjectivist vs objectivist.

Prediction markets are pretty damn accurate:

The power of prediction markets - Nature

Scientists are beginning to understand why these ‘mini Wall Streets’ work so well at forecasting election results — and how they sometimes fail.

www.nature.com

 

[Kak]

Prediction markets are pretty damn accurate:

The power of prediction markets - Nature

Scientists are beginning to understand why these ‘mini Wall Streets’ work so well at forecasting election results — and how they sometimes fail.

www.nature.com

I don't have time to read every article you post.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[ChrisV]

I don't have time to read every article you post.

I don't read the entire things either. They're just citations.

 

[Kak]

I don't read the entire things either. They're just citations.

Respond with words, not citations.

Your anti-bias thing is not as intellectually superior as you think it is. Admit it or argue against it.

 

[ChrisV]

Respond with words, not citations.

That's a bad way of doing things. Here's why:

How to Cite Sources | Citation Examples for APA, MLA & Chicago | EasyBib

www.easybib.com

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Kak]

That's a bad way of doing things. Here's why:

How to Cite Sources | Citation Examples for APA, MLA & Chicago | EasyBib

www.easybib.com

Then what the hell are we doing here? Evidently, there is no such thing as intelligence outside of "credible" (wherein you are the authority on what is credible) sources.

Tell me again... Who is biased?

 

[Vigilante]

Just because someone wrote a book about it doesn't make it so.

What you are talking about here is a democracy of the mind wherein the collective is basically deciding one's beliefs for them despite the fact that their own beliefs are one of the few things they actually get to decide for themselves.

It is absolutely subjectivist vs objectivist.

This is a dangerous and also lazy way to run your mind.

Who is John Galt?

 

[ChrisV]

Then what the hell are we doing here? Evidently, there is no such thing as intelligence outside of "credible" (wherein you are the authority on what is credible) sources.

Tell me again who is biased?

I was making a joke. Reread it and you'll see the irony.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Vigilante]

That's a bad way of doing things. Here's why:

How to Cite Sources | Citation Examples for APA, MLA & Chicago | EasyBib

www.easybib.com

You don’t read them, so later when they are pointed out as folly you can disown them.

 

[ChrisV]

Then what the hell are we doing here? Evidently, there is no such thing as intelligence outside of "credible" (wherein you are the authority on what is credible) sources.

Tell me again who is biased?

Okay.. I'll actually answer.

There's nothing wrong with biased sources. It's just that when you see a biased source you have to take it with a grain of salt. They have incentives to omit facts or present the situation in a certain light. It's like industry-funded research. Just because a study is funded by a corporation, doesn't mean it's wrong.. it just means you should have your guard up because they have incentives to spin information. The same is true of Left / Right sources. They're trying to fulfill a political objective so they're incentivized to present one side of the story to get their way. It doesn't mean they're wrong, it just means 'be careful.'

That plus politically biased sources are much less rigorous about fact-checking. Again, because their objective isn't to ascertain an objective truth, it's to fulfill a certain motive.

 

[Kak]

Okay.. I'll actually answer.

There's nothing wrong with biased sources. It's just that when you see a biased source you have to take it with a grain of salt. They have incentives to omit facts or present the situation in a certain light. It's like industry-funded research. Just because a study is funded by a corporation, doesn't mean it's wrong.. it just means you should have your guard up because they have incentives to spin information. The same is true of Left / Right sources. They're trying to fulfill a political objective so they're incentivized to present one side of the story to get their way. It doesn't mean they're wrong, it just means 'be careful.'

That plus politically biased sources are much less rigorous about fact-checking. Again, because their objective isn't to ascertain an objective truth, it's to fulfill a certain motive.

OK. That is an actual response...

If a subject is indeed binary. Let's say capitalism, for instance, something you agree(?) with me on. It is pretty much data driven fact extrapolated over the entire world. The standard of living and overall lifestyle of even the poorest citizens of a given country, is inversely correlated to the amount central economic control.

We can basically say that is binary. For the sake of argument. Capitalism right. Socialism wrong.

Being unbiased in that regard makes you wrong, less wrong than a socialist, but still wrong. Being biased towards capitalism therefore makes you right.

I am not talking about sources necessarily... But personal beliefs.

Although! It still works for the sake of argument. An unbiased economic article that straddles capitalism and socialism is incorrect. A bias towards capitalism is therefore the more factual article.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[ChrisV]

If a subject is indeed binary. Let's say capitalism, for instance, something you agree(?) with me on. It is pretty much data driven fact extrapolated over the entire world. The standard of living and overall lifestyle of even the poorest citizens of a given country, is inversely correlated to the amount central economic control.

We can basically say that is binary. For the sake of argument. Capitalism right. Socialism wrong.

I don't believe in choosing agnostic, lukewarm wet-noodle compromise stances. I just think that reality is complex and nuanced and there are often valid arguments on both sides.

Capitalism is a perfect example. I mean I obviously think capitalism is a borderline miracle, but even that if you dig deeper I'm not so binary on the topic. I think there may be a case to be made for mixed economies like Norway and Finland (Scandinavia). I don't think the evidence is clear cut. Countries like those actually ranked really high on the 'ease of doing business,' and have better economic mobility (which is how likely it is for a poor person to become rich ad defined by lower to top 5%)

Ease of doing business index - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Ranked: The Social Mobility of 82 Countries

Ranked: The Social Mobility of 82 Countries It’s an unfortunate truth that a person’s opportunities can be partially tethered to their socioecono...

markets.businessinsider.com

I'm willing to look at that evidence even though it would mean I'd have to pay higher taxes. Research shows in societies with lower income inequality, even the wealthy have less stress. When you're rich and everyone else is poor people it creates instability. That's what sparked the Communist revolution in the 1900's. When inequality gets so out of hand poor people want to flip the whole system upside down. And if they get mad enough... they will. Gated communities anyone? If you have to build a fence to protect yourself from poor people... watch the f--- out. Despite being a rabid Capitalist, Jordan Peterson makes a really strong conservative argument against Income inequality.

Something like a social safety net might put people in a position where they're less afraid to start an otherwise risky business. Let's say John is a 46 year old man with a family and a great idea. He may be less likely to try to start a business like that without a safety net. Now if John has a really cool invention and can make that successful, that actually benefits me.

Or maybe it will just make people lazy. The point is, I don't think there's enough evidence to make a determination either way yet. I think both sides deserve being heard and not dismissed.

But I digress. My point is: often truth is too complex to neatly put yourself on one side or the other. On "Team Fastlane Freedom Fighters" or "Team Housecat." If you notice anytime you try to apply a binary label I reject it. "Athiest" or "Christian." Often my views are too complex to put into a neat little box. It's because it's looking at the world in binary terms and not acknowledging the shades of grey. And furthermore, once you choose "Team Black" you can become blind to the sometimes valid points of "Team White."

I think life is generally too complicated to choose sides. Or if you do choose a side, at least acknowledge that the other side may have valid evidence as well.

 

[ChrisV]

Philip Tetlock did extensive studies on this. He had people make predictions about the future, and ranked their confidence on the answers. He found a pretty strong correlation between "Confidence" and "simplicity of position" and how inaccurate someone was in their predictions. This is consistent with the Dunning-Kreuger effect, where people with simplistic, confident positions were less accurate than people with nuanced, and somewhat tepid positions. It's also consistent with Kahneman and Tversky's Nobel prose winning work. There are huge amounts of research showing that confident, simplistic (hedgehog) positions are significantly less accurate than nuanced, and cautious ones (fox.)

THIS, is actually worth reading:

Philip Tetlock: Why Foxes Are Better Forecasters Than Hedgehogs - The Long Now

longnow.org

I am not talking about sources necessarily... But personal beliefs.

Although! It still works for the sake of argument. An unbiased economic article that straddles capitalism and socialism is incorrect. A bias towards capitalism is therefore the more factual article.

But if and when there is an objective truth to be had, then yes.. anything that deviates from that would move you further away from the truth. If something is Blue, then entertaining an argument that says it's Red serves no purpose. There is no nuance there. Saying it's purple moves you away from truth.

 

[ChrisV]

Then what the hell are we doing here? Evidently, there is no such thing as intelligence outside of "credible" (wherein you are the authority on what is credible) sources.

Btw, I am definitely not the authority of which sources are credible. I go by what's credible in the scientific/academic world or what you would be allowed to use as a citation in a research paper.

Home | Ad Fontes Media

Home of the Media Bias Chart® – Ad Fontes Media rates the news for bias and reliability via a proven methodology and politically balanced...

www.adfontesmedia.com

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

(Wikipedia generally adheres to the same standards that academia does)

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[reedracer]

.. To quote probably 90% of grandfathers... This has been like watching a bunch of monkeys trying to f*** a football.

As a granddad deprived of most of his sports, I've seen some sexy dang footballs! Philosophy battles, not so much.

 

[Deleted78083]

I am currently doing a "100-days no addiction" experience. Have cut out entirely

-sugar (including complex carbs)
- coffee
-alcohol
-weed
-porn
-fap
-social media (except for instagram)

I expect this to give me more energy. Today is day 17. Will update as it goes.

 

[MJ DeMarco]

I'm fully aware that the NY Times is left-wing propaganda, but their reporting is generally reliable. Bias doesn't necessarily mean full-of-shit.

I just liked the article and the way they explained it. Feel free to choose your source.

I'm fully aware that InfoWars and Alex Jones is right-wing propaganda, but their reporting is generally reliable. Bias doesn't necessary mean full-of-shit... Feel free to choose your source (links to another bias, hyper-partisan source masquerading as neutrality).

I'm fully aware that Pravda is state-sanctioned communist propaganda, but their reporting is generally reliable. Bias doesn't necessary mean full-of-shit... Feel free to choose your source (links to another bias, hyper-partisan source masquerading as neutrality).

In other words, you're just another drone parroting the official narrative as ordained by global policy overlords, while turning a blind-eye to alternative explanations that don't fit inside the approved box. You also probably thought Trump was a Russian asset for 3 years, because well, the NYTimes and CNN told you so.

In the words of Noam Chomsky, someone who you'd probably philosophically align with...

“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum....”

Question is, what spectrum are you part of?

Metaphorically speaking in Wizard of Oz terms, you think you're smart because you're analyzing EXACTLY what the wizard wants you to analyze -- the data that has been pre-approved by the YouTube censors, NY Times, and Vox. Woo hoo, look at what's up there on the BIG SCREEN! Let's analyze it! Dissect it! Judge it!

Meanwhile some of us aren't interested in what the wizard is showing us on the BIG SCREEN, we're interested in pulling the curtain away from the wizard and exposing him. WHY is he is showing us this garbage on the big screen? WHY is he keeping people like you occupied with his grand spectacle?

Before I left the other CV19 thread, you opined that Dr. Fauci was a "national treasure." LOL, it caused me to puke in my mouth. Indeed he is, if you consider lifetime bureaucrats national treasures. I'm guessing he's cut from the same cloth that mysteriously gave lifetime politicians a $150,000,000 net worth on a lifetime civil servant salary ...

And actually crowdsourcing is a pretty damn accurate way of assessing truths

Perhaps in a mathematically based speculation (how many gumballs in the jar?) but not on how to live your life, or who to trust.

• The crowd is one paycheck from broke.
• The crowd thinks an expensive college degree is the right choice, regardless of economic or job outlook.
• The crowd thinks you can get rich by skimping on your Starbucks.
• The crowd thinks it's OK to throw away Monday thru Friday for Saturday and Sunday.
• The crowd thinks some old white dude is sitting on a throne in the sky who created the earth 4000 years ago.
• The crowd thinks you can "humanely" kill something that doesn't want to be killed.
• The crowd thinks it's OK to have your civil rights stripped in the name of some perceived greater good, one that is variable and dynamic.
• The crowd thought it was OK to stay in the tower because the lady on the loudspeaker said so.
• The crowd also thought nothing would happen when the Germans told them to get on the boxcar.

F*ck the crowd.

Sorry, but when you rely on the crowd for your thinking, you get results engineered for the crowd.

You my friend, are playing for "Team Crowd" or as Kak alluded, Team Housecat. Worse, you don't even know it... it's like showing up at Yankee stadium in a Cubs uniform.

That said, I do admire the fact that you seem willing to question your own predilections and that your disposition appears evolutionary and open for incursion. That's leaps ahead of the "average American" or what I like to say, the "average AmeriKaren".

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Kak]

Before I left the other CV19 thread, you opined that Dr. Fauci was a "national treasure." LOL, it caused me to puke in my mouth.

Fauci is such an arrogant loser. All he does is try to extend his 15 minutes of fame to 20.

 

[Vigilante]

Fauci is such an arrogant loser. All he does is try to extend his 15 minutes of fame to 20.

They've done a marvelous job of getting ready for this moment while everyone else was sleeping. Now, while they're all watching Tiger King it's the perfect window to make a move.

 

[Kid]

Apropos above fight:
I wonder what would happen if someone put gigantic cotton mask on statue of liberty.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Vigilante]

In the words of Noam Chomsky, someone who you'd probably philosophically align with...

“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum....”

So when we go back to these selected, partially opened businesses that the government forced to be closed, should we be "selfless" and wear a mask, or not?

We're in the narrow stream of the constricted spectrum. We can't see the forest through the trees. We've allowed the discussion to be limited within the accepted scope of the government's now-accepted action, instead of questioning the reason and the nature of the action itself.

Masks? How about we run out of town on the next train the people responsible for 38,000,000 people out of work in the United States from a STATISTICAL FORECAST ERROR?

Why are we talking about whether or not a small business can be open, when we should be talking about restoring the constitutional Republic?

We've been played, and we're STILL BEING PLAYED.

 

[ChrisV]

I'm fully aware that InfoWars and Alex Jones is right-wing propaganda, but their reporting is generally reliable. Bias doesn't necessary mean full-of-shit... Feel free to choose your source (links to another bias, hyper-partisan source masquerading as neutrality).

And then the Shepard Anthony Fauci said unto his Sheeple: “Go forth to the pasture and spread my word unto the mainstream media. For the full armor, gloves and surgical mask will protect you against the attacks of Alex Jones’.”

 

[ChrisV]

I'm fully aware that InfoWars and Alex Jones is right-wing propaganda, but their reporting is generally reliable. Bias doesn't necessary mean full-of-shit... Feel free to choose your source (links to another bias, hyper-partisan source masquerading as neutrality).

Here, I’ll actually give a real reply.

New York Times is overtly leftist but dude, there is no way you believe that InfoWars is an equal comparison. I don’t know if you’re trying to use hyperbole or exaggerate to make a point or what. The leftist inverse of InfoWars like... the Daily Kos or Wonkette. Those are left-wing conspiracy site. New York Times is more like.... the left version of Wall Street Journal. It is not equal to a guy who believes hurricanes are man made and that Glenn Beck is a CIA operative.

Opinion pieces supporting Joe Biden ≠ "Hillary Clinton is running a child sex ring out of the back of a pizzeria”

We're all fully aware that media outlets paint a narrative for their own benefit. CNN tries to paint a leftist narrative, Fox tries to paint a right wing narrative. CNN used to be a legitimate journalism source (in the Heraldo Rivera days like during Dessert Storm,) but it's not now.

Reliability and bias are two separate measures. A sources reliability is is how factual the information is. A sources neutrality is how likely they are to tell both sides.

Biased stories tell the truth, but they only tell their side of the story. Their reporting is still factual, it just omits the information that may harm their case.

On the other hand untrustworthy sources just make shit up. New York Times doesn’t really make shit up, they just tell half the story. Of they filter it through their lens. They selectively picks facts that support their narrative and omit facts that oppose it. But they don’t make up facts (in general.) That’s the difference between reliability and bias. Snopes too. Snopes is like… 15% Left. Anything more than that is an exaggeration.

That’s why my favorite news sources are Associated Press and Reuters. They’re pretty apolitical.

But what’s the solution here? Just believe nothing? The only thing we should listen to is our own intuition? You say all this is bullshit, but don’t offer an alternative.

I do see my biases. I know I have them. But this forum thinks it doesn’t. This forum is hardcore libertarian, which is to be expected given the content in “Unscripted ,” so it’s no surprise that this forum would be anti-lockdown. Libertarians just hate being told what to do. They’re more likely to agree with the statement “Being told what to do makes me feel a strong discomfort.”

I hate being told what to do too. That’s a bias of mine. My temperament is Libertarian. But part of wisdom is recognizing your biological temperament and stepping back from it.

Temperment doesn’t change the info. The problem is when you take your opinion (“i don’t like being told what to do”) then use it to gerrymander facts. One of the most constant findings in psychology is how people use their rational mind to justify their emotions.

That’s what bias is. It’s letting your emotions leak over into your fact-seeking device. And all humans do it unless you’ve gone through extensive training.

So “I don’t like rules” and “I don’t like being told what to do” now turns into people selectively cherrypicking facts. Rather than building an argument around “I don’t like being told what to do” they try to make the virus seem like as little of a threat as possible.

I don't need the 'media' to tell me anything. I've known at least 3 people who died of C0VlD-19, and more that were sick with it. The 'media' is reflecting what I see with my own eyes perfectly. But these media outlets generally operate in places like NYC - which is an area that has a high prevalence. But then that NYC perspective gets beamed to an area of the US that isn't being hit so hard, and you think it's some 'conspiracy.'

No, it’s not a conspiracy it’s just biased reporting. But the reporting is accurate for my part of the country.

The problem is that every area of the US has different rates of prevalence. Much of the Fastlane Forum is in Arizona or other areas that haven't been hit that hard. So in their areas the benefits of a lockdown doesn’t outweigh the costs. Yes, that was a mistake on the governments part. A conspiracy though? I don’t buy it. “The Wizard pulling the levers to trick people?” I don’t buy it. The US and Italy and Spain and China and all these other countries can’t even agree on the terms of a trade deal. You expect me to believe they were all acting in cahoots in order to impose lockdowns in like… 30 different countries? And we can’t even point our finger to a motive.

It was a poorly executed plan, not a conspiracy.

I don’t buy conspiracy thinking in general because in real life people don’t sit behind the scenes coming up with evil schemes and twirling their mustaches. It’s an overly simplistic worldview, especially when there are more rational explanations. Real life isn’t like the movies. When things go wrong they’re usually good intentions and bad ideas. I mean even Hitler thought his intentions were good (ie “i want to clean up the country I love so much.”)

And yes… I like Fauci a lot.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[ChrisV]

(how many gumballs in the jar?)

And furthermore, I never ever ever ever agreed that anyone should 'crowdsource their opinion,' nor would I ever. I simply said that the crowd is more accurate than he's giving them credit for. What he's referring to is a poll of economists I posted where Chicago University polled the IGM forum, which is a bi-partisan panel of distinguished economists, who's goal is to determining consensus among Economists.

This panel explores the extent to which economists agree or disagree on major public policy issues. To assess such beliefs we assembled this panel of expert economists. ​

​

To that end, our panel was chosen to include distinguished experts with a keen interest in public policy from the major areas of economics, to be geographically diverse, and to include Democrats, Republicans and Independents as well as older and younger scholars.​

Questions like these:








So yes, I trust the results of an apolitical panel of Nobel prize winning economists more than I trust the opinions of a few laypeople. So that's what he's referring to when he says "Crowdsourced opinions."

Oh, and I hate Noam Chomsky.

 

[ChrisV]

That said, I do admire the fact that you seem willing to question your own predilections and that your disposition appears evolutionary and open for incursion. That's leaps ahead of the "average American" or what I like to say, the "average AmeriKaren".

Here, let me make a diagram, since I know everyone loves them so much



Are we starting to notice a trend? Perhaps there's not as much 'brainwashing' going on as people would like to admit?