9 ms·

> ...here's my current ranking of the candidates: 1. Sanders 2. Trump 3. Biden (well, more like 999. Biden)... > ...literally can't fathom the idea that a pers

> ...here's my current ranking of the candidates: 1. Sanders 2. Trump 3. Biden (well, more like 999. Biden)... > ...literally can't fathom the idea that a person could hold my stance... I'm not blinded by rage, but these two top choices really do seem incompatible. Is your political goal mostly to shake up the status quo?

jshevek 7y ago
If one's main value is 'workers in the US', I can see this breakdown. Also, if the main evil you see is 'DNC corruption'.
- SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
  The DNC corruption one, granted. "Workers in the US" doesn't really cash out - Biden has very strong working class support.
  - jshevek 7y ago
    I think you understood that I wasn't describing my opinion, nor my perception of reality, but a hypothetical opinion combined with a hypothetical perception of reality, so thanks for that. Biden does have wide support in the working class, and there are also some who think he is worse than either Trump or Bernie. The people that I know who consider themselves pro-worker are anti-Biden, which I present not as anectdata but just to explain why my original example came to mind.
  - mistermann 7y ago
    > "Workers in the US" doesn't really cash out - Biden has very strong working class support. I don't understand this phrase, and the significance of it, in the context of this conversation. Also, just to clarify: is your above statement a fact, or an opinion? (You have used the verb "does", which to me implies you are asserting it as a fact.)
    - jshevek 7y ago
      Originally, I thought he meant "caring about workers in the US is not a valid reason for preferring both Trump and Bernie over Biden." But his intention is probably more nuanced, since that would be an argument from popularity.
      - mistermann 7y ago
        Ya, who knows. Would be nice to know though.
        mistermann 7y ago
        Silly me. Of course, it's always better to remain in the dark, what was I ever thinking!
- mturmon 7y ago
  If one’s actual goal is to make oddball statements that lead into mazes of self-conscious, hyper-rational explication of minutia, then the ranking served its purpose.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - mistermann 7y ago
    Kind of like if you don't want to think too hard in case you might break a sweat. If you don't understand something, assume it's the other person's failing. Murica 2020
mistermann 7y ago
Ok, excellent, I believe we may have accidentally invoked an instance of the very problem I am talking about. Well, a milder version of it anyways, assuming you are willing to actually participate in a conversation. That is where things usually (I see I've managed to get a downvote already, an example of another fundamental problem imho) go off the rails, in that in my experience it seems, based on the literal words that people write, that they truly believe they are objectively and confidently correct, and I am objectively incorrect. But if so, why am I unable to ever meet someone who is willing to explain to me why they are correct, and how they know with certainty that they are correct. If I observe two people in a disagreement, both of whom believe they are correct, and one of the people will not defend their position, but rather simply refuses to discuss the matter, then my intuition would suggest that person is the incorrect one (and there's a good chance that they know/feel it). So, we shall see what happens this time... > I'm not blinded by rage, but these two top choices really do seem incompatible. This seems reasonable, but what does "seems" mean, in my sentence, and in yours? seem: "give the impression or sensation of being something or having a particular quality." To me, it seems completely logical on its face that my (type of) stance will always "seem" unusual, because it is unusual. But unusual isn't the word you used. You used "incompatible". incompatible: (of two things) so opposed in character as to be incapable of existing together. Excellent, here we have a non-ambiguous word to work with: incapable incapable: "unable to do or achieve (something)." Or in other words: ~"literally not possible" Ok, I think that should suffice for defining our terms and removing ambiguity. I hope I have set the stage successfully (and in a manner acceptable to you - if not, let me know) for a clear discussion. (META: Look how much work I had to put in here to ~ensure a high quality conversation. I believe this is absolutely necessary, and some day very soon I would love to have a HUGE discussion, with anyone who is interested, on whether this is necessary, and why, and if I made any mistakes, and if there are further improvements or techniques I could use, and if I'm the only one that believes that human communication in all its forms is sub-optimal (cuz it sure seems like I am, based on voting), and so forth and so on.) -------------------------------- So my question to you is: Why do you ~believe it is "literally not possible" for a person to hold my political stance (in a logically coherent manner)? Note: that sentence sounds like I am putting words in your mouth, doesn't it? But how do we propose to have high quality, productive conversations, particularly when stuck in an impasse (seems like a fair description of modern day America to me), if we do not explicitly define what the precise point of contention is? If you'd like to restate what you actually believe, feel free, but then are we not kind of right back to where we started? If you would like to make any modifications to the staged context I've set, or whatever, I'm in. I am willing to participate. I want to figure out what in the fuck is going on with respect to human communication? Why in God's name are what seem like such trivial things, to me, seemingly utterly incomprehensible to other people, even in high intelligence forums like HN? I am obsessed with this question, and I can't find anyone who seems to even find it interesting, let alone be willing to discuss it. And in the background the whole time during this conversation, there is literally a global pandemic underway, largely exacerbated by the fact that numerous highly industrialized first world countries, one of which landed a man on the friggin moon 51 years ago, now seem to struggle with a task as simple as stockpiling boxes of cheap paper masks in medical facilities. But I digress. So, if you're cool with the setup and can answer the question, excellent. If you'd like to tune it up a bit before answering, ok by me (providing the amended result continues to facilitate a high quality conversation). > Is your political goal mostly to shake up the status quo? Not quite. I would describe it more as: I would like to maximize happiness for all humans beings on earth. Furthermore, I would like to see that the system we find that can make that actually happen, is somehow made "sticky", so rogue politicians in the future are not able to dismantle it, even if they try. I also happen to personally believe that to finally start moving towards such a goal, the pre-requisite first step is for everyone to calm down and stop yelling at imaginary strawman avatars (transparently created by our subconscious mind) that they have mistaken for an actual real person. And once we've achieved a calm state of mind, finally start working together, to discover and enumerate that which we all agree upon, and that which we do not. And then, what we agree on: do it. And simultaneously, start working on figuring out precisely(!) why we disagree. And I mean, the true nature of the disagreements, not our assumptions of what they are (this is what we do now). To me, this seems like an obvious improvement over our current approach. And yet, my impression is that people who read this will believe I am mentally ill. Based on the nature of my interactions on HN, I literally believe that. It is not hyperbole. I look at the world, and I simply cannot believe my eyes. It is so far beyond absurd, it's hard to even wrap one's head around it. And yet beyond pointing fingers at their political opponents, it seems to that most people kind of think the situation sucks, but isn't terribly unreasonable. "It's just the way it is, don't dwell on it!" "God grant us the serenity to accept the things we cannot change, the courage to change the things we can, and the wisdom to know the difference." - Ancient proverb "Fuck that. That mindset is dumb. Full stop. Is that what got humanity to where we are today? Is that how our ancestors behaved? Is that how our parents raised us to be? Is that how you're raising your children? What in the hell has gone wrong with people? What is going on? Jesus H Christ. Someone has to do something, and the time to start was 30 years ago. We are behind schedule, so quit fucking whining like a bunch of babies and fighting among yourselves about trivialities, and get your ass in gear cleaning up this fucking disaster we have turned this planet into. Everyone, including me, should be fucking ashamed of themselves." - Me Do you see my conundrum? Should I just get it over with and check into a mental hospital? I mean, there's no doubt in my mind that my mental state is is in fact....highly abnormal. But then, in a world gone mad (have you watched TV today?), should abnormal not be a goal worth pursuing? Yes, many instances of abnormal could be even worse, but when "normal" is what I see on TV, I am legitimately willing to (and am) risk my mental health to at least try and do something about it, to hell with all the defeatist status-quo defenders (who know not what they do).

jshevek 7y ago

If one's main value is 'workers in the US', I can see this breakdown. Also, if the main evil you see is 'DNC corruption'.

SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
The DNC corruption one, granted. "Workers in the US" doesn't really cash out - Biden has very strong working class support.
- jshevek 7y ago
  I think you understood that I wasn't describing my opinion, nor my perception of reality, but a hypothetical opinion combined with a hypothetical perception of reality, so thanks for that. Biden does have wide support in the working class, and there are also some who think he is worse than either Trump or Bernie. The people that I know who consider themselves pro-worker are anti-Biden, which I present not as anectdata but just to explain why my original example came to mind.
- mistermann 7y ago
  > "Workers in the US" doesn't really cash out - Biden has very strong working class support. I don't understand this phrase, and the significance of it, in the context of this conversation. Also, just to clarify: is your above statement a fact, or an opinion? (You have used the verb "does", which to me implies you are asserting it as a fact.)
  - jshevek 7y ago
    Originally, I thought he meant "caring about workers in the US is not a valid reason for preferring both Trump and Bernie over Biden." But his intention is probably more nuanced, since that would be an argument from popularity.
    - mistermann 7y ago
      Ya, who knows. Would be nice to know though.
      - mistermann 7y ago
        Silly me. Of course, it's always better to remain in the dark, what was I ever thinking!
mturmon 7y ago
If one’s actual goal is to make oddball statements that lead into mazes of self-conscious, hyper-rational explication of minutia, then the ranking served its purpose.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- mistermann 7y ago
  Kind of like if you don't want to think too hard in case you might break a sweat. If you don't understand something, assume it's the other person's failing. Murica 2020

mistermann 7y ago

Ok, excellent, I believe we may have accidentally invoked an instance of the very problem I am talking about. Well, a milder version of it anyways, assuming you are willing to actually participate in a conversation. That is where things usually (I see I've managed to get a downvote already, an example of another fundamental problem imho) go off the rails, in that in my experience it seems, based on the literal words that people write, that they truly believe they are objectively and confidently correct, and I am objectively incorrect. But if so, why am I unable to ever meet someone who is willing to explain to me why they are correct, and how they know with certainty that they are correct. If I observe two people in a disagreement, both of whom believe they are correct, and one of the people will not defend their position, but rather simply refuses to discuss the matter, then my intuition would suggest that person is the incorrect one (and there's a good chance that they know/feel it). So, we shall see what happens this time... > I'm not blinded by rage, but these two top choices really do seem incompatible. This seems reasonable, but what does "seems" mean, in my sentence, and in yours? seem: "give the impression or sensation of being something or having a particular quality." To me, it seems completely logical on its face that my (type of) stance will always "seem" unusual, because it is unusual. But unusual isn't the word you used. You used "incompatible". incompatible: (of two things) so opposed in character as to be incapable of existing together. Excellent, here we have a non-ambiguous word to work with: incapable incapable: "unable to do or achieve (something)." Or in other words: ~"literally not possible" Ok, I think that should suffice for defining our terms and removing ambiguity. I hope I have set the stage successfully (and in a manner acceptable to you - if not, let me know) for a clear discussion. (META: Look how much work I had to put in here to ~ensure a high quality conversation. I believe this is absolutely necessary, and some day very soon I would love to have a HUGE discussion, with anyone who is interested, on whether this is necessary, and why, and if I made any mistakes, and if there are further improvements or techniques I could use, and if I'm the only one that believes that human communication in all its forms is sub-optimal (cuz it sure seems like I am, based on voting), and so forth and so on.) -------------------------------- So my question to you is: Why do you ~believe it is "literally not possible" for a person to hold my political stance (in a logically coherent manner)? Note: that sentence sounds like I am putting words in your mouth, doesn't it? But how do we propose to have high quality, productive conversations, particularly when stuck in an impasse (seems like a fair description of modern day America to me), if we do not explicitly define what the precise point of contention is? If you'd like to restate what you actually believe, feel free, but then are we not kind of right back to where we started? If you would like to make any modifications to the staged context I've set, or whatever, I'm in. I am willing to participate. I want to figure out what in the fuck is going on with respect to human communication? Why in God's name are what seem like such trivial things, to me, seemingly utterly incomprehensible to other people, even in high intelligence forums like HN? I am obsessed with this question, and I can't find anyone who seems to even find it interesting, let alone be willing to discuss it. And in the background the whole time during this conversation, there is literally a global pandemic underway, largely exacerbated by the fact that numerous highly industrialized first world countries, one of which landed a man on the friggin moon 51 years ago, now seem to struggle with a task as simple as stockpiling boxes of cheap paper masks in medical facilities. But I digress. So, if you're cool with the setup and can answer the question, excellent. If you'd like to tune it up a bit before answering, ok by me (providing the amended result continues to facilitate a high quality conversation). > Is your political goal mostly to shake up the status quo? Not quite. I would describe it more as: I would like to maximize happiness for all humans beings on earth. Furthermore, I would like to see that the system we find that can make that actually happen, is somehow made "sticky", so rogue politicians in the future are not able to dismantle it, even if they try. I also happen to personally believe that to finally start moving towards such a goal, the pre-requisite first step is for everyone to calm down and stop yelling at imaginary strawman avatars (transparently created by our subconscious mind) that they have mistaken for an actual real person. And once we've achieved a calm state of mind, finally start working together, to discover and enumerate that which we all agree upon, and that which we do not. And then, what we agree on: do it. And simultaneously, start working on figuring out precisely(!) why we disagree. And I mean, the true nature of the disagreements, not our assumptions of what they are (this is what we do now). To me, this seems like an obvious improvement over our current approach. And yet, my impression is that people who read this will believe I am mentally ill. Based on the nature of my interactions on HN, I literally believe that. It is not hyperbole. I look at the world, and I simply cannot believe my eyes. It is so far beyond absurd, it's hard to even wrap one's head around it. And yet beyond pointing fingers at their political opponents, it seems to that most people kind of think the situation sucks, but isn't terribly unreasonable. "It's just the way it is, don't dwell on it!" "God grant us the serenity to accept the things we cannot change, the courage to change the things we can, and the wisdom to know the difference." - Ancient proverb "Fuck that. That mindset is dumb. Full stop. Is that what got humanity to where we are today? Is that how our ancestors behaved? Is that how our parents raised us to be? Is that how you're raising your children? What in the hell has gone wrong with people? What is going on? Jesus H Christ. Someone has to do something, and the time to start was 30 years ago. We are behind schedule, so quit fucking whining like a bunch of babies and fighting among yourselves about trivialities, and get your ass in gear cleaning up this fucking disaster we have turned this planet into. Everyone, including me, should be fucking ashamed of themselves." - Me Do you see my conundrum? Should I just get it over with and check into a mental hospital? I mean, there's no doubt in my mind that my mental state is is in fact....highly abnormal. But then, in a world gone mad (have you watched TV today?), should abnormal not be a goal worth pursuing? Yes, many instances of abnormal could be even worse, but when "normal" is what I see on TV, I am legitimately willing to (and am) risk my mental health to at least try and do something about it, to hell with all the defeatist status-quo defenders (who know not what they do).