Newbie comment on rant

"Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other peoples money"

Dame Margaret Thatcher

NMNeil said:

"Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other peoples money"

Dame Margaret Thatcher

Click to expand...

spoken by the one that put brittain through it largest depression ever

I think all governments run out of other peoples money sooner or later. it comes with people electing folks who like power and then like spending money to get votes to keep that power. eventually we all end up like California skyrocketing taxes, a fleeing tax payer base and the only ones left WILL BE the ones with their hands stuck out.

The biggest difference is that a communist or socialist government will take more than your money in the end. the Socialist Democratic party wants to take away these (currently, watch the list grow) in varying order:
your right to free speech 1st amendment,
your right to defend yourself, 2nd Amendment,
your 14th amendment rights : right to refuse getting jabbed (as interpreted by the courts in regards to the refusal of medical treatment).

and they waste your taxes.

upnorthandpersonal said:

...Everyone has extreme views on one side or the other, and no debate what so ever seems to be able to bring people together ...

Click to expand...

"Debate", interesting word choice.

It's extremely difficult to win an argument, it typically just reinforces the beliefs of the other. It's part of how the brain is hard-wired. One of the problems with arguments is they're for the wrong reasons, to change the other person. Real change starts from within. Ask any reformed alcoholic how hard it was for them to even admit they might have a problem and how much they argued previously there was no problem.

A debate is something different though. It's where different points of view are presented to an audience (like social media). A debater isn't trying to sway their opponent, but the audience. In social media you may not hear from the entire audience, in fact you're most likely to only hear from those that dislike what you're saying.

So, what do you do when there's something critical that needs to change and you want to help? Say for example your child starts to do drugs?

There's an amazing book on that called Crucial Conversations. It's decades old now and I'm sure the science has gotten better so there might be an even better book.

I know, if it's so amazing why don't political readers read it and solve all the problems? My theory is that is they do read it, but like super-powers, they can be heros or villians... and they were politicians to start with -- so they use it not as intended but to sway minds to their political viewpoints.
Very possibly the misuse of conversational science is why there are so many extreme views on one side of the other.

svetz said:

possibly the misuse of conversational science is why there are so many extreme views on one side of the other.

Click to expand...

Not sure about that
I think there’s declining intellectual capacity in the world. Well I don’t know about the world- let’s say declining intellectual capacity in the US.

The ability to think and draw reasonable conclusions relies on intellectual capacity. Post-modern Americans as a cross section, however, are becoming more educated. Along with this trend some study authors suggest IQ is rising. Yet even when we narrowly observe, say, personal debt for Americans we can clearly see that “we” are making poor decisions. Which spawns my argument that neither IQ nor education are precursors to intelligent thought.

So ‘victims’ of conversational science are more vulnerable to be swayed thisaway or thataway because they have willfully or otherwise abandoned evaluative ponderance and instead replaced it with a practice of recitation and group (clan?) alignment.

We have major cultural problems and “we” -America- try to fix that with money and ill-witted politics that are more about The Machine and politician’s pockets and less about The People

12VoltInstalls said:

... because they have willfully or otherwise abandoned evaluative ponderance...

Click to expand...

A lot of times the evaluation process is based on biased, incorrect, or incomplete data. Once a decision is reached, there's no re-evaluation.

For example, my initial thoughts on global warming were formed primarily back in the 70s. After that, I didn't bother to re-examine the data for a very long time. It didn't help that I got suckered by the prior global cooling crisis or that my political party was reinforcing that view or a lot of GW claims were just plain stupid (e.g., Florida underwater by 2020) and got highly publicized. We don't need to use something as controversial as GW, I'm sure AA faces similar issues with court-ordered attendees.

But, I think some of where upnorthandpersonal was going with the "no debate" is that once people make a decision, it's very hard to get them to re-engage and re-evaluate; and it can indeed feel very hopeless when that happens.

There have been some interesting experiments on this:

Mercier and Sperber prefer the term “myside bias.” Humans, they point out, aren’t randomly credulous. Presented with someone else’s argument, we’re quite adept at spotting the weaknesses. Almost invariably, the positions we’re blind about are our own.

... At the end of the experiment, the students were asked once again about their views. Those who’d started out pro-capital punishment were now even more in favor of it; those who’d opposed it were even more hostile.

Click to expand...

Seems obvious that our views are biased and arguing about them tends to reinforce them (it's not just kids today either, that study was from the 70s, this 2013 study concludes a high IQ doesn't protect you). Based on that, it seems inevitable that the repetitive arguing found in social media just polarizes the sides more than before social media existed, which dovetails nicely with upnorthandpersonal's observation.

Again I'll point to the book Crucial Conversations for anyone that's concerned for someone... not perfect, but the best I know of.

svetz said:

"Debate", interesting word choice.

It's extremely difficult to win an argument, it typically just reinforces the beliefs of the other. It's part of how the brain is hard-wired. One of the problems with arguments is they're for the wrong reasons, to change the other person. Real change starts from within. Ask any reformed alcoholic how hard it was for them to even admit they might have a problem and how much they argued previously there was no problem.

A debate is something different though. It's where different points of view are presented to an audience (like social media). A debater isn't trying to sway their opponent, but the audience. In social media you may not hear from the entire audience, in fact you're most likely to only hear from those that dislike what you're saying.

So, what do you do when there's something critical that needs to change and you want to help? Say for example your child starts to do drugs?

There's an amazing book on that called Crucial Conversations. It's decades old now and I'm sure the science has gotten better so there might be an even better book.

I know, if it's so amazing why don't political readers read it and solve all the problems? My theory is that is they do read it, but like super-powers, they can be heros or villians... and they were politicians to start with -- so they use it not as intended but to sway minds to their political viewpoints.
Very possibly the misuse of conversational science is why there are so many extreme views on one side of the other.

Click to expand...

Interesting. But my hope is the

12VoltInstalls said:

Not sure about that
I think there’s declining intellectual capacity in the world. Well I don’t know about the world- let’s say declining intellectual capacity in the US.

The ability to think and draw reasonable conclusions relies on intellectual capacity. Post-modern Americans as a cross section, however, are becoming more educated. Along with this trend some study authors suggest IQ is rising. Yet even when we narrowly observe, say, personal debt for Americans we can clearly see that “we” are making poor decisions. Which spawns my argument that neither IQ nor education are precursors to intelligent thought.

So ‘victims’ of conversational science are more vulnerable to be swayed thisaway or thataway because they have willfully or otherwise abandoned evaluative ponderance and instead replaced it with a practice of recitation and group (clan?) alignment.

We have major cultural problems and “we” -America- try to fix that with money and ill-witted politics that are more about The Machine and politician’s pockets and less about The People

Click to expand...

Well said. About IQ rising, just watch anyone do a "man on the street" survey on the constitution, government, geography, etc. Our schools seem to focus on marxist indoctrination, racism and gender. Not actual math, science, history, and the beauty of being an American. Perfect example is the Portland school system. Tests no longer required, as they are considered racist.
College students coming out have zero skills. Self study would provide a higher level of education.
Parents and religion are also absent in many cases, so morals are in a steep decline.

Sanwizard said:

Self study would provide a higher level of education.
Parents and religion are also absent in many cases, so morals are in a steep decline.

Click to expand...

Interesting- I see five points there.

What stands out to me is I quit business college after one semester and went into a restaurant chain “management program” that included weeks of classroom foodcosting and cash register justification among other things. 35 years later I conclude that much/most of my competence has that few years as a foundation- along with 7th grade physical science, 8th grade graphic arts/drafting, and smatterings of not-college engineering and NAHB classes.

Will Prowse mentioned recently, ‘go to the library they have books’

The other four points are interesting as well but I’ll not touch them as they’d take a few hundred pages, a good experienced editor, and a copyright notice.

svetz said:

"Debate", interesting word choice.

It's extremely difficult to win an argument, it typically just reinforces the beliefs of the other. It's part of how the brain is hard-wired. One of the problems with arguments is they're for the wrong reasons, to change the other person. Real change starts from within. Ask any reformed alcoholic how hard it was for them to even admit they might have a problem and how much they argued previously there was no problem.

A debate is something different though. It's where different points of view are presented to an audience (like social media). A debater isn't trying to sway their opponent, but the audience. In social media you may not hear from the entire audience, in fact you're most likely to only hear from those that dislike what you're saying.

So, what do you do when there's something critical that needs to change and you want to help? Say for example your child starts to do drugs?

There's an amazing book on that called Crucial Conversations. It's decades old now and I'm sure the science has gotten better so there might be an even better book.

I know, if it's so amazing why don't political readers read it and solve all the problems? My theory is that is they do read it, but like super-powers, they can be heros or villians... and they were politicians to start with -- so they use it not as intended but to sway minds to their political viewpoints.
Very possibly the misuse of conversational science is why there are so many extreme views on one side of the other.

Click to expand...

Your recommendation seemed to be helpful, however after reading the lengthy preview and the negative reviews of that book I would tend to agree that is a good concept that in execution goes nowhere.
Perhaps this would be a better read.

I digress having read neither, and maybe that teaser of a preview is supposed to hold back on the money shot... But I didnt see anything convertable to a tool you could improve debate skills with.

Toward points you raised, political discussions now sadly seem to focus on goals of publically insulting the opposition, destroying their credibility, shutting down their talking points, or just plain making them leave the forum so you and your sycophants dont have to be subjected to their opposing point of view.

While thats the way it is and may always be, I feel the way to win in politics is to present a point of view that is so much more attractive and reasonable to the opposition that they have no choice but to adopt at least part of it as their own.

Of course its wishful thinking that it would happen like that.

Finally on debates, any serious attempt for those new at it to get better should be the simple education about logical fallacies. The ad hominem, the red herring, straw man, things like that. Recognizing and avoiding them keeps the discourse progressive, toward some constructive outcome. If that is impossible due to the opponents prolific use of logical fallacies at least the wise debator can salvage himself before the audience by pointing them out.
Knowing them also prevents you from attempts to derail discussions by false accusations of using them.
For instance Ive pointed out that statements by a person were lies, which they quickly turned into a victim arguement saying I called them a liar.
You can criticize content posted by someone, thats hardly an attack on their person.
Anyway thanks for the amazon link it was food for thought even if just an appetizer.

Batvette said:

after reading the lengthy preview and the negative reviews of that book I would tend to agree that is a good concept that in execution goes nowhere.

Click to expand...

Batvette said:

didnt see anything convertable to a tool you could improve debate skills with.

Click to expand...

Debate skills are for debating. It’s an expository exercise.
Changing hearts and minds in today’s culture is unlikely to be realized by debate- if you could actually start a respectful debate at all.
You are viewing books like this as ‘instruction’ rather than volumes to educate and pique the mind.

Batvette said:

any serious attempt for those new at it to get better should be the simple education about logical fallacies… the opponents prolific use of logical fallacies at least the wise debator can salvage himself before the audience by pointing them out.

Click to expand...

Logical fallacies mostly incorporate themselves when we consider those with differing views as opponents. Appealing facts presented to discussion are much effective than using logic. Why? Often the other person in the debate that holds opposing views didn’t arrive at their positions logically- they did so emotionally or by some other outside motivator. Usually emotionally, however. While avoiding logic altogether isn’t appropriate either- no matter the intellect of the other party- trust and respect open hearts and minds.

Debates for political opponents are an entirely different thing; you ‘debate’ the opposition but you speak to the audience.

the whole sad fact of the matter is when you are online you are slaves to whomever owns the forum, and whatever their particular viewpoint is. nothing else matters, no matter how accurate your arguments are, now matter if they are soft and gentle or crude and to the point.. it boils down to who is who in the jungle.... and on the interwebs it boils down to whose name is one the paperwork. I prefer to tell the truth...every single time.

Batvette said:

... I would tend to agree that is a good concept that in execution goes nowhere....

Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree, I thought they outlined exceptionally good steps. I found it useful, YMMV.

Batvette said:

Perhaps this would be a better read [Psychology-Persuasion].

Click to expand...

I suspect the focus is very different.

The book I mentioned is about how to have a conversation to understand the other person - not how to persuade them or to debate them. Crucial Conversations is about changing yourself with conversational tools to have a dialog.

Probably too many books on the psychology of persuading people, it's probably the go-to literature for becoming a fake-news generator. ; -)

Batvette said:

...political discussions now sadly seem to focus on goals of publically insulting the opposition, destroying their credibility, shutting down their talking points,

Click to expand...

IMO their focus isn't to be insulting.... it's to garner power. Vilifying the not-them is just an effective way. It's not just politicians, a lot of leaders do the same thing. Unfortunately, it confuses a lot of people who believe them and when they later change their mind (as they have with Covid and climate change (not 100% of either party, but both parties are over the 50% mark now, a literal triumph of reason or their constituents telling them via polls)).

Batvette said:

...I feel the way to win in politics is to present a point of view that is so much more attractive and reasonable to the opposition that they have no choice but to adopt at least part of it as their own.

Click to expand...

I don't know that it has to be "attractive and reasonable" (e.g., Neither Covid or Climate change are particularly appealing), but believe you are right that the "issue" wins when both parties adopt it as their own.

Batvette said:

...The ad hominem, the red herring, straw man, things like that. Recognizing and avoiding them keeps the discourse progressive...

Click to expand...

Agreed, attacks are usually the last refuge of a non-tenable position.

Batvette said:

For instance Ive pointed out that statements by a person were lies, which they quickly turned into a victim arguement saying I called them a liar.

Click to expand...

Most people don't lie on forums just to lie or cause trouble (sure, some do). They are stating what they really believe, and sometimes their livelihood is wrapped around it (e.g., ranchers & methane). Even the best of us can fall prey to media hyperbole (aka fake-news). I know I have. That doesn't mean you shouldn't point out the truth. Usually, I try to provide solid references so folks hopefully understand it's not "me" attacking their point of view.

Batvette said:

Anyway thanks for the amazon link it was food for thought even if just an appetizer.

Click to expand...

Perhaps an appetizer for some, a gourmet meal for others. As I said originally, probably a lot better books on conversational science out nowadays.

ken morgan said:

the whole sad fact of the matter is when you are online you are slaves to whomever owns the forum, and whatever their particular viewpoint is. nothing else matters, no matter how accurate your arguments are, now matter if they are soft and gentle or crude and to the point.. it boils down to who is who in the jungle.... and on the interwebs it boils down to whose name is one the paperwork. I prefer to tell the truth...every single time.

Click to expand...

Thats true but really depends on the level of moderation. Even if the rules are not evenly enforced, if they arent enforcing them the field stays level.
Theres a website with a ton of message boards called gamefaqs.com. It started out in the late 90s as a repository for user generated walkthroughs for video games for all platforms. Each game had a message board for discussion, some like grand theft auto 3 when it became a smash hit with much to discuss, became huge communities on their own.
Eventually off topic discussion boards became prolific, politics, current events, even secret boards.
As many users were young or reaching young adult age the site owners strived to keep it more or less PG rated and recruited many moderators encouraged to rule with an iron fist, who even formed their own community board, so joining their ranks became quite the status symbol.
Users had the ability to mark other users posts and wielded that as a weapon to win arguments.
Moderations come in points and typically 2-5 day suspensions are the norm.
Because of the audience, video gamers reaching and well into adulthood, theres definitely a left leaning tilt, as center-right I always enjoy bouncing my opinions off the other sides wall to see what sticks so dont mind being outnumbered.
The point is is that gamefaqs.com boards were so heavily- I mean gleefully, moderated by teams of political sycophants that they drove almost everyone away, even most of the leftists, because when the conservatives were driven away they had no one left to argue with.

Ive posted on a number of message boards with political interests and never seen a site with such biased and even cruel moderation, even users gloating about getting other users banned. They turned moderation into its own circus.

I just went there for the first time in a few years.


It says they have over 200,000 message boards, 1568 users currently online. I resisted the temptation to sign in and visit one of the familiar boards where Id be instantly recognized and attacked.

But maybe I will.

12VoltInstalls said:

You are viewing books like this as ‘instruction’ rather than volumes to educate and pique the mind.

Click to expand...

Youre right but my adhd mind is looking for the short instructional which may not even be possible. However the book is touted as virtually being just that, and I wouldnt have made the point of a reply except for the number of reviewers who said there just wasnt much useful about it.
The preview which is substantial seemed limited to getting the reader to recognize what is a crucial conversation and provide examples of them and how they go wrong, with little content suggesting they would offer techniques or change your mindset to make them go right.
Im pretty sure thats what most customers would buy the book for.
As I alluded maybe theyre just teasing and theres money shots within.

What was that book that Carnegie wrote many decades ago?


Thats Dale not Andrew Carnegie, but its "how to win friends and influence people".

Surely i can breeze through that in an evening, it sure SOUNDS good.

Tony Robbins who IMO isnt a bad guy at all, made millions and bought an island near Tahiti pitching a similar message. Wonder if it really worked.

Dhasper said:

Interesting. I never met anyone that wants to be Cuba. I have never encountered any progressive that wants the US to be a true socialist country.

Click to expand...

You do and all who argue for AOC and Bernies Socilistic crap. You can spin it however you want.
To say otherwise is being disingenuous.

Move to The Nordic Countries if you want to pay 80% taxes for “social safety nets”

Yes I have 6 relatives living there 30+ years.

Biasjo said:

Move to The Nordic Countries if you want to pay 80% taxes for “social safety nets”

Click to expand...

Yeah, as someone living in a Nordic country, you don't pay 80% taxes.

upnorthandpersonal said:

Yeah, as someone living in a Nordic country, you don't pay 80% taxes.

Click to expand...

Funny how all my relatives in Norway and Sweden say otherwise.

Biasjo said:

Funny how all my relatives in Norway and Sweden say otherwise.

Click to expand...

I always find it interesting that most socialists are always altruistic using other peoples money. This is why I think US governor DeSantis has the right idea to ship all the folks breaking US law by coming over the border illegally to Martha's Vinyard, Delaware, and Washington DC, so the politicians can open their homes and wallets to cloth, feed, house, and medically take care of all the covid infected.

Biasjo said:

Funny how all my relatives in Norway and Sweden say otherwise.

Click to expand...

Note that these are the maximum tax rates. The following document shows how it's calculated and what the average is:

https://www.oecd.org/tax/tax-policy/taxing-wages-norway.pdf

Also keep in mind that the highest marginal bracket only applies to income earned in that bracket, not your total income - and comes into play once you make over 1 million NOK, or 112,000$.

So your relatives are wrong.

upnorthandpersonal said:

Maximum effective marginal tax rates

www.skatteetaten.no

Note that these are the maximum tax rates. The following document shows how it's calculated and what the average is:

https://www.oecd.org/tax/tax-policy/taxing-wages-norway.pdf

Also keep in mind that the highest marginal bracket only applies to income earned in that bracket, not your total income - and comes into play once you make over 1 million NOK, or 112,000$.

So your relatives are wrong.

Click to expand...

So now my relatives are liars eh?

Wow you got some balls.

Biasjo said:

So now my relatives are liars eh?

Click to expand...

Didn't say that. I only said they were wrong, for whatever reason.

Biasjo said:

Wow you got some balls.

Click to expand...

You have no idea.

upnorthandpersonal said:

Didn't say that. I only said they were wrong, for whatever reason.



You have no idea.

Click to expand...

No they are not wrong.
I have seen their tax returns.

upnorthandpersonal said:

Maximum effective marginal tax rates

www.skatteetaten.no

Note that these are the maximum tax rates. The following document shows how it's calculated and what the average is:

https://www.oecd.org/tax/tax-policy/taxing-wages-norway.pdf

Also keep in mind that the highest marginal bracket only applies to income earned in that bracket, not your total income - and comes into play once you make over 1 million NOK, or 112,000$.

So your relatives are wrong.

Click to expand...

Funny, thats less than what I pay here in New York, between federal, state, city, local, property, gas, and sales tax.

Biasjo said:

No they are not wrong.
I have seen their tax returns.

Click to expand...

And I have seen mine, and that of my friends in Sweden and Norway. I make a lot of money and easily get into the upper max tax bracket, and so do my friends - and I'm not even close to paying 80%. No one pays 80% on their income in the Nordics. There are no 80% tax brackets.

Income is but one single tax. There are many others. Add them all up.