🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@darnell

> I know people with bi-polar (less than 10), not many people. They all take their medicine

And you feel your superficial (dont live with them) expiernce with a very small group of people (10) should be used to form your mental picture? Dont you think a peer reviewed study with intimate knowledge of the disease, which states 40% dont take their meds, is a far more accurate measure?

Under what circumstance do you know these 10 people that you can be confident they have never stopped taking their meds in their life? You have seen all 10 of these people every single day (or close to it) without exception for years on end? You know for a fact they never relapsed for a period and stayed home and you just never saw them? I need some details here to get a sense of how this is influencing you.

But regardless, very odd you think your expiernce with 10 people holds greater weight than a scientific paper that disagrees with you.

> Ye is an adult.

You keep saying he is an adult, like somehow being an adult makes you immune to the disease

> Just because he continues to refuse to take his medicine does not excuse his behavior or the consequences for his actions.

40% of bipolar people at any time refuse to take their meds as a result of the disease... this is scientific fact. You trying to make it sound like this is just him and not fromthe disease is intellectually dishonest when it is a proven fact this happens.

@realcaseyrollins

@ceoln

> Surely you do, at least, grant that voting against a bad bill because it wasn’t bad enough, is not praiseworthy? Sorry, I can’t help asking…

I have never met a politician whose motives were praiseworthy...

Actually I take that back, I can think of one. Bernie. Problem is while his intentions are good, he doesnt have the first clue about how things actually work and his proposed solutions, while well meaning, would probably we worse than just nuking ourselves.

To be clear, their motivations werent praiseworthy, them as people arent praise worthy.

All they did was show a single desirable property among a see of human shit.

@georgetakei

@JonKramer @pyranose @georgetakei

> you may disagree that I provided more than one example, and that’s OK, you have every right to be wrong.

Thats not what I said. I said you provided about 5 examples... 4 had nothing to do with left-right dynamics, one did.

@ceoln

> It seems at this point that we just think about things too differently to make much progress in this discussion; you will remain convinced that I am doing mental gymnastics around a relatively simple situation, and I will remain convinced that you are focusing on one simple aspect of a much more complex situation.

That isnt how it seems to me. In fact, as far as I can tell we think alike and we have been agreeing the whole time but your fabricating things to argue about that I am not saying...

You seem to focus on if the GOP or those 5 people are good people and nuances of the situation pointing out that the GOP is shit....

Meanwhile im here making no claims remotely resembling any of that and simply pointing out how these bad people exhibit one single property that is a good property in a sea of shit.

Meanwhile you keep focusing on the sea of shit, which we both agree on, rather than what is really being discussed which is if independent thought is a desirable trait in a **good** politician.

So yea seems we even disagree on why we disagree. While i actually think we agree and your going down tangents, you think we are arguing about something ive said like 10 times ive agreed with you on....

@georgetakei

@JonKramer

> I would say that you being in the thick of the forest your sight is blinded by the trees. As for selective eye sight, we all suffer from that. No exceptions to that rule.

I would argue quite the opposite. As someone who has spent his whole live living around the world, often moving from country to country every half a year or year or so... someone who has experienced, been a resident, dealt witht he healthcare and the taxes and almost every aspect of living, and done this in a vast array of different countries in different regions... if anything this gives a perspective outside "the forest" and makes my eyesight less selective.

In fact I'd say you, as someone I presume has mostly only ever lived in one country (or one region like europe) and has only ever heard one countries echo chamber and lived it... you ont eh other hand are more likely to be stuck int he forrest with selective vision so to speak.

That said im not saying I have no bias, clearly i have plenty, just as we all do. What I am saying is that of the two of us, given our expiernce, I am less likely to be indoctrinated to this stuff.

> No, I don’t think to be left you have to be anti large company. I would suggest not being anti large company is a common feature for the right though.

Something being a common property of the left or the right does not make it a proper of the left or the right, nor does beleiving it change where you are on the scale.

Generally the right is older and the left is younger. That doesnt mean I can argue that two people with identical opinions on policy the younger one leans more left than the older one.

I think you are confusing the DNC and GOP with left vs right. There are quite a few things people on either side tend to sharein common that has nothing to do with defining that side.

> I would say being in favor of corporate government enforced monopolies is a strong indication you are pretty far right wing.

I know what monopolies are... I know how lack of monopoly laws has a tendency to result in monopolies forming... but how do you "enforce monopolies" I have never heard of someone in the GOP actively forcing the creation of a monopoly by .. what... forcing smaller companies to merge until they become a monopoly.... I dont even know what this means.

That said I do agree that the left will generally be anti-monopoly, and the right tends to not care so much about monopolies. But just to be clear a monopoly is not a large company, and even when companies become megalarge that doesnt necceseraly mean its a monopoly. A monopoly is only tangentally related to the size of the company.

> I would also argue that ‘unregulated businesses is not a right wing position

Yes. Loosely speaking i would say the right is about individual/entity freedom, and the left focuses on collective welfare. This generally means the right prefers to put as few limitations on people and businesses as possible (unregulated) while the left usually forces (regulates) the individual to act for the greater good even if it harms them as an individual to do so.

> The right loves mountains of regulations that support their major donors, and inhibit competition.

Not really. I mean yea they are corrupt just like the democrats and will take pay to do things that help their corperate buddies, sure.. this is corruption and its on both sides. But in terms of policy they tend to be far less heavy on regulating their donors competition than the democrats would be willing to.

> That privatize profits, while socializing costs like pollution.

Witht he right focusing on individual freedoms and the left focusing on collective welfare then yea. Naturally the right is going to care more about an individuals right to do things that may cause pollution than they will care about the pollution, I'd agree with that.

@Free_Idealist @pyranose @georgetakei

@ceoln

You keep paraphrasing what i say, and injecting words (seemingly intentionally) that complete change what I said and then discuss what i didnt say rather than what I said. In fact the word you inserted in the very last post I had pointed out was erroneous and not what I was saying.. and we go inserting a similar various in your paraphrasing again

> I disagree that there is anything good about dissenting from an immoral party in an even more immoral direction.

Now look at what your responding to.

> You have now added the word “extreme” twice despite me objecting to the description of these 5 people as extreme for voting in line with democrats.
>
> I am saying it is a quality we want in republicans as a whole however. Because groupthink means they follow a immoral party, and without dissent no change occurs.

If it is the whole of the republican party then how is it "even more immoral" direction? Presumably some members will be above the average morality, others below.

I also quite explicitly correct your use of "extreme" and point out that is not what im arguing... yet this new variations adds it back.

> Simply causing trouble does not cause the party to have mechanisms for change and dissent in any significant sense.

I didnt argue for "simply causing trouble", I argued for independent thought. So now we are back to these 5 GOP voting the same way as dems is "simply causing trouble" and not good, buyt the 200+ dems who voted that way due to groupthink, those guys arent?

Describing a vote that stopped a bad bill from passing, that you agree is a bad bill, and woul have passed if they didnt is "simply causing trouble"... sorry but your biases are showing.

> I don’t recall you objecting to the word “extreme” before.

I quoted where I said it above.. but no big deal, I suspect it isnt intentional but subconscious, just kinda annoying

> And in any case, they are extreme.

Whether they are extreme or not doesnt matter. I have made no claims as to how moderate they may be, nor did I praise this quality of them in any way. I will never understand why people on the far left will constantly go off topic to talk about bad qualities of the GOP that have no relefvance to the point being made (that independent thought is one among a collection of properties neccesary to make a good politician).

I think people on the left just really struggle with discussing the part seperate fromt he whole. They just cant accept having a conversation that admits anything remotely good, however valid, about a person who is overwhelming evil.

That said I guess the right isnt usually that much better with this

> They voted with the Democrats not because they agree with them that the bill cuts too much; they voted against the bill (actually against the rule to allow the bill to advance) because they didn’t think it cut enough. They’re extreme.

Ok, but I never said they were good people or extremism was a desirable quality... so again how does thiws even have relevance.

> And no, the discussion thread is not only about one particular rule vote on one particular defense appropriations bill. But I doubt I’m going to convince you of that.

You can of course discuss related matters, Im not trying to say you arent allowed to do that... But again we made it very clear that we are remarked about a single action (independence) taken on a single vote, and how that action, as a general concept, is one of a collection of properties that a good politician needs.

So sure, you can spend all the time you want arguing about cause and effect and other bills and other votes that may have effected it.. but to what end? No one defended the GOP as desirable good people, so your just wasting your breath arguing about something that isnt what anyone is saying or asserting

@georgetakei

@nosat

I have a feeling if you worked in a lab surrounded by live COVID virus or packed wall to wall with half-dead patients you would probably start wearing a mask real fucking fast.

@BetaCuck4Lyfe

@rspfau

That sounds about right... though im not sure how effective our "training" is, but thats another matter.

@antares

@JonKramer @pyranose

Ahh you meant he didnt support one specific draft bill for health care that would have been hugely damaging while he supported other universal healthcare bills he felt were better structured.

Ok fair. Thankfully in opposing that particular bill (I do remember it) was a really smart move.

Also considering his history for supporting, pushing for, and having some successs, on universal health care. Its clear on this position he leans left.

@georgetakei

@ceoln

> Um. But the people doing it

No their not. The people doing it is the whole of the GOP, which i have never praised for independent thought as a whole. I did praise a very very small group (5 people specifically) for engaging in individual thought on a single occasion and pointed out the value of independent thought.

I hinted at (and now am explicitly stating) that I do generally see marginally more independence out of the GOP than the democrats, and this property is good however, so lets get that out of the way.

It seems you struggle a lot in our conversations with absolutes. The DNC is like 100% groupthink all the time, GOP is like 98% group think almost all the time. This may make the GOP more indepdent relatively, and that property is a good thing. But it hardly means they are free from group think, just maybe slightly less of an issue is all.

> are the people that you started off praising for doing what they thought was right, and independent thinking.

The 5 people out of 200 something, sure, but they are hardle the ones responsible for how the GOP as a whole acted

> But now it’s group think?

Nope nothing changed the GOP is still more than capable of group think just cause they have 5 members who on one single occasions demonstration a hint of independent thought

> I think we’re sort of going in circles now. :)

We arent, but I can see why you might think that :)

@georgetakei

@ceoln

> The quotation marks are intended as a sort of grouping operator, calling out a summary of, in this case, a salient aspect of the discussion, not a literal repeat of anything anyone said. If that’s off-putting, I’ll try to stop doing it.

Might I suggest maybe parenthesis, commas, semicolons or colons. It sounds like semicolons might be better

So instead of

> On the subject of “why don’t the Democrats just vote for it?”

It would look like this

On the subject of: why don’t the Democrats just vote for it?”

> Once again, there is no “it”; there is not one single vote on one single bill involved here.

Yes there is an "it" here... the op says the following:

> They couldn’t even get a bill to fund the Pentagon through a procedural vote because five of their far-right members revolted.

This entire discussion thread is around this **single** vote, for which we are discussing **specific** ways in which certain people voted... that is the "it".. yes it exists, and its right there in the first post, that is what we are discussing.

> I’m not sure why you aren’t getting that.

Ditto, the very first post was quite clear this discussion is about a very specific vote. That isnt to say there arent other votes and bills that have played an effect leading up to this one vote, of course there are... but that doesnt change the fact that we are discussing a very specific vote and event.

> But let’s pretend that there really is just one single vote in question. Consider the possibility that the bill is bad, and the five Republicans voted against it because it WASN’T BAD ENOUGH. That is, I hope obviously, not ultimately a good thing. Perhaps that helps the logic add up? :)

I mean, a bad bill still got stopped, so the vote, and the result of the vote is very much a good thing. The motives may be evil, but the action and the result are still good. Likewise if they had not been independent thinkers then it would have passed, and would have been bad.

So during this vote their independence, no matter how immoral the motivation, resulted in good happening, where if they were not independent people bad would have happened.

Now if your trying to say those 5 PEOPLE arent good (rather than the result of their actions in this case).. then yes I'd agree, their bad people who, happened to make a decision (a vote) that was good.

> Perhaps that helps the logic add up? :)

Not exactly, because you are still saying that as a direct result of their independence good happened on this day.

The only thing you just did was explain how they could do a good thing as a result of their independent mentality even when they are bad people and have bad intent. But it was never in question that these were bad people, so not sure how that fixes the logic in anyway.

That said I get it, your mad at them for doing the right thing for the wrong reasons... I mean so am I. But thats not what we are arguing, whether they were good people or not was never something we disagreed on.

@georgetakei

@JonKramer @pyranose

> my points are intended to indicate that both Biden and Obama were actively pursuing right wing goals.

Youve provided very few of those that were actually left-wing and line up with his actions... only 1 out of your list.

> Or, by inaction, allowing right wing goals to become a fait accompli.

In action is invalid. Saying someone who didnt act is right wing is completely proposturous and completely makes your stance hard to take seriously.

That said your one valid example of him have a stance on a single issue that is right-wing is great and all... but as I've said before we just had a discussion where about 20 things were listed about obama in the thread that were all clearly left-wing policy positions and votes and a total of I think 2 things (between you and one other person) who points out right-wing stance on issues... that would clearly result in a strong-left lean.

Even if i took every single thing you said that I found erroneous as examples as actual examples of right-wing activity and didnt debate it... we still wind up with like 4x more examples of him taking a left stance than a right stance and even then he is still very clearly, in aggregate, on the left.

@georgetakei

@JonKramer

> I am sure someone can come up with a counter to the argument. But I have yet to see it.

Which argument? That the plot above sucks and isnt remotely accurate?

Of course someone has, we just spent quite a while doing line by line on policy and decisions and showing how virtually every vote Biden or Obama have ever made has been left leaning with very very few examples of right leaning ones.

Now you may not agree with the argument, which is fine your allowed to be wrong, but to claim you have never even seen an argument formulated, when we just got through with one, is clearly erroneous.

> And without any argument to the contrary,

Except the one I just spent quite some time laying out...

> and what I have seen

Which seems selective...

> I tend to agree with the placement of those people on that scale.

I would expect you would incorrectly draw that conclusion, given your selective eye sight :)

> Just for an example, there are reasons Biden was called "The Senator from MBNA", a credit card company.

Do you think in order to be left you have to be anti-large company or something? I mean sure that starts to develop at the very radicalized extreme ends of the left... but no hating large companies is not a strict requirement barrier to the left. Assuming of course those businesses are well regulated (an unregulated business would be more of a right thing)

@Free_Idealist @pyranose @georgetakei

@ceoln

> I had the impression that you were saying this independence was a good trait in everyone, bad people as well as good

Independence from your choosen groups of association **is** a good trait in everyone. It is not, however, a sufficient trait. And having one good insufficient trait is not an indication that you will be a good person or make good choices.

> since you seemed to be saying it’s something we want even in for instance extreme right Republicans

You have now added the word "extreme" twice despite me objecting to the description of these 5 people as extreme for voting in line with democrats.

I am saying it is a quality we want in republicans as a whole however. Because groupthink means they follow a immoral party, and without dissent no change occurs.

Republicans who think independently will still be bad actors like their party, so in and of itself wont immediately give us good results. But since they were going to be bad if they followed the party too, no harm caused.. BUT this does mean now the republican party has the mechnisms in place for change and dissent, and yes, that is what we want.

> My mistake. :)

I know :)

> And again, the reason you don’t find the logic adding up is that you think this is about one vote on one bill. It isn’t. At all.

"this is about"... what is this here? If you mean the discussion thread, then yes, we are discussing very specifically one vote on one bill (a very large one containing smaller bills)... so yes that is exactly what **this** is about.

Now if your pointing out the dynamic in the senate is more complex than this one bill.. sure, of course it is, I am quite aware of that too. and guess what, being aware of all that, your logic still seems nonsensical for the reasons I described.

@georgetakei

@ceoln

At this point i think you are not arguing in good-faith, but i also suspect it is not intentional and you think you are (so im not mad)..

There is an it, a very large it with many different sections... obviously you can agree with parts and disagree with others.. but there is one thing collectively to be voted. It is aggregately a good thing (the vote should be passed) or it is aggregately a bad thing (the vote should fail and it should go off for more revisions).

Just because a book has many chapers, and some may be good or some may be bad, it is erroneous to say there is no book and that it is not possible to say if the book, on aggregate, was good or bad.

> that is an inaccurate oversimplification of what is going on here, and does not at all capture the situation.

No it isnt, because it isnt an explanation of the entire situation, so it cant be an oversimplification of it. It is meant to describe on specific thing... either you think the vote should have passed, or you think it shouldnt... no matter how complex the system may be, this binary choice is still a binary choice (of course what you do after you dont pass it, wither improve it or drop it is another matter).

You keep trying to do mental gymnastics to some how make these 5 GOP people look bad for voting against party lines, yet somehow in the same breath agree that their vote is the one you agree should have been made... sorry you just cant do it and the more you try to pain that picture the weaker your argument will look.

> The defense appropriations bill is just one version of one bill of a set of bills that need to be passed to keep the government open.

If you saying there are other critical bills out thre other than this one... yea sure, of **course**... your point?

> If you’d like to find out more about the actual situation that the OP was commenting on, the Axios article I linked to might be a helpful start.

I've read (a lot of) the text of the bill, am intimately familiar with the procedures for passing new bills, am aware of the vote,am aware of the revision and anotation process, etc.

Can't imagine what about the situation that article is suppose to explain I havent already covered. So far you've said nothing I wasnt already aware of, and i have said nothing inaccurate about the process (at least not that you pointed out)... so what **exactly** do you think that article has in it that may be new to me? Obviously if there is something I'd be more than happy to read it, but my impression is it will just go over the stuff I am already aware of in far greater detail... maybe im wrong though. But yea, let me know why the article might be worth my time and ill happily give a read if it sounds like it will be.

@georgetakei

@JonKramer

When i say party line i dont mean "The principles of the party" I mean "We all vote the same way"

@georgetakei

@rspfau

I am not an educator in any formal sense. But i do donate a lot of my time tutoring low-income students for free. I also have presented and been a guest at many university lecturs. So I do have some familiarity.

@antares

@ceoln

> On the subject of “why don’t the Democrats just vote for it?”

Why do you keep putting quotes around things I never said and dont paraphrase my position in any way accurately?

I said if its a good bill they should vote for it. If they dont then they, as hundreds, are to blame far more so than 5 GOP members. If its a bad bill then those 5 GOP people did the right thing and had a good outcome, yet somehow they are still the bad guy.

> That is, the party is so unstable that if McCarthy allows to the floor anything the Democrats will vote for, especially if it wouldn’t pass otherwise, he may be replaced by someone who will promise not to do that.

Yup, a great example of the harm of group think. Another example that argues against your case.

@georgetakei