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

@TruthSandwich

If your admin wants to adopt it and has any questions you are most welcome to have them talk to me.

@ZuriBella@toot.community

@ZuriBella@toot.community

Happy to help if I can.

We are a STEM based instance. All our members are STEM professionals, researchers, or to a lesser extent enthusiasts.

Something like half us are research scientists, maybe 30%. Myself included (worked on COVID the last few years).

Our primary philosophy is to engage everyone with respect and dignity, especially those we disagree with.

That along with our STEM focus I'd say probably makes the most noticeable quoality on our time line a lack of toxicity and a level of comfort so people dont need to feel paranoid if what they say might be taken incorrectly.

Sexism and racism and stuff like that is strictly moderated.

@TruthSandwich

@TheGreatLlama I mean I am literally a published, public, vocal COVID research scientists... literally a few seconds of googling could have told you that... its very clear from my work in the field I have dedicated a huge amount of effort to addressing covid, and am both pro-mask and pro-vax.

So im sure you thinkk whatever you want.. clearly you care more about being toxic, than actually bothering to know the reality.

@JonKramer

> Nope, I am saying they are both right wing. And posted a link that I agree with, that shows they are testibly both right wing.

Yes that much is clear. That is also not the comment you made where i said you seemed to be confusing the two.

> Pretty easy. Licencing.

Ok so what act of licening did Obama carry out that explicitly forced the creation of a monopoly?

> The right stands firmly against individual freedoms.

yea, no.

> They are against body autonomy

Mostly no, though there are always exceptions from individual members.

For example on abortion (I am pro abortion myself).. the right usually focuses on preserving the bodily autonomy of BOTH the mother and the baby. Some go so far as to only care about the bodily autonomy of the baby by completely outlawing abortions. Others care about both by proposing extremely narrow abortion windows that garuntee the woman still has a right to abortion early on, but once nerves and braincells form in the baby that its own self-determination is also honored. Generally the left cares **only** about the mothers bodily autonomy and is perfectly fine violating the babies right to self-determination. They do this for the "greater good" because otherwise it would harm our communities and mothers. Meanwhile the right doesnt care too much about the community or the reprocussions so long as both the mother and childs life is protected.

Another example of bodily autonomy is vaccines, while the right generally sided strongly with personal freedom and allowing people to have the right to choose if they want to vaccinated or not, the left went the other way and sided with collective welfare and prefred to support vaccine passports, getting fired from jobs, and being denied service, all grossly intrustive to the individual forcing us to make public part of our medical history effectively. It is clear on this issue again the right sided with individual rights and freedoms while the left focused on collective welfare.

Even on issues of Drug use the right has focused more on personal freedom of late than the left. While Biden explicitly stated he would not legalize cannavis Trump claimed to support its legalization. While he never legalized it he did pass the farm bill which comes pretty damn close (its now legal in america to order psychadelic cannabis products across the whole country, though still with some restrictions).

> And, I would say the ‘left’ in America is not far separated from the ‘right.’ Because there is no left wing in America.

Well as established this is wrong, per the thread.

@Free_Idealist @pyranose @georgetakei

@ceoln

> You have very selectively quoted from the OP there. :) It was about more than just that one sentence.

I did, but nothing else in the OP did I disagree with... so then what were you arguing for?

You responded to my comment, not the op. My comment was about that single vote, and a very specific aspect of that vote (independent thought) and nothing else.. everything in my comment was about "it".

Obviously if you wanted to comment on the other stuff you could. But since it was never in question im not sure why you argued with me about it as if it was when im just sitting here not even disagreeing with you on any of that.

> And lol, I guess there is a sense in which their independence “resulted in good happening”, but it’s an awfully silly sense.

Nothing silly about it at all... I mean really just think about it if no one ever dissented, and one party had a majority in both houses, and everyone on both sides followed party lines, what would you have? several years of absolute GOP dictatorship. Anything the GOP proposed would always pass, no exceptions.

Thats the case in the house right now, it has a GOP majority. If no one was an indepent thinking the bill failing would have not been possible at all.

Literally independent thought is the **only** reason this bill got block from passing through the house. If it werent for independent thought your only hope would be a veto from biden... if Trump were in office even then no hope.

> this is just political theater and power plays within the GOP, so the defeat of the rule did a very minimal amount of good.

Glad to hear we agree it did good, however small. QED

> I think it’s much more significant that their “independence” was in the direction of evil, even if it did block a slightly bad thing (for not being evil enough). I don’t think this is evidence for this particular kind of “independence” being a good thing.

This is dishonest wording to push your agenda again...

It wasnt "in the direction of evil" you literally just admitted it did good, not evil, ergo it was the opposite, in the direction of good. Stopping something that is bad, is **not** in the direction of evil.

What i suspect you mean is something more like "I think it is much more significant that they have evil motives than the fact that they did a good deed while carrying out those motives". And while I would agree with you that is true if we were sitting here having a discussion about the overall state of our government. But that isnt what the discussion is about, its about if independent thought is a desirable quality in a good politician. In that regard their personal motives are not at all significant because we arent discussing them as individuals, we are discussing one property they demonstrated once.

> I think we do have a fundamental disagreement there, but I doubt we’ll convince each other either way.

Still kinda sounds to me like we agree and your just arguing something completely unrelated to the one point I am discussing.

@georgetakei

@nosat

Why would you say that... I dont even own a tv. I cant even remember the last time ive even been in the same room as one that was on.

I am a research scientist so I was describing my work environment.

@BetaCuck4Lyfe

@ceoln

> Okay. :) Maybe it’s that you tend to focus on small specifics, and I am more out in the generalities.

Actually I was kinda thinking the opposite lol.

While im focusing on the general idea of independent thought as a desire quality among many in a good politician... you seem to be focused on these **specific** politicians and if they are good people simply because they were the example that initiated the thought.

> The people who voted against that rule (because the bill didn’t cut enough) are a subset of the people who are threatening to remove McCarthy if he puts forward a bill that might pass with D votes.

Yes an extremely small subset (5 people out of 210+)

> And those two things are part of the same crazy swing of the GOP to the right and to obstructionism.

You tried to use the fact that I said 5 people out of 210+ were independent thinkers against me when I said something all 210 people did was an act of group think.

Do you not realize that 5 people can act independently as part of a group of 210+ people who act according to group think? Do you also not realize why it seems quite strange when you objected to the fact that I pointed that out?

> I guess there is a sense in which the votes against the rule were “independent thought”, and the pressure on McCarthy not to compromise an inch is “group think”

That too... the group overall will act in group think because thats still pretty common in the GOP (despite being slightly less than in the dems). So there will be plenty of examples of group think for the GOP as a whole even when a small number might dissent from time to time.

but also the fact that im not implying everyone is independent all the time. Even these 5 people who were indepdent in this one case I'm sure will tow the link the majority of the time. They are just slightly more capable of being independent some of the time, thats all.

> I just don’t find it a very interesting sense, I guess, since I see both things as part of the same overall phenomenon, being done by the same basic group of people.

Thats because your still focused on the specific (these people and if their good people or whatever) rather than the general "is individual thought a desirable trait in a politician who has all the other desirable traits a politician should also have"
@georgetakei

@JonKramer

The ACA's stated goal when Obama pushed for it was universal healthcare. In the form originally proposed it would have been true universal healthcare. Sadly after it got revised by the senate to be able to pass both parties the revised form fell short of actually providing universal healthcare. but it is quite clear Obama proposed and supported it, he just didnt have the power to get it through in that form.

@pyranose @georgetakei

@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