Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
edited 6th Aug '15 8:12:52 AM by AngelusNox
Inter arma enim silent legesEvery generation complains about the short attention span and lack of decorum of the generations after it. This is a universal human constant. There is no reason to believe that millenials will be any dumber in the long run than we are... well, aside from the failure of our institutions to educate them and provide for their financial security.
So, it's our fault, not theirs.
edited 6th Aug '15 8:20:52 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
![]()
And this is Older Than Feudalism. I can't find an article about it, but I've heard Aristotle was doing it as well.
edited 6th Aug '15 8:24:07 AM by tclittle
"We're all paper, we're all scissors, we're all fightin' with our mirrors, scared we'll never find somebody to love."I'm a Gen-X'er, and I think we're smarter than ALL the other generations. Combined. Because y'all dumb. /sarcasm
edited 6th Aug '15 8:24:58 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
I would describe it more as "Old men sissy-slap-fighting at each other in congress". More than a shotgun, I would prepare popcorn.
And avoid getting sick. If there's something you don't want to have in the U.S, it is sickness. Your healthcare system sucks and bankrupts more people than anything else.
But other than that, I don't think the U.S, in comparison with other countries at least, is godawful
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothesThe US is pretty ok. Not a utopia but not quite a Crapsack World either. Its problems are what's to be expected for a nation of its size and composition. Look here in Greece if you want to see a proper, utterly dysfunctional "first world" society.
edited 6th Aug '15 8:34:24 AM by LogoP
It is sometimes an appropriate response to reality to go insane.Yes. And unfortunately, the undue politicization of biological and evolutionary research leads to harmful concepts such as gender essentialism and race realism. In theory, it seems fine to acknowledge and proliferate science to understand genetic factors in human behavior, but in our political reality it shows up in discussions about how women have no business being in combat, why wage equality is unnecessary because of female pregnancy and "lifestyle" choices (not gonna get started on that bullshit), or why minorities are incarcerated and slain in our criminal justice system more often.
Bonus is that people outside of the social sciences are usually the ones misconstruing the data. When I see business majors and computer science folks reaching out to use, say, linguistic prescriptivism to justify racial inequality, I feel the need to slap their hand away and say "shoo!"
![]()
![]()
Right. Most credible social scientists and STEM scholars acknowledge and understand how genetic information influences us, but the problem is that people love to take basic facts and run wild with them.
As an example, economists are some of the worst offenders at condescending to environmental scientists whenever the subject of anthropogenic climate change comes up. I'm not saying we all have to stay in our respective lanes. Interdisciplinary study is excellent for a better understanding of the world, but what we're seeing right now in political discourse is people misrepresenting fields outside their own for nefarious purposes.
edited 6th Aug '15 9:08:26 AM by Aprilla
I don't agree with those either but I find wanna be sociologists and philosophers claiming that there is only nurture and biology doesn't have any influences on the human behaviour to be just as annoying and wrong as the guys who use those studies to "prove" their pet hypothesis for eugenics and covert racism.
I trust biologists and neurologists to talk about the nature's influence on the human behaviour as I trust economists to talk about the economy and computer engineers to talk about processor architecture, not each other to talk over fields they don't work at.
Inter arma enim silent legesGenerally, conservatives are marked by the greater domination of fear in their political thought.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"The article shows that by conservative they mean groups that are wary and fearful of change, not the average Republican, just keep in mind the liberal of today may become the conservative of tomorrow.
It is just to showcase the tendencies of people to cling to old behaviours and value while society changes, because they are unable to cope with those changes they end up supporting groups and parties who strive to maintain the status quo.
It is conservative on the sense "I like to keep things the way they are" instead of "gotta keep those women and minorities down" type of conservatives, but given the background and era they can be conflated in the US case due to historical reasons.
The new article itself tested the theory on Chinese Han in Singapore, which is a different group and culture when compared to the US conservatives.
edited 6th Aug '15 9:54:42 AM by AngelusNox
Inter arma enim silent leges@Angelus Nox: I'll be more blunt. Let's not bullshit here. Between art history scholars lecturing IT professionals on Python being a better language than C++, and electrical engineers lecturing gender studies researchers on sexual assault cases, one is very firmly more common than the other. This is visible in the current standoff between Planned Parenthood and politicians (many of them with backgrounds in law, political science and business administration) who clearly have a poor understanding of how the female human body works.
EDIT: It's not that our policy makers and public officials are bad people for not being well-read in social studies, but the active resistance to social science is quite telling in our legislation and electoral process. And this does hurt STEM as well. Neil deGrasse Tyson made a valid point in noting how odd it is that most of our presidents have had backgrounds in law, business and economics when we rarely, if ever, elect officials with backgrounds in biology, literature, anthropology or physics.
Of course, it's a given that you want someone with a formal understanding of public leadership and civil organization, but contrast this with countries that have leaders with backgrounds in STEM and the humanities, and you see a distinct difference in program layouts. Without stretching too far, it's probably not a total coincidence that Angela Merkel has a science-oriented background while Germany is making major progress in alternative energy and environmental policy reform.
Meanwhile in the US, we have elected officials who still think our nation was founded on Christian principles despite any poli sci or literature scholar worth their salt being able to prove otherwise.
edited 6th Aug '15 10:59:02 AM by Aprilla

You know. If I had to make a bet, based on what happened in my own country, the U.S political system and nation will not go into a Civil war. I will be as brief as possible.
Back in the late 40s Costa Rica was a nation with an Army. A political nasty handed thing happened and a very bloody civil war erupted. I have heard some real nasty numbers on it, but I have no backup on it, so I will just mention it was a very bloody civil war. Two things happened from it. After its resolution, the president dissolved the army, and it shattered the country in half, dividing the people into two very, very hate-filled parties. "You vote Liberacion even if they put a pig on the chair!" is something my grandfather remembered being told by his parents.
On my grandfather's years, there is still a lot of people with a strong sentiment towards X or Y party. My father's party loyalties are weaker. In mine, we hardly care about the political bickering.
In the 2000s there was a scandal of corruption of one of the two main political parties. It broke the party, and it is no longer relevant. I think this is what is going to happen in the U.S. Either the Republican, or the Democratic party (most likely, the Republican party) is going to gain a massive amount of crackdown from its lousy PR that is going to make the people be completely uninterested in it and give the rise to third political parties, both the extremist side, and the remnants of it.
Look at the differences here, with a 20% decrease seemingly out of nowhere
The current political party leader in my nation is the third party no one had heard of before, because voters were disenchanted with the old parties and the shattered ones.
And while yes, the fact my country has no army might have had a factor in it not devolving into a brutal civil war, I still do not think the United States is going to turn into a bloodshed.
edited 6th Aug '15 8:14:59 AM by Aszur
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes