okreallywtf

I think that we often get hung up on the what-ifs of censorship while misinformation is doing damage right this second.

The problem is that people don't evaluate 2 narratives equally based on the information in them. If that was the case, you would just have to make sure that for every bogus report there is a reliable report, but once misinformation takes hold it takes a lot more than that to dislodge. The analogy I think of is that when presented with a table full of junk food, its hard to get people to pay attention to the veggie platter.

This study[1] indicates more success could be had with a new narrative that doesn't just refute the misinformation, but crafts a new narrative with additional information that can dislodge the other one, like a flank attack instead a head on one. Anecdotally I've seen that work and I've also been guilty of the lazy head on approach and seen it fail.

[1] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/09/170912134904.h...

The explanation is in the first sentence: "Early data indicate a year-on-year 14% jump in fatality rates per distance driven in March, the document by the National Safety Council (NSC) says."

The number of deaths is down, but the deaths per mile are up.

In a similar vein, supposedly a lot of "spider bites" are not spider bites (according to source): https://www.livescience.com/37974-he-surprising-cause-of-mos...

I've known people to theorize that many small welts are caused by spider bites even though they didn't see the spider or know when they got bitten.

How do you know that it was a brown recluse? I'm not disputing, I'm just wondering if it was assumed based on the injury or if you were able to find the actual spider.

Maybe we need progressive pricing?

I've had discussions with coworkers and friends about this issue and similar issues where there is a lot of moral ambiguity but a lot less academic ambiguity - we basically know what works and doesn't work but what does work is not morally acceptable to about half the country. It is super frustrating to a lot of us because there doesn't seem to be a way to reach them, they can change their minds but only when they are personally affected by the issue but it doesn't seem to then spread much to their peers.

To paraphrase one conversation that reminded me a lot of the larger national conversation "I play by the rules, why shouldn't everyone else?". It didn't matter that punishment didn't help or in a lot of cases, was costing them more and having worse outcomes, the larger (and to me, more trivial) moral and emotional argument won out.

This feels like satire, I don't believe this person is being genuine.

What are you referring to exactly?

This is one of my favorite Arthur C Clark books. What makes his books so interesting is that the technology aspects are very much sidelined by the human aspects. I don't think it appeals as much to people who enjoy hard sci-fi with a lot of jargon but I've always loved how interesting technological ideas are almost used offhandedly as plot devices but the real story is always the people (even if his concepts for the technology are groundbreaking to the reader or to the field at large).

I feel the same thing about renewable energy and climate change - a top down approach could have such massive impact, but a bottom up approach is so difficult. There are thousands of groups (there are literally a dozen probably coordinating together in my mid sized city alone) all trying to do the same work from the bottom up and on the ground with churches, local governments, individuals etc but it requires so much pressure and buy in from your average citizen to get anything done that way.

Am I being downvoted for being too partisan or not partisan enough?

Source? People tend to put much more thoughtful words in his mouth after the fact trying to make what he says seem more reasonable, but if you have a source I'd gladly review it.

In the meantime, politifact has a good breakdown of what he says about the issue and where the numbers come from (spoiler, they make some wild assumptions) [1].

[1] http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/sep/...

I'm hesitant to give Obama credit, but I think Trump claiming that the unemployment rate was 30, 40, 50% during the election and immediately taking credit for the unemployment numbers in january 2017 was so disingenuous that it truly boggles the mind. Anyone that gives Trump credit for the current trajectory of unemployment numbers is beyond the pale.

Giving Obama credit to me is at the very least questionable - things were at rock bottom, they could almost only go up (and I supported Obama). There are so few absolutes to hold on to in terms of economic indicators for the layperson, but its hard to see how the Obama years were an economic catastrophe, and unfortunately we'll never know what the effect of a larger stimulus might have been (or no stimulus for that matter).

Not to mention how unpopular this is with his evangelical supporters (which is to say, 80+% of all evangelicals), private prison companies, etc.

This won't happen, this is the kind of thing he throws out there and walks back or just forgets about. He gets the benefit of giving someone a moment of "hey, thats pretty reasonable!" that might stick with them, despite the fact that there is almost no way he'll maintain that position or ever do anything to achieve it.

Same here, I've started 2 or 3 times and not liked any of my own implementations, this might actually be useful to me tonight.

Thats great, but it only saved him money because it washed up right on his shore. It saves a small farmer money to let their cows graze on lush green pastures that they need to keep eaten down anyways but that doesn't mean that letting cows graze on lush pastures saves the industry money overall. In general its going to cost more more than likely to get seaweed into the supply chain. Its a race to the bottom, it has to be cheaper than subsidized corn which almost nothing is.

Thats crazy, that depends entirely on people being able to afford to pay more for the same basic product. What economics would indicate that this would happen?

You can get antibiotic free meat from whole foods etc, but what do you think is consumed at higher quantities?

If its purely up to buyers choice, it will not happen unless there is a cost associated with carbon output.

Serious question, what incentive is there for this to be done on a large scale by anyone?

The EPA is being systematically dismantled and the official line of the government (or at least, those in charge of the government) is that climate change is not man made. If it is just a natural process, how could our food systems have any impact on it?

I can't imagine how this wouldn't add at least some costs to feed prices, and my guess is farmers are operating on razor thin margins already. Without some government regulations that put a price on greenhouse gasses why would anyone implement this except on boutique scales?

I don't think the democratic party has a hold over the African American voting block in so much as it has been the only real choice for them for the last 40 or 50 years (unless you have Stockholm syndrome that is). Couple that with the increase in leadership roles and overall candidates and the democratic party is becoming more representative by the day. This results in more and better legislation targeting the issues of black Americans.

Contrast that with the republican party, how well are poor whites represented in the party (aside from near-constant lip service)?

Having "control" over cities does not mean being able to cancel out systemic racism and discrimination. That doesn't mean I give the left a pass, but it has been a constant fight to make progress of any kind, especially given that cities don't often have the resources to deal with systemic issues. Cities are on the front line of these issues doing symptom relief (affordable housing, homelessness etc). It often requires legislation to tackle systemic issues, like redlining[0].

To compound that, a lot of urban areas that are "controlled by the left" are at the mercy of their state governments for a lot of funding and the ability to make major changes. Some states are disallowing their cities from enforcing their own minimum wage increases while also enshrining discrimination as legal.

Expecting cities to be able to take on a national issue stemming from the enslavement of millions of people and the subsequent economic subjugation of said people is like expecting developers to be able to take on decades old technical debt while completing their day to day work.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining

We do it for the illusion of freedom which is used to trick unfortunately ignorant people out of services that would cost the wealthy a bigger percentage of their income.

"Choose what X is right for you and your family"

This allows the wealthy the chance to choose a better level of healthcare, schools, and basically everything else leaving the rest of the nation to choose only what they can afford (guess what, its not much). By patronizing the nation by saying "You're so smart, you know better what you need than a stupid Washington bureaucrat like me!", they stroke our ego's just enough to convince people that they are able to get a better deal (ie, beat the system).

It infuriates me that the people who ran for office and chose to "represent" us in a lot of cases completely abdicate their responsibility to do anything. Not to be partisan, but one party is a lot worse about this than another, to me if you go through all the trouble to put yourself in government and enrich yourself handsomely while you are there, at least fucking pretend you are going to try and solve something rather than this self-deprecation that comes out of the Republican party.

It is more complicated than that, but even on a basic level it is not proportional [0]. If you consider the purpose of a progressive tax system it gets even murkier.

[0] https://www.npr.org/2017/11/14/562884070/charts-heres-how-go...

Got any sources on that? I expect you'll see a lot of them say it benefits the rich more, but saying it only benefits the rich? Not that I've seen, not legitimate sources (I know its hard to tell the difference between a left-wing blog and a multi-Pulitzer winning newspaper over 100 years old).

I should have said it disproportionately benefits the rich and in the long run I think it probably does only benefit the rich because the middle class and the poor will be hurt by the cuts necessary to pay for the thing and the resulting deficits.

Here are examples of the "liberal media" saying its disproportionate, not that it only benefits the rich. I hate to break it to you, but most of the "liberal media" is pretty nuanced, it may not say what you want but you don't see nearly as much "always/never" as you would expect.

[1] https://www.npr.org/2017/11/14/562884070/charts-heres-how-go...

[2] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/how-the-senate-tax-bil...

Good points, I forgot about that.

I should have said benefits the rich disproportionately. They are throwing most of us a bone (sometimes even a half-decent bone) while treating themselves to a 11 course meal. I don't think that this is a controversial statement, its just how it is going to be. They know that a few thousand dollars in the pockets of average Americans is a huge deal, even if it results in millions in the pockets of others.

The question is, in the long run, does that couple grand benefit us more than it costs us in terms of long term deficits, reductions in government services, etc?

The "hell yeah I'll take more money anyday!" mentality is what they depend on to sell the bill and it works.

Even though Sotomayor was appointed by Obama, she's a lifelong independent. She probably aligns closest with the left, but from her bio I did not get the impression that she is a ideologue.

OP might be exaggerating, but they are not talking about who lobbies, they are talking about the politicians who pass the bills and implement the tax cuts. In that they are right. In the house, 191 democrats voted against the tax overhaul, 0 voted for it. 227 republicans voted for it, 12 against it [0]. The senate was much the same [1].

You can say what you want, but this is a republican tax bill no matter who it benefits. It was supposed to benefit the rich, and thats what it does (I'm sure if it was possible to isolate by party they would have done so). It won't discriminate in who it hurts in the long run either (the middle class and the poor, like usual). The wealthy are going to take 90% of whatever economic gains result, they won't end up in schools or in communities, again like usual. Unemployment is already low and cant go much lower without even more illegal immigrants and wages will probably continue on their current trajectory and we'll be arguing for the next decade about who is to blame. My guess is some hidden variable will be scapegoated to explain why it didn't work.

[0] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/19/us/politics/t... [1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/19/us/politics/t...

That may be true (I haven't checked), but my guess is that germany (and most other western nations) offer a lot more government services for that level of tax. Taxing the middle class here the same as say, norway doesn't make sense unless you offer the same services. My half-decent insurance plan is one of my biggest monthly expenses and I'm lucky that it doesn't impact me too much. Many other "middle-class" people are barely getting by as it is.

That is a pessimistic and simplistic view of a incredibly complex issue, and for millions of poor people antidepressants are already popular, when they can afford them.

The alternative is what, exactly? Continue having jobs automated out of existence, letting the middle class cease to exist while placing the blame on the segment of the population that has little influence over what trades will be valuable tomorrow? How about we subsidize coal mining jobs long so people can stay busy?

This kind of black and white thinking is pointless. Using this as a justification for ignoring growing problems is negligent. There are a lot of things that people could do, and probably would do voluntarily if they didn't have to do their dead-end retail jobs.

One option is taking care of the planet we are hell-bent on destroying. Imagine if we had potentially millions of people to take care of our forests and rivers? What about taking care of the elderly or teaching or any number of jobs that are practically poverty wages now that would be possible while living a middle-class lifestyle?

Its possible that some mundane examples will be automated, but the law is not a deterministic code that can simply be interpreted and executed. Automation may make the job less tedious and might reduce the numbers of lawyers needed (or more likely, paralegals).