I’ve taken to distinguishing between science(v), the method and science(n), the body of models and data. Science(v) is imperfect, but basically as close as we can get to objective truth. Science(n) can often stress conclusions further than their rigor justifies, but eventually regresses to the mean for the most part.

You can’t really question science(v) beyond its intrinsic epistemology, and no other method can really do any better. You can often question science(n), heck I can’t count the number of times “consensus” flip-flopped on red wine, coffee, fat, and so on. But eventually science(v) does bring science(n) to a stable empirical baseline.

I get the joke, but in seriousness he was actually quite opposed to Jackson’s march toward authoritarianism.

Oh, I thought he was talking about Davy, since he famously opposed Jackson’s executive oversteps. Either one’s fine I guess.

Totally inaccurate, that guy is wearing a uniform.

Yes, that was intentional to further color the sentiment.

Eh, I try to use Hanlon’s Razor whenever prudent.

Not everyone thinks good.

Season 3 of Death Note. I liked the bleak end of season 2, season 3 just felt like it came up with a contrived continuation to turn the tables. It was like a fanfiction.

Not saying there aren’t a lot of racists, but there are also many very dumb people. I’ve met enough of the general population to feel fairly certain that there are a non-zero number of Trump supporters who are otherwise tolerant people. They simply don’t think about it.

You’d be surprised by the proportion of the population which spends virtually no time on self-reflection. They just kinda bumble forward through life. Most of these people inherit their political affiliation like a sports team, from their environment. They’re not bad people, they just don’t think too hard.

Not necessarily, some of them could be not racist but too dumb to see the conflict.

Are you suggesting that someone whose favorite book is a collection of Hitler’s speeches is going to follow Hitler’s methodology? I dunno, kind of a stretch.

There’s a sticking point that no one’s been able to explain to me:

If you’re in the minority, revolution is against the democratic will of the people.

If you’re in the majority, you have the votes to actually accomplish something with reform. It’s not like we live in a monarchy, reform is possible under our system.

If reform isn’t working to bring about your goals, either your goals aren’t popular enough, or they are popular but the people lack the will and organization to vote for them.

If the people lack the will and organization to vote effectively, they certainly lack the will and organization to topple the government.

My area of expertise is managing complex systems and change implementation. I sincerely don’t understand how revolution is supposed to work where reform doesn’t. No one has been able to give me an answer that doesn’t bill down to idealistic hope. How is this revolution supposed to be implemented, and why can’t we build the foundation for revolution while simultaneously using the tools we have for reform? Wouldn’t widespread support for reform be the best possible proof of consensus?

I’ve heard good things about the whole industrialization arc. I’ll binge it eventually like I did with the city watch, Rincewind, Death, and witches arcs.

Never knew what this meant, just looked it up. I should read Going Postal.

This isn’t partisan, you’re fighting human nature here. Most people aren’t that politically engaged. How many people were surprised Biden wasn’t on the ballot?

Most people aren’t following politics, they follow a vibe that they think about every few years and then go on not worrying about. Things have to get really bad before the average person thinks critically about their political representation beyond sports tribalism.

Every convert is +2, don’t disincentivize that.

A great article with some excellent points:

Those who defend strategies, practices, and rituals in an identitarian way even if they don’t lead to concrete impact are part of the problem, regardless of the seniority of the traditions and identities they embody. Losing for decades, martyring oneself for nothing, having moral superiority should not be a source of authority on how politics should be conducted, because it does not generate competence on how to achieve political victories.

[S]pontaneism must be fought in every way possible. First in its most obvious form, that is, the idea that if there is a widespread complaint in society, sooner or later this will lead to action which in turn will lead to change. Second, in its more insidious form, that is, the idea that understanding a political phenomenon, a problem, or an issue, is enough to achieve a solution.

Nothing is too “right-wing.” Nothing is “a thing for capitalists.” The end justifies the means. To be ineffective is a form of privilege. Being picky when choosing allies, being maximalists, and being purists is the luxury of those who engage in politics because of their beliefs rather than out of necessity.

Real answer is probably that they’d be used in addition to trees, designed to fit in places unsuitable for a tree.

Which is why the whole “lesser evil is still evil” schtick bothered me so much. Like yeah, we know, Dems are evil. But Republicans are more evil, and the race was not close enough to entertain alternatives.

If there is a next time, I will absolutely say to vote lesser evil again. Without a workable alternative, that is the option. I still see no workable alternative. Longshot third parties with ~1% polling are not a workable alternative. Vague revolution composed of ~1% of the population is not a workable alternative. When you have a plan, with reasonable chances of success, we can talk.

If you didn’t vote for Harris, you accepted that allowing genocide and converting Gaza into a Trump resort was preferable to voting for slightly less genocide. The genocide has only gotten worse because Harris lost. Clownshow ethics.