Numbers are not everything in life. Sometimes you must figure out what values (not the Economics ones) are important before designing, planning and implementing. Read Human Transit by Jarrett Walker and you'll understand what I mean.
*me keeping my options to myself and watching*
It's easy to say "numbers are not everything." But ask those who lived in Weimar Germany when their currency collapsed if a worthless currency is fun. The resulting misery and fear and anger opened the door to Hitler and horror.
We can't just keep spending huge amounts of money we don't have. Really. We can't. No matter how many empty words we throw at the problem. Even if it would "nice" to give, to everybody we might like to vote for us, some free college or free rent or maybe some sweet jobs doing little but being well paid.
Remember when we were told that inflation was "transitory" and no big deal? We have had a series of growing problems, and still many insist on day-dreaming or generating distractions. Vote carefully at all levels of government. In some cities, especially. Common sense has been turning into an uncommon virtue in many places. And the numbers show it. But who needs numbers, eh?
We can't just keep spending huge amounts of money we don't have. Really. We can't. No matter how many empty words we throw at the problem. Even if it would "nice" to give, to everybody we might like to vote for us, some free college or free rent or maybe some sweet jobs doing little but being well paid.
Remember when we were told that inflation was "transitory" and no big deal? We have had a series of growing problems, and still many insist on day-dreaming or generating distractions. Vote carefully at all levels of government. In some cities, especially. Common sense has been turning into an uncommon virtue in many places. And the numbers show it. But who needs numbers, eh?
@bfchessguy said in #49:
> I think we can agree that it is flabbergasting that we keep voting for those politicians that are screwing us.
>
> Even in Canada last few weeks showed the division and insults is the way to go for winning elections in Social Medias Era. Choosing the lesser of 2 evils does not mean I agree with Biden's and Trudeau BS-ing.
And why should we always be choosing the lesser of 2 evils?
People that vote for Trump hate him but hate Biden more - people that vote for Biden hate Biden but hate Trump more...what's the point?
I think we can all agree that this, at least, needs a reform.
> I think we can agree that it is flabbergasting that we keep voting for those politicians that are screwing us.
>
> Even in Canada last few weeks showed the division and insults is the way to go for winning elections in Social Medias Era. Choosing the lesser of 2 evils does not mean I agree with Biden's and Trudeau BS-ing.
And why should we always be choosing the lesser of 2 evils?
People that vote for Trump hate him but hate Biden more - people that vote for Biden hate Biden but hate Trump more...what's the point?
I think we can all agree that this, at least, needs a reform.
@Noflaps said in #36:
> Musical, tea-loving kitten -- I have some instances in mind, but I don't wish to criticize any particular individual who is not here to defend himself or herself. I'm only interested in discussing general ideas and trends that I believe I've noticed over the years and that concern me (perhaps justifiably, or perhaps because, I must admit it, I could be wrong).
>
> But we should ask ourselves, when we watch a debate, and then reflect upon -- is any candidate being protected from a hard question or subjected to them selectively? Are there questions that can't be asked? Does the moderator, by his or her displayed emotions, tone of voice, body language or choice of words, reflect a poorly concealed preference or an admiration or a dislike? Are some candidates barely given airtime at all, while some are given much more? Does the after-debate "commentary" reflect what we actually heard?
The reason why I'm asking you this is because you're being very vague - why not give an exact answer/video? I mean this place is open discussion :)
> Musical, tea-loving kitten -- I have some instances in mind, but I don't wish to criticize any particular individual who is not here to defend himself or herself. I'm only interested in discussing general ideas and trends that I believe I've noticed over the years and that concern me (perhaps justifiably, or perhaps because, I must admit it, I could be wrong).
>
> But we should ask ourselves, when we watch a debate, and then reflect upon -- is any candidate being protected from a hard question or subjected to them selectively? Are there questions that can't be asked? Does the moderator, by his or her displayed emotions, tone of voice, body language or choice of words, reflect a poorly concealed preference or an admiration or a dislike? Are some candidates barely given airtime at all, while some are given much more? Does the after-debate "commentary" reflect what we actually heard?
The reason why I'm asking you this is because you're being very vague - why not give an exact answer/video? I mean this place is open discussion :)
@bfchessguy said in #40:
> Sure pretending almost everyone is so dumb that they're influenced?
Are we really going to say that influence is only for "dumb" people now?
Everyone is influenced, whether for better or for worse.
> Sure pretending almost everyone is so dumb that they're influenced?
Are we really going to say that influence is only for "dumb" people now?
Everyone is influenced, whether for better or for worse.
@greenteakitten, I am, indeed, refraining from pointing fingers at any particular person. I assume you've watched debates and can decide for yourself if my general concerns have ever been justified. I am happy for you to decide for yourself if they have or have not ever been justified.
But, as I thought I'd already made clear, I don't like using the internet to criticize particular people who are unlikely to be here to defend themselves from the criticism. Furthermore, it is not correcting some particular person or person that concerns me (especially for what may well have been mistakes made in good faith) -- it's promoting the need for an utterly fair and objective process.
In order for me to argue for fairness and objectivity, I don't need to try to name every person who, in my view, might not have been sufficiently objective or neutral in the past.
I'm pointing out the need, in the future, to pay attention to see if what is being observed is fairly and objectively presented. If others see no basis for, or do not agree with, my concerns -- that's okay. I'm not all-knowing and could be wrong, I'm just trying to be objective myself, and caution that we should not take objectivity and fairness for granted. I'm not trying to be, and see no practical or psychic value in being, hostile to particular people.
But, as I thought I'd already made clear, I don't like using the internet to criticize particular people who are unlikely to be here to defend themselves from the criticism. Furthermore, it is not correcting some particular person or person that concerns me (especially for what may well have been mistakes made in good faith) -- it's promoting the need for an utterly fair and objective process.
In order for me to argue for fairness and objectivity, I don't need to try to name every person who, in my view, might not have been sufficiently objective or neutral in the past.
I'm pointing out the need, in the future, to pay attention to see if what is being observed is fairly and objectively presented. If others see no basis for, or do not agree with, my concerns -- that's okay. I'm not all-knowing and could be wrong, I'm just trying to be objective myself, and caution that we should not take objectivity and fairness for granted. I'm not trying to be, and see no practical or psychic value in being, hostile to particular people.
Joe Biden isn't better zen Trump, both are bad, but I rather vote for an auth zen a lib (I'm not amurican lol)
By "zen" I think you mean "than." By "amurican" I think you mean "American."
By "auth" I hope you mean an "authentic" human being.
In any case, thanks for taking the time to write.
By "auth" I hope you mean an "authentic" human being.
In any case, thanks for taking the time to write.
@Noflaps said in #59:
> By "auth" I hope you mean an "authentic" human being.
>
Is "auth" not a reference to "authoritarian"?
> By "auth" I hope you mean an "authentic" human being.
>
Is "auth" not a reference to "authoritarian"?