Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Mario Kart

Members
  • Content Count

    19,589
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3,452 Excellent

About Mario Kart

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Daisy Circuit

Previous Fields

  • Favorite NFL Team
    Green Bay Packers

Recent Profile Visitors

20,235 profile views
  1. I'm still trying to figure out who is Cortez? Must be something like Pizzagate... a made up noun... or is it an adjective... or a verb... or an adverb? So confused.
  2. This butt would look awesome on me. When can I get one?
  3. From Scientific American How to Convince Someone When Facts Fail: Why worldview threats undermine evidence By Michael Shermer on January 1, 2017 Credit: Izhar Cohen Have you ever noticed that when you present people with facts that are contrary to their deepest held beliefs they always change their minds? Me neither. In fact, people seem to double down on their beliefs in the teeth of overwhelming evidence against them. The reason is related to the worldview perceived to be under threat by the conflicting data. Creationists, for example, dispute the evidence for evolution in fossils and DNA because they are concerned about secular forces encroaching on religious faith. Antivaxxers distrust big pharma and think that money corrupts medicine, which leads them to believe that vaccines cause autism despite the inconvenient truth that the one and only study claiming such a link was retracted and its lead author accused of fraud. The 9/11 truthers focus on minutiae like the melting point of steel in the World Trade Center buildings that caused their collapse because they think the government lies and conducts “false flag” operations to create a New World Order. Climate deniers study tree rings, ice cores and the ppm of greenhouse gases because they are passionate about freedom, especially that of markets and industries to operate unencumbered by restrictive government regulations. Obama birthers desperately dissected the president's long-form birth certificate in search of fraud because they believe that the nation's first African-American president is a socialist bent on destroying the country. In these examples, proponents' deepest held worldviews were perceived to be threatened by skeptics, making facts the enemy to be slayed. This power of belief over evidence is the result of two factors: cognitive dissonance and the backfire effect. In the classic 1956 book When Prophecy Fails, psychologist Leon Festinger and his co-authors described what happened to a UFO cult when the mother ship failed to arrive at the appointed time. Instead of admitting error, “members of the group sought frantically to convince the world of their beliefs,” and they made “a series of desperate attempts to erase their rankling dissonance by making prediction after prediction in the hope that one would come true.” Festinger called this cognitive dissonance, or the uncomfortable tension that comes from holding two conflicting thoughts simultaneously. In their 2007 book Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me), two social psychologists, Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson (a former student of Festinger), document thousands of experiments demonstrating how people spin-doctor facts to fit preconceived beliefs to reduce dissonance. Their metaphor of the “pyramid of choice” places two individuals side by side at the apex of the pyramid and shows how quickly they diverge and end up at the bottom opposite corners of the base as they each stake out a position to defend. In a series of experiments by Dartmouth College professor Brendan Nyhan and University of Exeter professor Jason Reifler, the researchers identify a related factor they call the backfire effect “in which corrections actually increase misperceptions among the group in question.” Why? “Because it threatens their worldview or self-concept.” For example, subjects were given fake newspaper articles that confirmed widespread misconceptions, such as that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. When subjects were then given a corrective article that WMD were never found, liberals who opposed the war accepted the new article and rejected the old, whereas conservatives who supported the war did the opposite ... and more: they reported being even more convinced there were WMD after the correction, arguing that this only proved that Saddam Hussein hid or destroyed them. In fact, Nyhan and Reifler note, among many conservatives “the belief that Iraq possessed WMD immediately before the U.S. invasion persisted long after the Bush administration itself concluded otherwise.” If corrective facts only make matters worse, what can we do to convince people of the error of their beliefs? From my experience, 1 keep emotions out of the exchange, 2 discuss, don't attack (no ad hominem and no ad Hitlerum), 3 listen carefully and try to articulate the other position accurately, 4 show respect, 5 acknowledge that you understand why someone might hold that opinion, and 6 try to show how changing facts does not necessarily mean changing worldviews. These strategies may not always work to change people's minds, but now that the nation has just been put through a political fact-check wringer, they may help reduce unnecessary divisiveness. Scientific American Allsides
  4. I have a fortress near me that is a liquor store. So... I got 15 scrolls for my mystery box today. Awesome. Have to go use my Brilliant rune stones to complete the event today. With enough fighting today, I could turn level 25.
  5. This math problem can be easily explained by the increase of charter schools / homeschooling.
  6. Stop Making Excuses for Trump Supporters Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Ever since Trump won his surprise electoral college victory in November 2016, everyone from pundits to political scientists to average Americans have tried to figure out what went wrong and what to do about it. The big newspapers wrote an endless series of ethnographic portraits of Trump supporters in small town diners to help their readers understand, but they came off instead as tone deaf. Academics delved deep into the post-election data, making analyses that tried to sound definitive, but often rested on sketchy correlations and questionable assumptions. And, of course, opinion writers and strategists—like yours truly—made unprovable assertions based on their best reasoned arguments, but ultimately mostly preached to their respective choirs. It all came down to the right proportion of bigotry versus economic anxiety. When Hillary Clinton made her famous “basket of deplorables” remarks, it is often forgotten that she was actually making the economic anxiety argument: she said that half of Trump’s supporters were bigots, but that the other half “feel that the government has let them down … Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.” Pundits on the progressive and economic-populist left have, ironically enough, long agreed with Clinton about this, arguing that while many or most Trump supporters were inarguably motivated by bigotry, a large chunk were simply voting for a disrupter to take on a system that had failed them—and, since they weren’t directly threatened themselves by racist policies, figured there was no potential downside to them. In other words, an electorally significant portion of Trump supporters weren’t voting out of active cruelty. Rather, it was passive indifference to cruelty in the name of thumbing their nose at the system. But, at a certain point, none of that matters anymore. 2016 is over and done with. Whatever Trump may have represented to a variety of different voters then, and whatever their motivations for casting ballots for him may have been, the person and president Trump is could not be clearer now. The man is an empathy-free racist who has been credibly accused of sexual misconduct by multiple women. He openly obstructed justice and encouraged a foreign government tampering in the U.S. election on his behalf. No matter how you felt about Hillary Clinton or how you felt about the country back and its relative imbalances of power, none of that matters now. It’s 2019. The stakes could not be more obvious. On the one hand, there is an openly bigoted, would-be totalitarian president who tells Americans of color to “go back” to countries they were never from, and who otherwise governs like just another corporate fat cat Republican, pushing tax cuts and social benefit cuts. And then, there’s anything else. Literally anything else. Maybe Joe Biden and the centrist wing of the Democratic Party isn’t to your liking, and you want more of a shock to the system. Maybe you’re wary of progressives like Warren or Sanders because you’re afraid of radical change. Maybe you hate all politicians and think America should be run like a business. Maybe you don’t trust Kamala Harris or Pete Buttigieg. Maybe you’re an anarchist, an accelerationist, a libertarian. Maybe you just hate people who drink turmeric lattes and eat sushi. Maybe you think Millennials are entitled, and you want to knock them down a peg. Maybe you dislike Trump, but you really like tax cuts, or you’re uncomfortable with abortion, or you’re a Netanyahu fan who wants to bomb Iran, or you just want more conservative judges. The world is complex, people are cross-pressured. Maybe the right Democrat just hasn’t said the right words to make it okay to cast a vote against Trump. None of it matters. Their time for excuses is over. A lot of voters who cast their ballots for Trump in 2016 soured on him and voted for Democrats in 2018 to keep him in check. Voting for Trump once is forgivable. People make mistakes and errors in judgment. But if you still back Trump now, in July of 2019, knowing who and what he is, what kind of people you’re aligned with, that’s not on anyone else. That’s on you. You’re responsible for every ugly word out of his mouth, and out of the mouths of all the Republican politicians protecting him. You have to own that. Your motives don’t matter. Because ultimately, as Julius Goat said: “Historians have a word for Germans who joined the Nazi party, not because they hated Jews, but because out of a hope for restored patriotism, or a sense of economic anxiety, or a hope to preserve their religious values, or dislike of their opponents, or raw political opportunism, or convenience, or ignorance, or greed. That word is “Nazi.” Nobody cares about their motives anymore. They joined what they joined. They lent their support and their moral approval. And, in so doing, they bound themselves to everything that came after. Who cares any more what particular knot they used in the binding?” In this case, there is time to rectify the mistake. But those who don’t should be held fully morally responsible. Allsides link to where Washington Monthly lies on the political scale. Correct the political ship, Republicans.
  7. Freedom of thought has surrendered at that church. Fitting, I guess.
  8. So how can we actually defeat Trump in 2020? How can anyone begin to talk policy with a government official when a government official thinks like this? Ted Crockett lost the primary so he is not an elected official right now.
  9. I've been thinking about this, not your comment, but why keep talking about these four instead of talking about issues / good things he's done? He is blasting these four along with every talk radio show and FOX because they are attempting to paint every Democrat is for what these four want. Trump / Republicans can't attack Pelosi, Schumer, any other high ranking Democrat because they discuss issues and have a good foothold into where they want to go or what they want to do. But, these four, these four are the proverbial devil and if Republicans can paint these four as "The Democrat Party", which I have heard from talk radio already, then no way will voters vote for these four. The Squad = The Democrat Party Or, so the Republicans want voters to believe so Republicans remain in power. The Millennial vote is going to decide 2020.
  10. Discuss the issues. Discuss civility and world standing. Discuss the future and where we want to be/go as a country. Have and showcase a plan. Quit bickering with Trump. It's pointless, useless, immature, and plays into his games. Allow Trump to continue to make a fool of himself.
  11. The plan is to do all three books. Rumors are it will be 4-5 "seasons" with eight episodes each season but those are rumors. The fact they are reading/filming season 2 right now is promising. The Reddit page has some news. But, for the moment, I am stoked.
  12. First Trailer This not only looks awesome but will also stay true to the source material, I sure hope as much as possible. It's by HBO and the BBC with a stellar cast. Not sure how far they will get through the first book but it's supposedly eight episodes for season one. Season two is just starting to film. Can't wait.
  13. I am, like many, stuck with two fragments and zero runs stones to get them. I’m close to getting one more but I’ve tried at levels 6-10 and have two. Two Restricted Books are at stake here. @AcerFC, you and me must be diagnosing the best way to spend Restricted Books because our trees must be almost identical. Haven’t spent Spell Books to max Attack Damage, holding onto those for now, so I guess stamina might be next for me until Spell / Restricted Books are needed for those.