Leeroy Jenkins
Footballguy
I can grab ####### because of isis.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Official Donald Trump for President thread (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Eminence
- Start date
- Status
Leeroy Jenkins
Footballguy
Trump surrogates are worse than he is.
Rohn Jambo
Footballguy
3C's
Footballguy
AnonymousBob
Footballguy
Pretty sure it did. Last debate Trump said Hillary has been fighting ISIS her entire adult life.
Jeremy
Footballguy
First she founded ISIS then spent her whole life fighting them. Who's really the unstable one in this election?
AnonymousBob
Footballguy
Doing the math on this, that means ISIS was founded the same year Adam West began starring in Batman. POW!
AnonymousBob
Footballguy
It also means ISIS was founded the same year Ronald Reagan became Governor of California. Coincidence? I think not.
Last edited by a moderator:
Rohn Jambo
Footballguy
cstu
Footballguy
Leeroy Jenkins
Footballguy
Arent we supposed to call them Dashe to upset them? Like how HW Bush pronounced Sadem Hussein a way to annoy him.
Last edited by a moderator:
Mr Fantasy
Footballguy
Sebowski
Footballguy
Kerry also pronounces Genghis Kahn, Jengiss Kahn to piss him off too
Maybe that's why Trump calls China Jina.
I think there's something to this.
A Facebook Post
Eliezer Yudkowsky
October 9, 2016
People can't distinguish better or worse within any two things more than one standard deviation above their own level. I can't either: if there were two superintelligences or just >Eliezers arguing with each other, to me they would both sound reasonable. (The "plus one standard deviation" part isn't a standard result, just me trying to eyeball the phenomenon.)
Folks up to and including Hillary Clinton have been asking in genuine confusion and horror, "How is this even an election? How are there any undecided voters? How is Trump not down 50 points in the polls?"
And what this shows, if anything, is that *both* sides have forgotten that the Truth isn't a giant glowing neon sign that everyone sees in equally naked light.
I get all kinds of scorn from people who want to know how I could possibly be so confident in the Many-Worlds Interpretation when, from their perspective, there are all these interpretations of quantum physics, all of which sound kinda quantumy and physicsish, and there's this one weird guy who's *so sure* about one of them. Imagine those people and their scorn, if you're not already among them, because that is exactly how you look to a lot of people when you massively favor Clinton over Trump.
That is: from their perspective, there are these two people who are saying kinda plausible-sounding things, both of whom have had their ethics called into question. While in your world, it's like "How the hell is this even a debate?"
It is a very rare soul who can look at somebody being massively confident of MWI over its alternatives, and think: "Well, for all I know, this is one of those things that I can't distinguish from over here, but are more distinguishable from higher up. I can't necessarily trust this guy, because I don't *know* if he's actually any higher than me, so I'm going to suspend judgment on those alternatives myself. But sure, it's plausible somebody else could see the decision as massively overdetermined. Happens all the time." No, you just see the Truth of a bunch of roughly equally appealing theories, sounding equally quantum and physicsish, and you see some weird person who seems to be reacting to this naked Truth by insisting that everybody go for *his* personally preferred alternative of MWI, as he asks in some dismay, "How the hell is this even a question?"
You sound just like me, in that regard, when somebody is soberly and in good faith pondering whether Trump's past personal misogyny outweighs Clinton's email scandal, or if Trump's comments on NATO outweigh Clinton's hawkishness against Russia, and you go about arrogantly proclaiming, "NO STOP I HAVE READ HISTORY BOOKS DO NOT VOTE FOR THAT GUY". They think you're partisan and blinded and conforming to some kind of media pro-Hillary cult; since, after all, you're reacting to the clearly visible Truth of two flawed leaders by massively favoring one of them.
Knowing this background story won't help you persuade anyone to vote against Trump. The people reading this who don't believe in MWI are currently going, "Oh, so now Eliezer thinks he's *smarter* than me." Somehow it's not allowed any more, somehow we've forgotten, that different people can have different perceptual capabilities and it is *possible* for somebody else to have better lenses, and be justifiably more confident thereof, even in a case where we don't have enough evidence ourselves to tell who really knows what.
(ADDED: That doesn't mean you blindly trust people you can't tell whether to trust! It means that you don't get upset when other people are confident of questions that look balanced to you, because for all you know, they could know better and *that would be okay*. You don't defer to them, you don't take their estimate as your own, you go on suspending judgment yourself, because you can't tell if they really do know better or not. But it's okay for now that they seem more confident than you; you have also suspended judgment about whether their confidence is justified.)
I think people in the 1950s might have been more accepting of this kind of background scenario? More likely to think, when that elite person says, "Well, I'm sorry, but actually the gold standard is really not a very good idea", this is *socially okay*? It's not so much (I think?) that people in the 1950s accepted everything an authority said; but rather that they weren't so insulted by the suggestion that somebody else could perceive a murky issue more accurately than them. It was allowed to be the case, it was allowed to be a *possibility* even if you didn't know for sure, that the economist could perceive facts about central banking that you didn't. And you knew more than the economist did about plumbing, and yes the economist *was* more prestigious because economics is higher-prestige than plumbing; but even that was on some fundamental level okay because, you know, that happens in life.
Or maybe the 1950s were never like that. I don't know. I didn't live there. That thing I just said could be obviously and massively wrong to anyone who lived through the 1950s. And that would be okay. I don't have much of a right to call that okay, because I would still know about things like decision theory that are higher-prestige than knowing about the 1950s, so it's not really me being thrown under the bus here. But even so, is it really so bizarre to think that this could be, on some level, okay?
And if I'm right that people somehow understood this better in the 1950s, then it feels like there's been a loss of perspective since then. Like people have gotten a little worse at imagining other minds. It's no longer *okay* for somebody with IQ 90 to be unable to tell the difference between Clinton and Trump because both of those people sound kinda smartish (i.e., "+1SD smarter than me" beyond which no gradients can be distinguished) and one is a Secretary of State and the other is a successful businessman and one did a naughty thing with classified information and the other did a naughty thing with a university. The Huffington Post doesn't think this is okay and the person with IQ 90 doesn't think it's okay either. They've both forgotten how it's possible for this to be a sort of thing that happens normally and without bringing the universe to an end.
There are going to be aspects of this that I don't understand, because status. But when I look at the modern populism in its most destructive aspects, the anti-expertise parts--yes, experts are not perfectly trustworthy saints but holy hell is there such a thing as expertise and holy hell does a government need it to decide policy--I feel like there's been a breakdown of perspective, as well as a breakdown of trust.
It's not just that the media shoves the failures of politicians in our faces 24 hours a day, so that we trust them less, or so that it becomes more of a horrifying loss of status to say that a politician might know better than you about something. It's more than a destructive message about how it's elitist to think that some people know better than other people. Maybe something like a just-world hypothesis reinforced by the endless screaming of social media: when people choose wrongly, it's always because they're bad people... so why bother to keep track of different perceptual discrimination capabilities that happen for non-moral reasons?
We are no longer navigating a world of people who see different things than us, some of whom might be perceiving the same objective phenomenon in an *objectively more accurate* way than we do; and where it's okay if they think so too, *even if* we can't tell whether or not they're seeing more accurately than us. Maybe nobody ever lived in a world where that was okay. But I do get a sense that things were better, along this dimension if not others, in the 1950s. And if that's *not* true... then all I can say is, you're allowed to know it's not true, and act all confident that it's not true; even if I myself can't tell whether or not I ought to trust you about that.
A Facebook Post
Eliezer Yudkowsky
October 9, 2016
People can't distinguish better or worse within any two things more than one standard deviation above their own level. I can't either: if there were two superintelligences or just >Eliezers arguing with each other, to me they would both sound reasonable. (The "plus one standard deviation" part isn't a standard result, just me trying to eyeball the phenomenon.)
Folks up to and including Hillary Clinton have been asking in genuine confusion and horror, "How is this even an election? How are there any undecided voters? How is Trump not down 50 points in the polls?"
And what this shows, if anything, is that *both* sides have forgotten that the Truth isn't a giant glowing neon sign that everyone sees in equally naked light.
I get all kinds of scorn from people who want to know how I could possibly be so confident in the Many-Worlds Interpretation when, from their perspective, there are all these interpretations of quantum physics, all of which sound kinda quantumy and physicsish, and there's this one weird guy who's *so sure* about one of them. Imagine those people and their scorn, if you're not already among them, because that is exactly how you look to a lot of people when you massively favor Clinton over Trump.
That is: from their perspective, there are these two people who are saying kinda plausible-sounding things, both of whom have had their ethics called into question. While in your world, it's like "How the hell is this even a debate?"
It is a very rare soul who can look at somebody being massively confident of MWI over its alternatives, and think: "Well, for all I know, this is one of those things that I can't distinguish from over here, but are more distinguishable from higher up. I can't necessarily trust this guy, because I don't *know* if he's actually any higher than me, so I'm going to suspend judgment on those alternatives myself. But sure, it's plausible somebody else could see the decision as massively overdetermined. Happens all the time." No, you just see the Truth of a bunch of roughly equally appealing theories, sounding equally quantum and physicsish, and you see some weird person who seems to be reacting to this naked Truth by insisting that everybody go for *his* personally preferred alternative of MWI, as he asks in some dismay, "How the hell is this even a question?"
You sound just like me, in that regard, when somebody is soberly and in good faith pondering whether Trump's past personal misogyny outweighs Clinton's email scandal, or if Trump's comments on NATO outweigh Clinton's hawkishness against Russia, and you go about arrogantly proclaiming, "NO STOP I HAVE READ HISTORY BOOKS DO NOT VOTE FOR THAT GUY". They think you're partisan and blinded and conforming to some kind of media pro-Hillary cult; since, after all, you're reacting to the clearly visible Truth of two flawed leaders by massively favoring one of them.
Knowing this background story won't help you persuade anyone to vote against Trump. The people reading this who don't believe in MWI are currently going, "Oh, so now Eliezer thinks he's *smarter* than me." Somehow it's not allowed any more, somehow we've forgotten, that different people can have different perceptual capabilities and it is *possible* for somebody else to have better lenses, and be justifiably more confident thereof, even in a case where we don't have enough evidence ourselves to tell who really knows what.
(ADDED: That doesn't mean you blindly trust people you can't tell whether to trust! It means that you don't get upset when other people are confident of questions that look balanced to you, because for all you know, they could know better and *that would be okay*. You don't defer to them, you don't take their estimate as your own, you go on suspending judgment yourself, because you can't tell if they really do know better or not. But it's okay for now that they seem more confident than you; you have also suspended judgment about whether their confidence is justified.)
I think people in the 1950s might have been more accepting of this kind of background scenario? More likely to think, when that elite person says, "Well, I'm sorry, but actually the gold standard is really not a very good idea", this is *socially okay*? It's not so much (I think?) that people in the 1950s accepted everything an authority said; but rather that they weren't so insulted by the suggestion that somebody else could perceive a murky issue more accurately than them. It was allowed to be the case, it was allowed to be a *possibility* even if you didn't know for sure, that the economist could perceive facts about central banking that you didn't. And you knew more than the economist did about plumbing, and yes the economist *was* more prestigious because economics is higher-prestige than plumbing; but even that was on some fundamental level okay because, you know, that happens in life.
Or maybe the 1950s were never like that. I don't know. I didn't live there. That thing I just said could be obviously and massively wrong to anyone who lived through the 1950s. And that would be okay. I don't have much of a right to call that okay, because I would still know about things like decision theory that are higher-prestige than knowing about the 1950s, so it's not really me being thrown under the bus here. But even so, is it really so bizarre to think that this could be, on some level, okay?
And if I'm right that people somehow understood this better in the 1950s, then it feels like there's been a loss of perspective since then. Like people have gotten a little worse at imagining other minds. It's no longer *okay* for somebody with IQ 90 to be unable to tell the difference between Clinton and Trump because both of those people sound kinda smartish (i.e., "+1SD smarter than me" beyond which no gradients can be distinguished) and one is a Secretary of State and the other is a successful businessman and one did a naughty thing with classified information and the other did a naughty thing with a university. The Huffington Post doesn't think this is okay and the person with IQ 90 doesn't think it's okay either. They've both forgotten how it's possible for this to be a sort of thing that happens normally and without bringing the universe to an end.
There are going to be aspects of this that I don't understand, because status. But when I look at the modern populism in its most destructive aspects, the anti-expertise parts--yes, experts are not perfectly trustworthy saints but holy hell is there such a thing as expertise and holy hell does a government need it to decide policy--I feel like there's been a breakdown of perspective, as well as a breakdown of trust.
It's not just that the media shoves the failures of politicians in our faces 24 hours a day, so that we trust them less, or so that it becomes more of a horrifying loss of status to say that a politician might know better than you about something. It's more than a destructive message about how it's elitist to think that some people know better than other people. Maybe something like a just-world hypothesis reinforced by the endless screaming of social media: when people choose wrongly, it's always because they're bad people... so why bother to keep track of different perceptual discrimination capabilities that happen for non-moral reasons?
We are no longer navigating a world of people who see different things than us, some of whom might be perceiving the same objective phenomenon in an *objectively more accurate* way than we do; and where it's okay if they think so too, *even if* we can't tell whether or not they're seeing more accurately than us. Maybe nobody ever lived in a world where that was okay. But I do get a sense that things were better, along this dimension if not others, in the 1950s. And if that's *not* true... then all I can say is, you're allowed to know it's not true, and act all confident that it's not true; even if I myself can't tell whether or not I ought to trust you about that.
cstu
Footballguy
Riversco
Footballguy
I think voters Apply Occam's Razor. Either:
1. Trump is a massive bigot, totally incoherent, a moron, but somehow managed to survive decades in the real estate industry with his vast fortune intact and even ran a successful TV show for years, which would have required a quite a bit of skill in working with people but he has none yet succeeded anyway?
2. All of these attacks on Trump are pure politics. He's nothing like what the democrats portray him. This is how the political machine tries to discredit someone who is outside the system.
Occam's Razor screams that what is going on is option 2.
That's why Trump isn't down 50 points.
1. Trump is a massive bigot, totally incoherent, a moron, but somehow managed to survive decades in the real estate industry with his vast fortune intact and even ran a successful TV show for years, which would have required a quite a bit of skill in working with people but he has none yet succeeded anyway?
2. All of these attacks on Trump are pure politics. He's nothing like what the democrats portray him. This is how the political machine tries to discredit someone who is outside the system.
Occam's Razor screams that what is going on is option 2.
That's why Trump isn't down 50 points.
Riversco
Footballguy
A lot of the democrat arguments against Trump work against each other too. Trump is a moron. Trump is a brilliant tax dodger. Trump can't form coherent thoughts. Trump is a master at international politics and is cutting secret deals with Putin. The actual attacks are all over the place. That probably is discrediting ALL of the attacks to quite a few voters.
Mr. Pickles
Footballguy
I doubt a single person thinks Trumps does his own taxes.
Maybe Rudy.
Maybe Rudy.
cosjobs
Footballguy
Are you kidding me? He knows more about the tax code than any presidential candidate in history
cstu
Footballguy
For those wondering why Billy Bush hasn't been getting flack over the Trump Tape, he's been suspended.
Riversco
Footballguy
The standard for being stupid with money are professional athletes who wind up with the wrong advisers and blow their entire fortune. The standard is not "does not do their own taxes".
The Future Champs
Footballguy
ren hoek
Footballguy
Grace Under Pressure
Footballguy
Steve Tasker
Footballguy
As someone who was doing some reading on MWI the other day....kudos to this guy for working quantum mechanics theories into election commentary.Maurile Tremblay said:
RBM
Footballguy
Leroy Hoard
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
3C's
Footballguy
My guess would be they're trying to get the troops back in line. Or maybe they're finally giving Priebus the boot.
Coeur de Lion
Footballguy
IMO it's far more likely that they're going to give permission to turn Trump loose or not, depending on the situation. There are plenty of districts that break down demographically in such a way that being tied to Trump will be a huge drag in their individual re-election campaigns.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Folks, Hillary already knew what will be in the next releases.
Trump was teed up.
Trump was teed up.
Coeur de Lion
Footballguy
I think that this is absolutely true. Further, after he goes down in flames in November, in their alternative universe it won't be because of anything other than a rigged election and the biased media. It's pretty likely to represent a real problem for the Republican Party moving forward, too -- clearly, they need to swing back toward the center and drop the xenophobia as the electorate gets more diverse, but I don't think that their base is going to be interested in hearing that message.
PlasmaDogPlasma
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
Jeremy
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I think she will be compensated one way or the other by the RNC, it's been the worst babysitting job in the world essentially.
- Status
Similar threads
