Slashdot Mirror
Your Political Facebook Posts Aren't Changing How Your Friends Think (qz.com)
An anonymous reader writes:It may be hard to resist airing political grievances or appealing to voters on social media during a U.S. presidential race as heated as this one. But no one wants to hear about your politics, least of all on Facebook. Those long rants about how Trump is a bully and a buffoon, Hillary is a crook, and conspiring against Bernie Sanders has doomed America forever aren't changing voters' minds, a new study found. A staggering 94% of Republicans, 92% of Democrats, and 85% of independents on Facebook say they have never been swayed by a political post, according to Rantic, a firm that sells social media followers. The firm surveyed 10,000 Facebook users who self-identified as Republicans, Democrats, or independents. The only thing those opinionated election posts are doing is damaging your friendships. Nearly one-third of Facebook users surveyed said social media is not an appropriate forum for political discussions. And respondents from each political affiliation admitted they've un-friended people on Facebook because of their political posts.
But they are changing how your friends think ABOUT YOU!
All the more opportunity to serve you advertisements you also don't want to see.
I submit to you that the vast majority of the many millions that the parties spend during the campaign is wasted money. Rallies are attended mostly by the faithful, who want to worship their heroes - but essentially no one is going to be converted by attending a rally. Ditto for ads - they make those already convinced feel good, but that is all.
Your Political Facebook Posts Aren't Changing How Your Friends Think
This study is just a rip-off of earlier research into human psychology--specifically, of all previous research into human psychology--which has proven pretty conclusively that nothing anyone says has ever changed anyone's mind about anything ever.
>>>A staggering 94% of Republicans, 92% of Democrats, and 85% of independents on Facebook say they have never been swayed by a political post
I think it is appropriate to state that majority of people are never swayed by an argument coming from out-group. That is, trying to reason with people that made up their mind is highly ineffective in all circumstances.
... that's different. My posts change everyone's mind. -A.C.
Those politispam posts don't change my opinion on the nature of the politicians, but they do change my mind about the intellect of my Facebook associates,
They're looking at the wrong number by using the 94%.
If 6%, 8%, and 15% of people are swayed, and the vote is nearly 50/50, then these posts are in fact potentially effective...
Nearly one-third of Facebook users surveyed said social media is not an appropriate forum for political discussions.
Then where is the appropriate forum? Seriously, what does this third of users think it's for?
And by the way ...
... a firm that sells social media followers
That makes me sad.
Nope, no sig
I don't say anything political on Facebook because as the study says, whose mind would it change? In the end it's only virtue signaling at best, semi-trolling at worst. And there's the potential of friends I like going cold because they can't handle different political views (even though that's a flaw in people it's the kind of flaw I forgive friends for, even if a little sad).
That doesn't stop everyone ELSE on Facebook ramping up political expressions though, which is why I've pretty much stopped reading Facebook (and Twitter) until after November.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Go ahead and criticize the hell out of Trump. Any friend who supports him isn't worth keeping anyway.
Negative advertising (and ranting in general) reduces a person's motivation to vote for their candidate. They won't change their mind and vote for the other person, but they might stay home on election day.
Can darn sure change peoples opinions. Saying you hate Hillary because "insert subjective drivel" won't change anyone's minds. Posting the damning email evidence that she is lying crook will change the minds of any sensible people. The problem is how little your vote really matters and how you're forced into a two party competition rather than a real candidate competition.
In other words, 6% - 15% of the people reading have a chance of being swayed. I think this result will only encourage people who want to get their side elected to continue to rant.
In debates about Christianity, there are two groups: those looking for answers, and those looking to just ask questions.
"a firm that sells social media followers" is that a group we can trust to do actual surveys with proper questioning? Or to have even done a survey? What followers do they sell? Or is "selling followers" an euphemism for "we make them up" and if so, are the made up followers the ones surveyed?
It's true - In 2008 I changed a person's stance on the Israel/Palestine conflict after a reasoned discussion, in-person.
Most political "discussions," including Facebook posts, don't change minds because they are rhetorically weak. Indeed, it isn't hard to conclude that most of them have no persuasive rhetorical content. Authors of such posts are venting their opinions, or preaching to the choir, in total absence of actual dialogue.
Now, if one was able to restrict the study to conversations containing even attempted persuasive rhetoric, I doubt the majority of them would be effective. But it would be more than reported in TFA.
.:Semper Absurda:.
It's ironic, but the same is also true for Democrats. Democrats constantly use pseudo science to justify their non-scientific position and ideology. Worse, for many on the left, science is becoming their religion. So you wind up with two religiously dogmatic zealots arguing about who's idiocy is best.
Believe it or not, politics (as well as religion) is largely an emotional topic. It's hard to sway emotion with logic, least with an FB post.
Those incessant political Facebook posts have certainly changed the way I think.
First, they have changed my opinion of many of my Facebook friends due to their endless attempts to shove political arguments (of all persuasions) in my face (thank God for the "unfollow" button).
Second, they have changed my opinion of Facebook and social media as a whole. Social media continues to devolve into more yelling, screaming, threats, trolling, guilt by association, and mob justice. And what makes it bad for Facebook is that the harder they try to "fix" things, the worse it becomes.
I learned long ago to be extremely careful about discussing politics or religion, especially with friends. I sincerely wish more people would take that lesson to heart.
As a moderate conservative and registered Democrat, I believe in both God and Science. Believing in one doesn't cancel out the other.
That's not quite a fair assessment of their stance. In general they believe that the profit motive applies to scientists as well as business-persons such that scientists will bias their results to get more money just like any salesperson would. You could argue they are projecting their own greed into scientists, but they can claim that human nature is human nature, and most humans are naturally greedy (which is the basis of capitalism's feedback mechanism).
You can argue specific climate facts, but they can always find a scientist (or a shill acting like a scientist) to poke holes in such facts.
It's true that the Earth is a complex system with lots of "moving parts" such that its climate is the aggregate result of jillions of factors.
You could point out that in most models, more CO2 warms the earth, and we know the CO2 increase is largely man-made due to the isotope signature.
But they may reply that not all models show CO2 warming the Earth and/or the temperature readings are rigged by those "greedy scientists" I mentioned above such that there is no excessive warming beyond the normal natural ebb and flow.
How does one prove scientists didn't rig temperature readings? There were no cameras following them 24/7. Ultimately it relies on trust, and if they believe scientists don't deserve our trust, there's not much one can do.
Unfortunately we may have to wait until their tushies bake off or their houses are under the sea until they get a clue. Reality is merely poking them right now, but they'll only notice it when it kicks them in the nuts/cunt.
Table-ized A.I.
I'm a Gary Johnson supporter, but I have a few friends that are always posting smoking gun posts from fringe conservative sites that claim "Hillary's going to be indicted any day now!" or "Hillary's campaign is over when this gets out!" I keep telling them these are just clickbait links and don't offer any substance.
They're in La-La Land if they think they're going to change anyone's mind. Hillary Clinton's supporters know she's a corrupt liar, but they don't care, just like everyone knows Trump is a crass, narcissistic bully, and his supporters don't care.
By the way, is it getting any more obvious to anyone that Trump is a Hillary plant? Every day he's shooting his mouth off with some preposterous remark, making his campaign tank. No serious candidate would act the way he does. Sure, it worked great in the primaries to bring out the Redneck/Juggalo/Tea Party vote, but that's a small minority of the electorate. The whole thing has the feeling of a setup.
If Johnson and/or Stein don't get into the presidential debates, this is going to be the most lopsided election Since Reagan/Mondale in 1984.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Regardless of political affiliation and dislike, I think the blurb is in the wrong when claiming that political posts will only harm your friendships. I think it's more right to say that it will help expose unworkable friendships.
If anyone really have faith in [insert extremist party or politician], I truly want to know about it, because that's people I cannot trust. Whether they're stupid or evil, they're not friendship material.
You can't even post some things if they don't fit the ideology of the times. Just look at Germany.
"94% of Republicans, 92% of Democrats, and 85% of independents on Facebook"
THINK that they have never been swayed. They are wrong. Maybe no individual post has ever swayed them; however, multiple people posting opinions almost certainly has. There's a reason why WWII Germany, modern day Russia, and political parties worldwide put out propaganda. IT WORKS.
Look at all the politicians who were against LGBT rights 10 years ago compared to now. Someone has changed their mind. It is the gradual acceptance of people and the political zeitgeist. People preaching acceptance have made a difference on their audience. A single post may not change anyone's mind. Dozens of people expressing an opinion might change someone's mind without them even knowing it.
Sure, some things may never change. Trump's die hard supporters are never going to give him up- and Hillary's won't either; however, chances are at some point in our lives EVERYONE has changed their opinion on something- and it might have been the opinion of another that changed our opinion but we just didn't realize it.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
It's hard to imagine the Bernie Sanders campaign growing like it did, without people posting on Facebook about him and his ideas.
#1 point of exposure for me -- was seeing things my friends posted on FB.
Incidentally have you tried Cuke? It's like heaven in a can!
#DeleteChrome
Of course they don't change most peoples opinions. I live in Ohio and the Olympics are inundated with Hillary ads. They will not change my mind one iota.
That being said, I did change my mind about someone because of a response he gave. Cam Newton said recently that the reason people don't like him is NOT about racism. He went way up in my mind. I didn't particularly care for his celebrations (or anyone else's showboat celebrations for that matter - over the top celebrations generally lower my opinion of someone). But he is correct in that it had nothing to do with his race. For him to come out and say such a non-PC thing made him go up in my estimation.
It's ironic, but the same is also true for Democrats. Democrats constantly use pseudo science to justify their non-scientific position and ideology. Worse, for many on the left, science is becoming their religion. So you wind up with two religiously dogmatic zealots arguing about who's idiocy is best.
[citation needed]
With the exceptional outlier of the anti-vaxers (largely a liberal phenomenon) the facts would seem to be against you. Please support your assertion.
Well, fuck you then! Your opinion is wrong and you suck!
"I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
>>>> A staggering 94% of Republicans, 92% of Democrats, and 85% of independents on Facebook say they have never been swayed by a political post But in a close run race, that 6 or 8% can make all the difference.
My UID is prime!
People don't even let FACTS change their political opinion. Why should random rants they call "friends" only cause facebook doesn't offer "moron" as a status work?
bickerdyke
Just like how all these I LUV HILLARY and TRUMP 4 LYFE posts aren't making me change my mind that the two of them are complete fuckwits, I assume that the people voting for them are too stupid to realize that they are fanboying for complete fuckwits.
Most of my friends follow the same political path I do. Facebook is generally not about changing minds but about things people talk about as friends at a bar or a group breakfast. The old guys solving problems at breakfast, or the blue collar guys after work. It's clear liberals stick with liberals and conservatives stick with conservatives. Same as people get news from liberal sources or conservative ones. Facebook at least follows a social pattern of people finding others who have similar beliefs, ideology and interests. News media though is terribly biased these days, with very little journalistic reporting and unbiased stories. They generally don't even try to cover up their bias anymore and frankly it's a disservice to the public who don't get news but rather opinionated biased stories from one perspective.
It's why voters make poor choices because most lack any ability to base their vote on reliable information on the candidates. Facebook doesn't help this, but again it's become such a tainted form of a news source that really is just more rumor and hearsay.
Wait, you're saying a staggering 6% of Rs, 8% of Ds, and 15% of Is have been swayed at least once? I'd call that amazingly effective.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
"A staggering 94% of Republicans, 92% of Democrats, and 85% of independents" In a system where single digit percentages are the difference between success and failure I would say this is more of an endorsement of political speech on FB than a discouragement.
"All those moments, will be lost in time...like tears in rain..."
“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.”
Werner Heisenberg
Republicans won't listen to science, you think Facebook posts are going to make a difference?
He's got you there, my friend. Indeed, I would submit that Republicans, more often than not, won't listen to reason. But then I'm probably not being fair to an awful lot of Republicans, lumping them all in with those who think Trump is the answer to their prayers. But then again, virtually all Republicans think Ronald Reagan was their messiah, when the facts show something much darker for the average Republican voter. So yeah, don't expect facts or reason to sway the Republican faithful on Facebook.
Yeah it does. Science is not a belief. In fact it is more of a rational disbelief.
Silence is a state of mime.
I like to get in a good discussion, but I would be daft if I thought everything I have ever written on the internet would change how people think.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Your Political Facebook Posts Aren't Changing How Your Friends Think
This study is just a rip-off of earlier research into human psychology--specifically, of all previous research into human psychology--which has proven pretty conclusively that nothing anyone says has ever changed anyone's mind about anything ever.
That's certainly true in the studies, and of course the scientists couldn't think of any other avenue to research so it must be true.
OTOH, listening to Brian Tracy's "The Psychology of Selling" gave me the chills because, listening to him explain the methods, I got the distinct feeling that these methods would work on me *and* I can recall many times when they were used on me.
The audio is downright scary at times, but I highly recommend it simply because it'll help you put your guard up against some of the techniques.
He points out, quite correctly, that you can't get someone to change their mind without first pulling them out of heuristic mode and into systemic mode. The easiest way to do this is to ask a question, but there are other methods.
Then you need to phrase the concept in a way that's important to the listener. You don't come in to an office and say "our copiers make xxx copies per minute, and are very reliable", you say "our copiers can save you $2000 per month in expenses, would you like to know how?". The $2000 is something the listener is interested in, and the question pops them into systemic mode. It's how you start a successful sales call.
Most political screeds don't do this - they just state the position, and mostly it's not very convincing to begin with. Donald Trump has been called every bad name in the book, but I don't see how any of that would be persuasive or even make him a bad president. Donald Trump is behind in the polls *if the election were held today*, that's not persuasive *and* I don't even see the point of posting something like that.
So if I wanted to convince people to vote for Trump, I might point out that amnesty for 14 million illegals will bring unemployment to 20% and decrease job security, then ask if there's any other issue that's more important to them than their own job security.
(Is there? I'd be interested to know.)
So if I wanted people to vote for Hillary, I might suggest that Trumps policies will cause economic decline in the US, and companies will flee to other countries or go out of business, then ask if there's any other issue that's more important to them than the economy.
(Is there? I'd be interested to know.)
And then there's people like Scott Adams, who has put a completely original spin on everything about the election, and predicted everything that actually happened from the viewpoint of hypnosis. (Even Nate Silver mis-interpreted Trump's popularity, which is what you get when you look solely at the numbers and not at the situation.)
So no, I don't think it's quite correct to say "nobody has ever changed anyone's mind about anything ever". It happens all the time... in sales.
(Here's Scott Adams talking about trying to purchase a vehicle. It's quite an interesting story, and shows a first-person view of one of the techniques of sales.)
I keep writing about Presidential candidate Gary Johnson, who is neither Trump nor Clinton, and he is coming close to being at 15% in the polls and should be in the Presidential debates...
... could decide the race. The race is largely boiling down to which party can get more of their followers to vote for their candidate based on endorsement alone (look at how many republicans don't like Trump but will vote for him because he is the republican candidate and how many democrats don't like Hillary but will vote for her because she is the democratic candidate), and then pick up enough of the independent vote.
Donald Trump could be beaten severely by any random democrat except Hillary Clinton (who brings out massive amounts of GOP hatred based on her name). Hillary Clinton could be beaten severely by any random republican except Donald Trump (who sabotages his own campaign on a daily basis). It almost seems as if neither of the two parties actually want to win this election.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Seriously, what other form of media changes the minds of 6% of Republicans and 8% of Democrats? I'd bet this is at least as successful as most any other kind of media, and seen far more often.
Thank you for Correcting The Record! A sum of $0.02 has been deposited to your account.
leave the word "Political" out of that and the percentages would likely still be about the same:
"Your Facebook Posts Aren't Changing How Your Friends Think"
If you're only looking at the Presidential general election, then it's probably true that Facebook posts aren't going to be flipping votes. But that's not the only election. Political posts can make a huge difference in primaries. Political posts can also make a difference in down-ticket races.
Several times people have told me that my posts have convinced them to change their vote in a primary to a different candidate in the same party. I once had someone tell me that they flipped their vote to a candidate in a different party in a general election (down-ticket) based on my Facebook post (in what turned out to be the closest state-wide race on the ballot).
For example:
If you're in Massachusetts, please vote in the state primary on September 8th. If you take a Democratic ballot, I've met the Middlesex Sheriff, Peter Koutoujian, several times, and he's working on important criminal justice reforms. Please vote for him. Also, Bob Jubinville is doing an excellent job on the Governor's Council--please reelect him (I could go on and on and on as to the reasons why). If you're in Tom Sannicandro's district, he's stepping down, and Brett Walker is the best of the three seeking to replace him; I was briefly running myself and withdrew to support him--I'm that convinced he's the best candidate.
Because I think that's where the big bucks really are.
Of course, the people who are already stupid would claim the stupid vaccine would cause autism.
But then, they're stupid, which is why we need a vaccine.
Progressives get misty-eyed when thinking about how best to criminalize the act of disputing AGW (without running afoul of that pesky 1A). I'd say that's a modern-day analogue of the church's persecution of heretics. They may not literally burn them at the stake anymore, but they're happy to sue them into financial oblivion. Because Science!
The anti-vax nonsense seems to be equally from the right and left loonies. As a parent of a child with autism - and also as someone who is on the spectrum - It's infuriating when a major political candidate touts the "Vaccines Cause Autism" garbage.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Soicialism fails, yet socialists continue to believe that with enough "tweaks" and "adjustments" it will work ... this time!
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Only people who want their minds to be changed can change their minds. You can't do it for them.
Science is not a belief.
It takes faith to believe that 2 + 2 is 4. The word "because" isn't a good answer.
This is garbage. Measuring the effect based on simply asking people if they have been swayed by a Facebook post is a laughable approach and misses how this actually does happen. Yes, nobody (or very few) reads a post containing a logical argument for why Politician X shouldn't have your support and then changes their mind. But many people, especially those who might consider themselves apolitical, absolutely are influenced by their friends mocking Politician X and supporters of Politician X.
Most people do not vote based on a logical viewing of issues. Most people don't even know the positions their candidate claims to hold on an issue, and candidates often switch positions post-election to little or no punishment. People vote mostly based on how a candidate makes them feel and that absolutely is influenced by whether you will have to suffer ridicule from your social circles.
My favorite part of the Obama era is all the racial healing.
They don't change how people think, eh? Then why the hell did everyone flip their shit over a stupid fake social experiment? Kony 2012. Most people ignore the political posts from their friends, but they pay full attention to well-produced video productions from Facebook pages that appear legitimate.
*plays the Apogee theme song music*
I'm not so much worried about people trying to change opinions, because I know how hard that is to do, especially with stupid Facebook memes and copy-pasted propaganda. The thing I don't like is that, ironically, people having access to such a huge microphone in the form of social media makes it harder to hear a different opinion. I argue that if you're a die hard liberal or conservative, there exists an echo chamber that will prevent any opinions you don't like getting through, and make it impossible for the less intelligent among us to form an unbiased opinion of the state of things.
Facebook knows everything you like, click on, share, etc. They know who your friends are and what they like, click on and share. Because they know what you like, they'll only show you things you like. It used to be that people thought AOL was the Internet, that's largely replaced with Facebook and Twitter these days. Anything that pops up on the average idiot's news feed is going to be taken at face value, and oh look, all my friends liked and shared it too. Hillary must be a crook/Trump must be a buffoon.
I know I'll immediately get panned for this, but I do think having 24-hour news cycles, instant social media outrage generators, and other constant surveillance of government officials/candidates makes the country harder to govern. Most politicians are now too paralyzed with fear to do anything that might potentially upset the public even if it might be what's needed -- and this is both on the left and right wings. Fox News or other outlets would be poking fun at FDR's polio and wheelchair if they were around back then. The only reason he ever stood a chance of being elected was that there wasn't widespread, instant coverage of every single syllable every politician utters, followed by hours of analysis and talk. The positive is that corruption is harder to hide, but the negative is that civil political discourse is down the toilet. It must have been a whole lot easier when there were only a few newspapers of record and 3 TV networks with a single national newscast per day.
It's called math:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
If equation is 2 + 2,
then start at 2 move two spaces to the right, you get 4.
You can actually see it. Science does tests and proves things. Religion is just blind ignorant faith despite the lack of any proof
Socialism works, until you inject mankind and human greed and deception
Maybe I shouldn't impulse post, but wow, that's significantly higher than I thought! Political posts are almost always emotional tirades, rarely including any new facts or analysis, and are extremely repetitive, and you're telling me ~ 8% of the population can be swayed by this? That's enough to convert some swing states, and for how little effort they require, that's a massive gain. On the contrary, if you could snatch 8% of your opponent's supporters, by investing as little as half an hour per day in a post, then I'd be inclined to label this as quite possibly the single most effective method for garnering votes then - even conventions are usually filled with people who already support you, and TV audiences are likewise rather polarized. For how much more these cost, somebody should see what percentage of people are swayed by political ads...
"Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
You could say the same about capitalism.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
I haven't seen anything from Trump or Clinton stating "vaccines cause autism" or are you talking one of the other candidates that will probably get less than 10% of the votes?
https://slashdot.org/journal/2...
" say they have never been swayed by a political post"
And they also never were influenced in any way by TV ads, right? Those morons just throw money away.
Just because you _think_ you're not swayed, doesn't make it so.
No, it takes lining up four stick and dividing them in half. Count them, put them back together, count them. Then do the same with fingers, stones, etc until you are satisfied.
Faith is belief without evidence. Science however is not arithmetic and unlike arithmetic is not concrete. Science is however the best method we have for determining the most concrete answers possible given the proof available. It does require faith in the scientific method, however that method is explicitly designed to require the least faith possible in every conclusion and to abandon conclusions when they become contrary to evidence.
Science 101 should have taught you that with any chaotic system, it is not possible to make predictions about the future state of said system.
That is a misunderstanding of deterministic chaos based on oversimplified popular science.
Some things can be predicted in a deterministic system, some cannot. But, in general, you very often predict the average properties of the system, even if you cannot predict the exact path through the phase space. In a chaotically dripping faucet, you can predict the average number of gallons per hour, even if you cannot predict the exact pattern of the drops. In a weather system, you can predict that July in Bismarck North Dakota will be warmer than January, even though you can't predict whether July 12 2019 will be rainy or dry. In a climate system, you can predict that radiative input equals radiative output, even if you cannot predict the exact temperature in Bismarck on July 12.
Chaos is well defined. It does not mean "anything at all can happen."
If I post a link to this /. summary to facebook will my friends stop posting political posts? Or is that covered too?
Don't discuss either politics or religion with anyone you want to keep as a friend unless you could give them a gut shot punch and they would still remain your friend. The discussion could be as damaging to the friendship as the punch.
A staggering 94% of Republicans, 92% of Democrats, and 85% of independents on Facebook say they have never been swayed by a political post, according to Rantic, a firm that sells social media followers.
I am shocked that the number of people claiming to have their mind changed is so high (~10%). These margins of people who polled that they can be swayed is larger than any margin of victory in a presidential election in recent history.
And that's just the people that admit that they are being swayed.
Your Political Facebook Posts Aren't Changing How Your Friends Think
Who are you talking to? I don't make political Facebook posts. I don't make Facebooks at all. And I certainly don't have any friends!
Honestly.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
from among my Facebook friends and initially I was by far the only one making them. They're picking it up from somewhere....
"Don't teach a man to fish, feed yourself. He's a grown man. Fishing's not that hard." - Ron Swanson
What a myopic comment. That's like saying that asparagus is a failed vegetable because you have to eat other things too in order to get complete nutrition. Socialism isn't a cure-all, and neither is a free market, but when combined, they can and do have fantastic results. Pretty much every country that ranks above us in critical measures like education, health, longevity, quality of life, and happiness have *more* socialism than we do, not less. We are social creatures. And every service the government provides to the public is socialist by definition, including defense, so it's always just a question of degrees, unless you think the government should do nothing.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Science is not a belief.
It takes faith to believe that 2 + 2 is 4. The word "because" isn't a good answer.
I think I can prove this with a pile of small rocks, coins, what-have-you.
Maybe if you see it you'll understand
To Be honest, the main difference between socialism and Capitalism is the fact that capitalism actually accounts for greed and deception, while Socialism really cannot.
Why? Because captialism (free economics) is about people being able to make decsions for themselves (libertarian) while socialism says that government should decide for everyone, regardless of how good it is to the individual. Socialism doesn't care about the individual, and therefore the individual is at odds with socialism (and why Socialism punishes individual success).
You can see this in Bernie type people who always seem to spew about the "rich" paying "their fair share" ... and then run off and buy a $600K beach house, his 3rd home. It is all well and good as long as it is the OTHER guy that pays.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
...are you suggesting that Facebook is just a giant exercise in pointless narcissism? /unpossible.
-Styopa
2+2=4 is a matter of stipulation. It isn't a matter of observation, nor of faith, but of agreement to the convention.
The scientific method is firmly founded upon a set of metaphysical assumptions which have proven to have high practical value, but cannot themselves be demonstrated (such as: the outer world actually exists, and is not an elaborately-crafted illusion). So, there is belief involved. But it is much less belief than what is involved in religious doctrines.
Science is not a belief.
It takes faith to believe that 2 + 2 is 4. The word "because" isn't a good answer.
No. There are plenty of examples of the requirement of "belief" in science, this isn't one of them.
You cannot be an expert in every field of study, and perform all your own experiments verifying the entirety of accumulated human knowledge. That means, to some extent, you must trust (i.e. have faith in) the processes that produced all that knowledge. It's the kind of faith that can be replaced with a degree of certainty, if you care to prove these things to yourself and replicate the experiments, but it's a kind of faith nonetheless.
Two plus two equals four not because you believe the results of an experiment you did not yourself verify, but because you were taught a mathematical system in which the result of performing the arithmetic operation of addition on the numbers 2 and 2 results in 4. No faith necessary.
If you're using math to describe real world objects, then you can grab two oranges and two plums and put them together and count them. You don't have to call the result "four," you can call it "quattro" or "loS" or "harfshump." Whatever you decide to call that collection of four objects is your description of a group of things that has a cardinality of 4. You need only have faith in your ability to put a descriptor on a fact that is independently true. If you just got hit over the head, and you see four pieces of fruit but there's really only two, 2 + 2 still equals 4. You were just wrong about starting with 2 and 2.
If you'd prefer that two plus two equals something other than four, you are free to use a different system (e.g. one where 2 + 2 = 0 and 2 * 2 = 3) or cook up your own. Go nuts, toss the integers out the window, devise a system where [nothing] plus <purple> equals {%%%}. However, 2 plus 2 will still equal 4, axiomatically, in the system everybody else uses.
Nothing posted to
In the sense that you believe math works, yes. It can be empirically demonstrated.
In the sense that you believe 2+2=4 but cannot prove it, no. The latter is relegated to religion.
You appear to be conflating the two meanings of the word: 1) complete trust or confidence in someone or something, 2) strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion. These are not at all the same thing.
Definitions matter.
Science is not a belief.
O so you believe.
Soicialism fails, yet socialists continue to believe that with enough "tweaks" and "adjustments" it will work ... this time!
Socialism is a failure of capitalism.
Socialism frequently emerge out of capitalist systems because capitalism is the best at creating socialists.
Here are some groups of people that are easily swayed to socialism.
1) The poor. In non-capitalist systems people had more excuses why the poor are poor (e.g "you're not born a noble, sorry" "God willed it"). In a capitalist world they're often told it's their own fault, and that feels very bad. So socialism comes along and tells them "it's not your fault, it's the system's fault!" which is very appealing.
2) Busybodies who want to make the world a better place, usually through violence. In non-capitalist systems there are plenty of wars to fight for them. In a capitalist world, you are supposed to make the world better in non-violent ways, so these people are left wondering what to do with all the pent up urge to violence. Socialism provides them an outlet.
3) Moral nannies and virtue signalers. Yes, the SJWs. Morals are something that one cares about after more basic necessities of life like food and shelter. Capitalism is the best system we know in producing wealth, so society's basic needs are met very quickly. So this leads to more people free to worry about morals, so you get more SJWs and entitled kids complaining about first world problems.
4) The eternal manchildren. Ties to the above. As capitalism creates so much wealth, more people can afford to extend their childhood, retaining their naive idealism and easily duped by socialist movements (or any movement, really). In not capitalist societies, things are too crappy for them dream for long.
That socialism is coming back isn't a sign that socialists are irrational, but rather that capitalism still has problems.
They are actually posting a story... on Slashdot... about what politics Facebook users care about.
Are you fucking kidding me? Top story on front page was Windows.
FUCK THE FBI.
"The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you."
Werner Heisenberg
The last swallow is always bitter. ;)
...not sure if whoosh?
I like the logic though. If I replaced 4 in that character set with the word God it would necessarily make some people believe that 2 + 2 proved the existence of a creator.
--- Need web hosting?
Your government is communist. It exists to sell you communism for bribes from the rich. The rich get capitalism, the poor get communism. And you're too yellow to do anything about it.
Sounds like a specifically targeted psyop to silence dissent on facebook to me....
At least for me, I don't expect to change anyone's mind with such posts. They are typically meant to educate people about what is going on, and trigger people who *already agree* to pay attention and even to get active. Not to mention urging people to contact their representatives to voice their opinion about important issues they may not know about.
Regarding the "damaging friendships" bit...as far as I'm concerned, that is a good thing. Why would I want to be friends with the kind of worthless people that would be opposed to my typical post? Seriously...friendships are based on mutual respect and admiration. People who say politics aren't appropriate on Facebook or other social media are just far too apathetic in my view.
How can you believe in god and science when science clearly, without any doubts whatsoever, establishes that there does not exist any evidence of god?
I think where I have true fear and respect for "sales" is when they convince someone to buy something they didn't even want and they're happy about doing it (I'm specifically excluding outright fraud here, sham products or tricks).
Go listen to Brian Tracy's explanation of the "four walls" sales technique. It's so effective that it was banned in several states.
It's the method historically used by encyclopedia salesmen to dupe people into buying encyclopedias that they didn't really want.
The explanation is disconcerting to the point of frightening, because the technique works so well. And it *was* used in many, many instances of encyclopedia sales.
When science asks nature a question and nature doesn't answer, science asks a different question. When religion asks god a question and he doesn't answer, religion opens the bible at random and picks a random passage to interpret as god's answer. So at the bottom of your glass is astrology, except the stars are in the bible instead of the sky.
To Be honest, the main difference between socialism and Capitalism is the fact that capitalism actually accounts for greed and deception
... and then run off and buy a $600K beach house, his 3rd home. It is all well and good as long as it is the OTHER guy that pays.
Which is why it's been so successful. However, it still depends on 'rational actors' in order not start sliding into shitshow territory.
You can see this in Bernie type people who always seem to spew about the "rich" paying "their fair share"
This sentence would make more sense if you'd linked to the article where Bernie fought against a tax increase on his properties.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
How can you believe in god and science when science clearly, without any doubts whatsoever, establishes that there does not exist any evidence of god?
"The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity." - Carl Sagan
Republicans won't listen to science, you think Facebook posts are going to make a difference?
He's got you there, my friend. Indeed, I would submit that Republicans, more often than not, won't listen to reason. But then I'm probably not being fair to an awful lot of Republicans, lumping them all in with those who think Trump is the answer to their prayers.
No, you're being quite fair to all of them.
But then again, virtually all Republicans think Ronald Reagan was their messiah
And as been pointed out, Reagan would be considered a moderate today, even centrist.
The right has their anti-science wing but so does the left. The entire naturalist and animal rights movement within the Democratic party qualifies as anti-science. This is the wing that pushes for organic and natural solutions, claims vegetarian diets are more healthy, and wants GMO's to require labeling. I exclude those who want GMO labeling so they can boycott for economic reasons and risk to food supply control (Monsanto IS evil) unless they also believe GMO's are somehow harmful because they are GMO's.
There is nothing but pseudo-science and/or outright anti-science behind any of that.
Go nuts, toss the integers out the window, devise a system where [nothing] plus equals {%%%}.
That would be formatting a float as a string in programming. ;)
The firm surveyed 10,000 Facebook users who self-identified as *Republicans*, *Democrats*, or *independents*
With all the forced pretend-gender acceptance online and in the news, it's a shame that some phrases are hijacked this often. The above is the first time this past year that I've heard the expression used *properly* and I'd forgotten it could be used *that* way.
The reverse-dissonance was so unexpected, yet so sweet... Sappir-Whorf was so right about language shaping thought. There's a line between feeling compeled to be a member of a gender group, and being. We now return you to your regular-scheduled post chain.
the "rich" paying "their fair share" ... and then run off and buy a $600K beach house, his 3rd home.
Does the IRS have a donate button on their web site or something? If taxes aren't raised, a private citizen can't pay more taxes. OK, so the Treasury actually has a donate option.
Buying a house is objectively better for the economy than hoarding money.
Only people don't usualy murder over astrology. Check out evilbible.com which exposes the Bible for the vile book it really is.
And it causes hate and murder. Check evilbible.com which exposes this terrible religion.
This is why quacks and crooked politicians should never meet.
It takes faith to believe that 2 + 2 is 4.
Damn, I honestly can't tell if you're you're just goofing or if you're really that stupid.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
I post political stuff regularly but not because I'm trying to convince someone to change their position. I post things that get glossed over or ignored by the MSM. My friends can think for themselves.
For example, everyone heard the story of Alton Sterling, but how many people heard about Abdullah Muflahi? He's the guy who filmed the shooting on his cell phone. He also owns the convenience store where this happened. After the shooting, the cops took his phone, locked him in a police car for several hours and seized the security camera footage from his store without a warrant and without permission. That element of the story won't get much coverage in major media outlets. I think it's even more outrageous than the shooting itself and I wanted people outside small circles of civil liberties activists to think about it.
Science is not a belief.
It takes faith to believe that 2 + 2 is 4. The word "because" isn't a good answer.
Wow. We are all dumber now after reading that comment. Thankyou for sharing. Thankyou. You have once again proved (not that we believe it but that it's actually a proven fact) at how stupid the "logic" of some people can be.
I see a lot of vitriolic hate towards trump on my facebook feed. against my better judgement, i'm tempted to vote for him just out of curiosity. Somewhere in my head, 12 year old me is begging me to go through with it.
I recognize this urge. Traveling in the rear facing seat of my parent's station wagon, after my brother had defined the edge of his sovereign territory, i just couldn't resist the tempation to wave my hand defiantly in his airspace.
I'm sure i'll get in trouble, but i just want to see how much squealing will happen.
People who post political crap on Facebook like anyone gives a dam creates an immediate change in my mind about the person doing the posting. This is typically followed by blocking from my feed.
Damn, I honestly can't tell if you're you're just goofing or if you're really that stupid.
I find your lack of faith disturbing. ;)
"You need to spend more time looking at theoretical sciences to confirm that faith is a huge part of the equation."
There are definitely some very soft sciences out there. But I said by what I said, science is our best method for determining the most concrete answers possible given the proof available. There are some areas where the most concrete answers we can have with the evidence we have just aren't very concrete. They are still the best we can do.
"Furthermore, many scientists are held up as the priests of their religion."
This is certainly true. There is far too much plea to authority fallacy in the scientific world and I believe that is because plea to authority is such a core concept in the academic world.
The biggest problems I see really aren't with science itself but uninformed interpretation of science. Even when reporting isn't bad, Science is filled with subtle points, so filled that people start ignoring the qualifiers and hedges, those qualifiers are there because the person doing the science is trying to convey a complicated point accurately not because they are covering their ass.
Thankyou. You have once again proved (not that we believe it but that it's actually a proven fact) at how stupid the "logic" of some people can be.
This is Slashdot. You must be new around here.
Taxes are regressive. If what you said is true, Bernie would be proof that they are, indeed regressive. The rich can avoid them (or pay people to lower theirs), the middle class has no such luxury.
As for socialism, it is based on Irrational Actors (humans) making "socialist" choices, and not looking out for their own best interest, which is, by definition, irrational.
You cannot make people act rationally, as much as you want to force them to. The ONLY thing you can do, is make people responsible for their own choices. Liberty is messy.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Already seeing changes among friends becoming more aware of the things they should be paying attention to.
There might be SOME friends who don't care, but in the end, they don't matter - it's the one's who do care that bring change.
its backwash
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.”
Werner Heisenberg
He's overstating it. He was uncertain about the outcome.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
Science is not a belief.
It takes faith to believe that 2 + 2 is 4. The word "because" isn't a good answer.
You can use faith if you like, but it doesn't tell you why and you can do a lot better. It takes logic to understand why 2+2 =4 consistent with a specific set of axioms.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
Capitalism would function fine, without government intervention.
Liberty is the greatest liberator of HUMAN capital, and economic Freedom is true liberty. Anything anyone else is telling you about the "evils" of people free to choose the commerce they see fit, is selling government controls.
1) The poor see no choice when Governments conspire against them. Liberty is the cure. In your case #1, they are using one form of government (tryanny) to replace another (tyranny). The only thing that is different is the tyrants in charge, and who and how they promise government power to extract wealth from the populace. (and why Socialism eventually fails)
2) In Capitalism the wars tend to be over governmental control of natural resources (oil, water, ore ..) or trade policies. Busybodies are the ones that use the following logic ... "We ought to do something, this is something, we ought to do it" and enough people say "yeah yeah yeah" regardless of how effectual it will be.
3) I am a "religious" nut. But I am also a Libertarian. People often see that as a conflict, but I assure them, I am not out to force my morals on anyone. But on the same token, I don't want them forcing their morals (or lack thereof) on me.
4) This is also why I am a libertarian. I don't give a shit if man children exist. Moral Darwinism will take care of them through their children. Of course, they won't see the link between moral decay and broken society. Just allow me to form my own co-op so I can avoid them. Freedom, it is both a blessing and a curse.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
It takes faith to believe that 2 + 2 is 4. The word "because" isn't a good answer.
Your posting of this Sagan quote shows that you have profoundly misunderstood what he meant. The contradiction to your apparent interpretation is right there in the quote. Maybe you should stop trying to throw out progressively more inane one-liners and platitudes and actually read what people are writing. There is an interesting discussion you are missing.
If what you said is true, Bernie would be proof that they are, indeed regressive.
I don't understand this sentence. Could you clarify?
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
I refuse to believe that over 90% of people aren't swayed or challenged by these posts on Facebook. I post a lot of political stuff on FB (because it matters to me more than posting pictures of my dog) and I constantly check the validity of items posted - regardless of my political bias.
These posts definitely change how you think, even if you don't admit it. It makes you ask yourself if you really want to vote for an asshole like Trump, a blatant liar like Hillary, or terrible libertarian like Johnson.
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
It takes faith to believe that 2 + 2 is 4.
Damn, I honestly can't tell if you're you're just goofing or if you're really that stupid.
It's probably stupidity. In the sense that the writer of that drivel did not study enough mathematics to understand the axiomatic systems of logic, the constraints upon those systems and how the sort of integer arithmetic that most people are familiar with is consistent under a set of axioms and 2+2=4 can be and is proven to be true under those same axioms. It's not hard to understand. The information is out there. My comp-sci degree covered it, but these days you can learn it from YouTube videos.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
2+2=4 is a fact of math. You don't have to believe in it for it to be true and factual. There is no other way to add two items to two items and not have four items.
And the "dumb" are attempting to compensate and failing. I've seen a similar phenomenon amongst my FB acquaintances and friends, particularly those who aren't technically minded or have an advanced education (vocational or college). Every single one of them is either a Trump or Bernie supporter and makes outlandish claims based on FB memes from propaganda sites that carefully edit actual news to fit the narrative being sold. When I point this out, I end up shaming said person (no matter how I phrase it, telling these people that they are proveably wrong doesn't go well) and they only harden their stance. It took me a while to realize this is bigger than Trump or closed borders, this is humanity purging it's less efficient and effective due to innovation, and they are fighting against extinction as best they can.
Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
Science requires skepticism. Anything and everything is questionable until it can be proven, sometimes after many experiments. Religion in any form requires "faith". Faith is taking for something as truth when there is little to no factual evidence or basis. You believe in the god of Abraham because some book tells you that Abraham talked to this deity and blah blah blah. A scientist would remain skeptical and perhaps conduct experiements to test for the existence of an all knowing/all seeing deity.
I'm not suggesting one is better than the other - I don't really care. But you cannot believe in science (or the scientific method, specifically) while believing that some things just can't be questioned. That's at odds with science at its very core.
yes, because science.
which is why its nothing like the burning of heretics during the inquisition.
your analogy only works if the inquisitors were backed up by decades of well proven science making the heretics actually were demonstrably wrong.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Maybe you should stop trying to throw out progressively more inane one-liners and platitudes and actually read what people are writing.
Slashdot exists to amuse me while I'm waiting for a script to get done at work.
There is an interesting discussion you are missing.
Interesting, yes. Amusing, no.
In the sense that the writer of that drivel did not study enough mathematics to understand the axiomatic systems of logic, the constraints upon those systems and how the sort of integer arithmetic that most people are familiar with is consistent under a set of axioms and 2+2=4 can be and is proven to be true under those same axioms.
I did flunked out of Calculus II in college, where the numbers stopped making sense and I lost faith. Calculus was a brick wall.
My comp-sci degree covered it, but these days you can learn it from YouTube videos.
When I went back to community college to learn computer programming, I got a 4.0 GPA and made the president's list. I don't recall logic being discussed in computer programming. That's usually covered in philosophy. Boolean gate logic was covered in a electronic class.
You are preaching to the choir - perhaps you meant to replay to Creimer?
By the way, even simple addition is not as axiomatic as you seem to think. You don't get to jump right to "fact of math" - that is just the kind of shortcutting that lets people like Creimer think they have an inroad with their 'faith' derailments. 2+2=4 is not an axiom, it is a statement. Statements require proofs, and the axioms of that proof are waaaay lower level than you think.
A substantial (100s of pages) portion of Principia Mathematica was devoted to proving that 1+1=2. Or, check out the number theory proof in Godel, Escher Bach for why a+b == b+a. These statements are not as easy to prove as you think without making assumptions. Don't forget that all these things you call 'fact' had to be built up and proved, otherwise your bold claims of fact really do take on the appearance of faith.
if you'd linked to the article where Bernie fought against a tax increase on his properties
Bernie, the rich powerful "Socialist" fought to keep his taxes low, contrary to his own view on the rich (he's one of them). And what you said, if true is proof that Taxes are Regressive, the rich (like Bernie) can avoid them, and pay to have them removed for themselves. Taxes, are regressive, and you offered up evidence (which if true) makes my case perfectly.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
My posts have gotten me unfriended by bigots and anti-intellectuals, and their posts have clued me in to who to unfriend.
It's really improved the signal:noise ratio in my feed!
You need to learn how to reach people from different backgrounds and with different value systems.
I just post stuff like "Voting for Bush will cause you to gain 10 pounds" and it works like a charm.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Facebook is the place for these types of things...that's what Twitter's for!
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
Bernie, the rich powerful "Socialist" fought to keep his taxes low
Did he?
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
Religon can't explain science. Science can explain religion (and everything else).
But you cannot believe in science (or the scientific method, specifically) while believing that some things just can't be questioned.
"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." - F. Scott Fitzgerald
Religon can't explain science. Science can explain religion (and everything else).
How do you explain the human soul in scientific terms?
In the sense that the writer of that drivel did not study enough mathematics to understand the axiomatic systems of logic, the constraints upon those systems and how the sort of integer arithmetic that most people are familiar with is consistent under a set of axioms and 2+2=4 can be and is proven to be true under those same axioms.
I did flunked out of Calculus II in college, where the numbers stopped making sense and I lost faith. Calculus was a brick wall.
My comp-sci degree covered it, but these days you can learn it from YouTube videos.
When I went back to community college to learn computer programming, I got a 4.0 GPA and made the president's list. I don't recall logic being discussed in computer programming. That's usually covered in philosophy. Boolean gate logic was covered in a electronic class.
My degree was in computer science, not programming-and-digital-logic. Systems of proof was a necessary pre-req for understanding formal verification of algorithms and code and correct-by-construction systems.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
It takes logic to understand why 2+2 =4 consistent with a specific set of axioms.
I read somewhere that a mathematician wrote a 250-page book to explain why 2 + 2 = 4 works the way it does. I haven't been able to track it down.
When you realize how shallow and closed-minded they are in their little "social media" bubble.
If your "friends" on facebook change the way they think about you based on some political posting, then one or more of the following is true:
1. They've suddenly changed who they are and their values (not likely)
2. You've suddenly changed who you are and your values (not likely)
3. They were typical social media "friends" who actually just were interested in some aspects of some things you posted on a web site but were never very interested in YOU and what YOU thought/believed.
4. They were superficial "friends" who only cared about overlapping superficial interests, until your political post drew attantion to your actual humanity.
5. They never really knew you and were "friends" with who they mistakenly thought you were.
Systems of proof was a necessary pre-req for understanding formal verification of algorithms and code and correct-by-construction systems.
Unit tests. I know them well.
So, in YOUR book:
A Person whose entire adult life has been of political corruption and misbehaving on the public dime and while under oath to serve the public and reading prepared remarkes from teleprompters is better than a person whose spent his entire adult life working hard employing people and building things but who says uncomfortable things or speaks in an unpolished and non-poll-tested way?
- wow -
For decades, people all across the political spectrum have said they wanted an outsider, hated the polled and manicured phony self-serving politicians, wanted a person who was socially liberal but fiscally more conservative, was NOT elected using a mountain of special interest money etc. Along comes Donald Trump, who seemingly fits that bill better than any candidate in over a hundred years (probably need to go back to Teddy Roosevelt for a better fit) and he is unacceptable.
Hillary Clinton is the pinnacle of every bad thing in American politics. Anybody supporting her is clearly worthless (see how that works??? (nudge)).
However, my political Facebook posts have been about how the world ruling class composed of Hobbesians, Hamiltonians and Muslims believe that Mankind is an ultraviolent monster that needs all-powerful government put upon it in order to survive and you have to be the biggest monster in order to impose said government and how we need to replace it and them, and I get likes from people who I am fairly certain never thought about it that way before, so there's the distinct possibility that I am the exception.
Whatta twist! Science requires skepticism of all things, until it is proven true...and even then if something turns around and disproves a previously (prior to that time) known truth then that truth can no longer be considered truth. What I am saying is that you cannot have a genuine belief in science, because you are unwilling and unable to challenge your faith. You can't - your religion's rules dictate that "because this book said that our god said that he was our god and thus he is god and there are no other gods and you cannot question this".
That's like a self-proclaimed chef who refuses to believe he has to actually cook his food. He may have some of the elements of being a chef like plating and presentation and menu planning, but when it comes down to the nitty gritty, he won't actually cook.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
My opinion is that the only "viable" choice is to ignore all this for the most part and commit to working on a replacement for the Hamiltonian government foisted upon us. The Hamiltonians cheated like crazy to foist their government upon us from getting a rule that the Constitution be passed not unanimously as important pieces of legislation before it, to bullying and con language in The Federalist Papers.
I find your lack of faith disturbing. ;)
Lol, fair enough, except that there really are people who would argue that "2+2=4" is a matter of faith.
Kent Hovind and his flat-headed son Eric are two examples that come to mind.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Ok, lets be real you never even read the post. Subject looks like its inflammatory you just skip it.
Also: There is no bottom.
Also: There is no bottom.
Then what am I sitting on?
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
This is more an indication of the type of people that use face book...
Seriously, you all still use social media?
All religions do eugenics. They selectively breed those who believe in the administration, and in souls. Nature breeds human beings through evolution, religion breeds zombies through devolution. Brains.. you need brains.
Long explanation. At various times and places on earth, population density rose to a level where people were at constant low-level warfare with other people. After a while people evolved to have fear of space, where the threats came from. With the advent of civilization, this threat was ended by civil authorities. The fear that had evolved stil remained in the humans, so it was co-opted by religious salesmen to be a fear of eternity (time) with an immortal soul to do the fearing.
I believe in human-caused global warming, vaccinations, gay marriage, racial equality, unfettered access to abortions, single-payer healthcare, and I'm a registered Republican proudly voting for Trump.
Go fuck yourself, your wide-brush stereotypes, and your smug self-righteous bullshit.
I think that technique is this: Post in Internet forums that you know a sales technique that is sooo effective it's forbidden. Don't go into any specifics! Just give enough pointers that people can find the book. Sold!
Really, the website I found after actually googling your hints had no useful content whatsoever, and did not talk about any ingenious sale strategy. What it said could be on any generic sales newsletter.
"A staggering 94% of Republicans, 92% of Democrats, and 85% of independents on Facebook say they have never been swayed by a political post"
Like before they have never swayed by the advertisements!
Excellent post, may I add that Science is not an axiomatic system, the closest thing to an axiom in science are the fundamental forces and space-time. We can describe their behaviour in exquisite detail but have no idea why these things exists or what they are, you just have to accept they exist and are part of the universe.
That's what happens when you follow the "why" questions all the way to the bottom (reductionism), you end up at a point where you just have to accept some things exist on face value because nobody has a clue as to why they exist. Finding such a rare and valuable clue will not help with the philosophical problem for the same reason "finding god" won't help, it will just push the "why" question one level deeper.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Anti-vax, anti-gmo, and anti-promiscuity, are all driven by the same moral imperative of "bodily purity". If you are the kind of person who puts a high value on purity (a puritan) then you are likely to subscribe to one or more of those views. People on the left are drawn to anti-gmo because it fits in with the environmental movement, people on the right are drawn to anti-promiscuity because of its religious links. Anti-vax tend to be from the left because it fits the "big pharma" narrative but the politics is not as clear cut as the other two forms of puritanical nonsense since anti-vax and some religious beliefs go together like ham and cheese..
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
If you're from the US you are not in a position to call Norway's goverment a failure.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Which is the quick reply. The fact that you never hear from your mother or your child doesn't prove that they don't exist. They may have stopped communicating, or you aren't listening.
Given that if God does exist He will require major changes in your life, then it's not a surprise if you choose to interpret the data that is there to exclude the possibility of His trying to communicate with you. If you are insistent that He doesn't exist, then nothing will convince you.
The best single piece of evidence is the resurrection of Jesus. Those who try to prove it didn't happen by engaging with the evidence tend to get convinced it did. Of course those who rule it out a priori - dead men don't rise from the dead therefore Jesus didn't rise from the dead - need to be aware of the impossible things that many generations of scientists have denied as possible, only to see them come along.
Also it is totally irrational to be confident that somewhere among the stars there is no race whose technology is such that if we encountered a member of the species, it would seem to be a god to us. We are nowhere near equipped to make that search; to assume to know the result is foolish!
Well known sources that the same people that you are arguing with will say are fake news sites because they aren't posting articles that doesn't support their narrative. While those same people used to use those very same sites regularly when they posted content that they did agree with...
Socialism doesn't care about the individual, it just cares about ALL of them.
Still better than only caring about the 1% and their class war executed through "capitalist free markets" (cough cough).
The shaping of political opinion must be left to responsible media (i.e. TV, newspapers) answering to the legitimate parties. And no, neither the UKIP or Pirate Party are "legitimate parties". If we could have such travesties banned, their leaders arrested and their members fined, we wouldn't be in the mess we are now. One more thing is clear: mob rule must end. Only unelected officials free of the costraints and whims of the "public opinion" and unsaddled by the worry of having to be elected again by a heap of know-nots can steer us out of this troubled era. We need experts in places of power, and the populace must learn what is its place. Now.
They give it likes because they think it's satire...
I see you confuse socialism with comunism. Socialism is being social. That means that you take care of everybody. Bit like 'no kid left behind'.
Socialism does not punish individual success. There are plenty of people who succeed in socialist countries. In fact, socialism does care more about the individual more than the group.
How do I know? I live in a socialist country. Comunislm is a great idea. Socialism is something that can work and it does not even exclude capitalism. It can embrace it.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
What I am saying is that you cannot have a genuine belief in science, because you are unwilling and unable to challenge your faith.
This attitude is why many devoted scientists stay quiet about their religion.
You can't - your religion's rules dictate that "because this book said that our god said that he was our god and thus he is god and there are no other gods and you cannot question this".
Only if you believe that the book of God is the literal word of God. As a Christian, I do not.
How can you believe in god and science when science clearly, without any doubts whatsoever, establishes that there does not exist any evidence of god?
I think this illustrates the issue I have with some people's view of science. That is, they think science is the only valid method for understanding and gaining knowledge. That's where I think it drifts towards a religion.
The value of science and the scientific method is self-evident. It has enabled us to understand and manipulate the physical world around us. But science is not equipped to deal with questions that are beyond what we can see, touch or measure. The question of a God is a good example. Science has not much to say about the existence of God. The most it can say is no evidence for it has been found. But that doesn't actually say anything about whether or not God exists. Back in the 1400's science had no evidence for germs. But that didn't mean germs didn't exist, only that our detection and testing were not yet sufficiently advanced. The question of the existence of God could be in the same vein; that we are just not sophisticated enough to detect it.
I'm not saying that God does or does not exist. I'm just pointing out that to use science to say that it doesn't exist is not scientific. The scientific answer is, "We don't know, we haven't found evidence for it." But people who think science is the only way to know anything take the absence of evidence as evidence of absence.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
I'm not suggesting one is better than the other - I don't really care. But you cannot believe in science (or the scientific method, specifically) while believing that some things just can't be questioned. That's at odds with science at its very core.
Everything can be questioned, but there are some questions that science cannot answer definitively. The existence of something as yet undetectable is one of them.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
Capitalism would function fine, without government intervention.
Capitalism wouldn't exist without government intervention. Who but government is going to enforce property rights or contracts? Property ownership is a bedrock component of Capitalism and requires a government to enforce. Otherwise whomever is strongest "owns" all the property.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
We've looked as small as quarks and as far out as the youngest galaxies and background radiation wall. No evidence has been presented in the entire known universe. Yet people proclaim god exists as fact, with NO evidence to back that up, quantify it, describe it, or even hint at what that may actually be.
The summary states that nearly one third of people don't think that social media is a place for political posts. This means that two thirds don't mind that much or think that it is. Further, unfriending for political posts because a friend is in a different party just means that you are going to live in a bubble.
The source dataset for the poll is made up of people who are probably getting a lot more political postings on their feed, which means that they are likely inundated with them. The amount of political postings you see likely affects how much you would be swayed by any given post.
In the data, it looks like the people who are more likely to be swayed are the ones who don't mind the postings (independents). Also, the summary is blatantly wrong on the conclusion that nearly one third of Facebook respondents surveyed stated they unfriended someone for a political posting. The data doesn't lead to that conclusion. It's more like 15%, which is only about half of one third.
An interesting bit of insight there is that the people who express their opinions the least (independents) are most likely to be swayed by others' postings.
I don't understand, then, how you can choose what is and isn't figurative. "Jesus turned water into wine" or "God passed along these commandments" could equally both be figurative. The whole entire book could be figurative...it's just people deciding whatever is convenient for them to believe. If that's the case, how is any of what is supposedly "God's word" sacred or even true?
This is why I find it hard to trust religious people when it comes to science. I don't mean to sound offensive, if I am, and please don't take it that way. But the mental leaps required to be a believer makes me wonder how a religious (well Christian in this case) person can devise and execute any scientific process in an impartial manner.
Has a beer ad wanted to make you buya certain beer? Has a pepsi ad wanted to make you purchase more pespsi? Most people would answer no to these questions, but if advertising had no influence, there wouldn't be advertising.
The whole entire book could be figurative...it's just people deciding whatever is convenient for them to believe.
As a Jewish friend pointed out, only the rabbi can pick and chose what rules to follow. But the people can pick and chose the rabbi they want to follow.
But the mental leaps required to be a believer makes me wonder how a religious (well Christian in this case) person can devise and execute any scientific process in an impartial manner.
They're two different mindsets. When you walk into the church, you have the religious mindset. When you walk into the lab, you have the scientific mindset. If you try to impose one over the other, you're going to have trouble.
I guess I just don't get how that can happen - how you can reconcile two vastly different thought processes. Like, I could never be an ultra conservative. I understand their though processes and why they think the way they do...but when I run the same inputs in my head, I come out with a different set of outputs.
I guess I just don't get how that can happen - how you can reconcile two vastly different thought processes.
Treat each one separately. If you don't have the mental disciple to keep them separate, don't try to reconcile them.
What I'm sayin is that, as a person of "faith", you're more willing to write off stuff as "well it's just God's way" versus "there's a logical explanation". Why? Because you've written off the possiblity that there is no God or that there is a set of Gods or a God that isn't the same God you worship. You've done this without any evidence, without experimentation, and are OK with that. I would believe that would make you a much weaker scientist than one who knows (or believes) that EVERYTHING can be explained - even supposed "miracles".
What I'm sayin is that, as a person of "faith", you're more willing to write off stuff as "well it's just God's way" versus "there's a logical explanation".
If I write something off, I'll say "gamma radiation" and be done with it. I'm not going to waste my time flipping a quarter to determine if it's God's will or a neutrino from an exploding supernova. For all we know, it might be one and the same.
I would believe that would make you a much weaker scientist than one who knows (or believes) that EVERYTHING can be explained - even supposed "miracles".
Because I consider religion, I'm a "weak" scientist. Because I consider science, I'm a "weak" Christian. These labels don't mean anything to me.
You gotta run that Trump Truck (and/or Hillary Hummer) right over your friend's front lawn, garden, and porch - carve out some nice, deep ruts in the rain. You do not have to be very sophisticated about it.
A staggering 94% of Republicans, 92% of Democrats, and 85% of independents on Facebook say they have never been swayed by a political post
It is well known that it is far easier to be a critic than somebody who actually does things. I think at the end of the day, most people are more willing to listen to somebody who has the ability to set out a positive, but plausible vision. Don't we all prefer to hear how we can build something better over hearing how everything should be torn down? I sure do. It's a shame that Mr Sanders didn't get the nomination - I like him - but looking at what we have got, pragmatically, as I think anybody with an analytical mind should, who is more likely to be able to build and find solutions? I don't particularly like Ms Clinton - I don't hate her either - but she seems capable of delivering realistic policies and to me, that is what matters. If Mr Trump had seemed able to deliver the same or better, I would have considered him as well, but all he has come up with is stupid insults and vague fluff. Comparing the two, you get the feeling that if you asked them a concrete question, like "How do you intend to tackle [whatever], going forward?", Clinton would have at least a plausible outline of an answer, whereas I don't think Trump would be able to come up with anything you could hang your hat on.
OK, so the Treasury actually has a donate option [treasurydirect.gov].
I bet they had a real big laugh the day they implemented that button!
I seem to recall in the Gilded Age, private organizations like the Pinkertons were hired to protect companies, and also to break strikes and smash (physically) attempts of workers to organize. The government was fairly hands-off -- I think it's the perfect example of how things will go to crap if we adopt the Libertarian paradise. Low wages, company towns, and an underfunded-by-design government who won't be able to protect personal health or property rights.
It's almost like having a token figurehead won't actually fix the underlying problems that will still exist!
I believe in human-caused global warming, vaccinations, gay marriage, racial equality, unfettered access to abortions, single-payer healthcare, and I'm a registered Republican proudly voting for Trump.
Go fuck yourself, your wide-brush stereotypes, and your smug self-righteous bullshit.
Wow, talk about boldly embracing contradictions. And I always wondered how the Log Cabin Republicans did it, embracing a party that really detests them.