It doesn't help the argument... you'd then be arguing 25% percent of the country is certifiably insane.
The trump argument doesn't hold water. The people that voted for either candidate on average are demonstrably functional adults. They work, they pay taxes, they have car insurance...
when you compare that to people that are generally deemed to be insane... you see people that are unable to work, generally don't have money they aren't given for charity, and are not able to interact with basic institutions in a productive way.
This is why these groups are frequently homeless, addicted to drugs, and end up in prison.
As to definitions of insanity, please don't attempt to destroy a valid point with pedantry. Mental incompetence and similar concepts exist and are well understood. There are also good proxies for the concept. Again, if you are unable to take care of yourself due to mental illness, then you're obviously across the line.
Honestly, I feel like you've fallen for a troll comment from a stupid AC and doubling down on it with pedantry. I merely pointed out that his argument doesn't work and moved on.
Don't defend stupid arguments, please. Mine is valid. The "trump voters are insane" position is damaging to the integrity of those that make it. Perhaps you don't care... but it will make it impossible to take you seriously if you take it.
If only about.3% of the US population voted for Trump then you'd probably have something.
Roughly "59,400,000" people voted for Trump in the last election... Hillary got about "59,600,000" votes.
Presuming the ratios hold for this sample to the general population, the argument here would be that 49.915966% of the population is insane. "0.084034%" is the line between the insane and the sane.
One thing is that roughly 25 percent of the US prison population is certifiably insane.
In the 1950s we had about 500,000 people in mental asylums in the US.
Today, with double the population, we have about 50,000 people in asylums.
The consequences are in our public parks and in our prisons.
Consider, I'm talking about roughly.3% of the US population here. Would you believe that.3% of the US population is medically insane? Of course. In fact, the actual number if probably a bit higher. But we can at least accept.3%. That is 1 million people.
We need to reconsider "de-institutionalization" which was a push after the 1960s and finally finished in the 1990s.
Look at most of the mass shootings... Nearly all of them are known mental health risks with records of mental illness.
Look at the prisons and consider what filling 25% of the seats in the prison with the certifiably insane does to the internal prison culture? Think about that. Imagine warehoused hardened criminals being mixed with people that don't know which way is up or down.
Look at our streets, our public parks, etc... look at those people and tell me honestly if you can say "that could be me". Because it couldn't. You're looking at substance abuse and mental illness almost entirely. If were economic, then people wouldn't be coming from Guatemala to work and then send money BACK to Guatemala.
If you want to seriously deal with the US prison problem, then you have to first have the courage to admit that it was used as a dumping ground for the people that were de-institutionalized.
Any attempt to deal with the prisons without examining that with eyes wide open... is going to fail.
You can talk about computer algorithms or procedures until the stars burn cold. Actually look into what the prison population is at this point and how it has changed. The increase in US prison populations had two things happen at the same time.
1. The Drug war. Everyone knows about this and it has been discussed to death.
2. And this is masked by the drug war and in part because many people don't know anything about it... De-institutionalization. They happened at the SAME time. So the numbers don't point to one or the other. They just show an increase at time X.
The threat of "ai" or whatever shiny toy they come up with next won't be that it turns into a cheesey science fiction disaster movie... but that the same thing that always happens with this stuff will happen again.
Those that wish to oppress, those that wish to dominate, those that wish to exploit... will attempt to use the new toy to do what they always want to do.
The AI interestingly is actually less useful to these people than such things typically are... it has applications for the common man. The AI doesn't have to run on absurd super computers. It can run on your humble personal computer. It won't run quickly and its ability to do X or Y will be less. But that will be more than what you have now. And what oppressive entities can get out of this is less RELATIVELY than what you and I can get out of it.
Example, navigating government or corporate bureaucracies... understanding the law... personal accounting that is as detailed and responsive as what any blue chip corp manages.
It isn't really "ai" it is just very well honed rules based systems. But consider how large organizations oppress anyone that doesn't have a team of lawyers on retainer by simply bombarding people with paperwork and esoteric rules that even experts struggle to remember? Good computer systems distributed broadly could eliminate the ability of such organizations to legally push little people around.
Just one example. That is what I find exciting about this technology. For every oppressive thing it does, there are two or more liberating things it does.
The whole thing is two steps forward and one step back. Don't let the Perfect be the Enemy of the Good.
General stats are in a positive trend. And if you break down the data by cause of death, most of the negative things are highly concentrated in a few troubled communities. The overall statistics are pretty solid.
Regardless, we've seen anonymous sources issue personal attacks in mainstream press reports. So the violation is there regardless.
It won't get better until people sharpen up their standards. And until that happens confidence in the press will continue to deteriorate. If the press wants their credibility to improve, then the impression of unethical behavior will have to be addressed. Simply denying everything and refusing to make any reasonable reforms is just doubling down on what is causing the problem.
well yes and no... we used to be closer to our politicians.
In the colonial days there was one representative for every 30k people. Power was less centralized.
Even now, if you want to talk to politicians in the US, they are generally obliged to listen to you. the hoops have increased recently mostly because of terrorism. But if you want to see your congressman that is generally not a big deal. You can just call up the office and make an appointment.
Talking to senators, governors, and presidents is generally pretty hard. But let us not pretend that those are listening to much of what anyone says on twitter in any case.
Generally when ever anyone goes back and forth with someone on twitter it is a congressmen anyway.
I send mine emails all the time and get responses back. Often it is a staffer responding but sometimes I get a personal response from my congressman.
... it is twitter... it is the place you go to read drunken rants from celebrities or updates to a concert or something.
Twitter is a terrible information source and always was a terrible information source.
Who "honestly" thinks twitter even should be fact checked? And who would be crazy enough to pay someone to do that. Imagine that job listing "wanted 5000 people to fact check tweets"... No.
Most information sources shouldn't be fact checked because you can get to the same place just by exercising a little skepticism.
And really, a lot of the mainstream media guys deserve to be in the same boat. Look at mainstream media guys using anonymous sources. We're seeing that in the New York Times now. This was understood until recently to be a gold standard violation of establishment media. You don't do certain things.
1. You don't mix your editorials/opinions with straight news reporting. They violate that all the time now.
2. You don't use anonymous sources because they can't be fact checked by third party sources which means you could just make it all up. They do that all the time now.
3. You don't pay people for sources and you don't use information as a source that was bought. We've seen a few examples of that recently as well.
The above violations are what used to separate tabloids from the boring but accurate newspapers.
Well, what actually is the difference now? Seriously. What rule or code of ethics separates the two? I don't see it.
And on top of that to suggest Twitter of all things should be fact checked when they're clearly not upholding journalistic ethics in the mainstream newspapers?
The mad are running the asylum.
As it stands, fact checking organizations or processes seem to have entirely broken down. So, I have to fact check everything myself personally. And I suggest everyone do the same until this bought of unethical behavior passes. Keep an open mind, listen to what people have to say, but reserve judgment until you've checked it out. And until then... jump to no conclusions.
it is a little like your local water utility leaking sewage into the pipes. Which happens sometimes. Don't just drink it... boil it to kill the bacteria that might be in it and muddle through the mess. At some point, the media will fix itself. But at this point, the media won't even acknowledge it has a problem.
Refusing to acknowledge the tribalism, hyperbole, ad hominems, and other corrupting elements on this topic that are pervasive even in academia is not productive.
If you want to have a legitimate discussion, then you first have to appreciate why conversation shut down in the first place.
If you can't even acknowledge the no-platforming that occurred... then the discussion ends. That is the price of ending the debate.
That the discussion ends. That doesn't mean a concession. It means silence. Choose.
I get there are regions. But you are also aware that there is a lot of politics on this issue that inclines people to say "whatever my problem = climate change"... the auditing and checking on that is often not great. And this is not helped by the tribalism that follows any issue permitted to become political.
To address what is and isn't credible... the whole topic would have be understood to permit discussion and debate. And as everyone is more than aware... discussion, criticism, and debate is discouraged on this topic.
Until that changes, I find any conclusions suspect as they haven't gone through unfettered evaluation.
These are the sorts of silly things that alarmists do that make any kind of productive discussion impossible.
Any reasonable criticism is dismissed by immediately making personal attacks.
And it is pretty telling that you aren't comfortable one the issues if that's all you do. You say mudding the waters of science? What science did you demonstrate there?
You associated someone with the nazis, you without any particular supporting argument questioned my integrity and education, and then you made some appeal to authority by suggesting science was with you.
Do you know what science even is? Go look it up. The underlying philosophical concept and method.
Where in that process does it say "step one, accuse anyone that disagrees with you of being a nazi"... or some other absurd ad hominem that ignores relevant criticism?
Your little post there surrendered any pretense at an intellectual high ground. And to make that matter all the clearer... you don't even realize it... and probably still don't after it was explained to you.
Also wetter... hotter... colder... if nothing happens that is also climate change... if there is a disease break out like.. the "flu" that will be climate change. A rash is climate change. An increase in the birth rate of anything is climate change. A fall in the birth rate of anything is climate change.
The only solution is to send money now to the new church and repent sinners.
Remember, if anything bad happens in your life... or anything even bothers you... at all... it was probably climate change.
Some people were offended by this post... that was climate change too. You probably didn't give Al Gore enough money and you probably still drive a fossil fuel guzzling car. Sinners.
... we'll see what happens. The hope is that you get industry built around the industry that feeds on that and so on. Look at any manufacturing hub or a finance center or any other mecca of whatever. If you can get a seed going then you can get a feedback loop running if it is profitable to do that.
If the initial investment starts that process... "IF" then this will be a great investment.
"IF" it doesn't, then it may well be a boondoggle. But it is too early to tell.
As to robots... get over that. That's happening everywhere. If you insist on Brave New World type employment then it is going to be a shit show.
Nice try pretending to be a third party, AC scum.;-D
Anyway, it is good to know you're only posting to get the last post in there.
It removes any doubt that you were doing anything but trolling from the start.
The links I provided made the matter very clear. Pedantry and and obtuseness is a poor defense.
Naturally with only one other person in the discussion, the other party can pretend that their case has value simply by gainsaying any counter position. One could say 1+1=2 and the other party could disagree endlessly without getting laughed at my onlookers because there are no onlookers.
I say for the final time... Good day.
This is what I get for talking to ACs. I had a policy of not talking to them but they're not "all" trolls. Sadly, I've clearly picked up some AC trolls lately. So back to the old policy of not letting one guy pretend to be a dozen by posting everything under AC. People like you, are literally the problem with Slashdot. Troll another community... this one doesn't need you.
67% is materially different from 70% when referenced "off the cuff" as I said repeatedly in what sense?
I remembered that the number was something like 70%. So I did not make it up. I was being general.
My general remembrance was that it was something like 70%. On examination, it was 67% which is 3% off.
Amongst "human beings", remembering a statistic like that to within 3% is generally considered to be pretty good.
I actually explained all of this above when you first attempted this particular line of pedantry. I explained at the time what I had done and also my surprise that you would think being off by 3% on an off the cuff reference is a "gotcha" moment for you.
That you would even ask if I made up the 70% number when it was explained and you've seen data that is within 3% of that figure cited by me... it is just baffling.
Kindly go away. You've been nothing but bad faith and pedantry in this discussion.
I actually cited evidence.
You've cited nothing.
I offered opinions and insight.
You offered nothing.
I actually brought something forward that could enlighten or inform.
You brought nothing of value.
All you accomplished is wasting the time of someone actually contributing to this community.
My own fault for engaging with an AC. Disappointing. Be a better person.
""Someone who is disengaged is not participating at all. Someone who is tired of it might still be participating (as in voting) even if they don't like the state of politics. That is a huge difference. While the USA suffers from abysmally low voter participation in some areas, your earlier claim of 70% not bothering to participate is not supported by any source you have given. ""
You implied that "tired" implies engaged and said that the 25ish percent of the population at the wings were activists.
Now you can goal post move and double down on pedantry as much as you like. Your posts taken together show clear bad faith on your part in this discussion.
My initial statements were validated by my links. And your attempts to manipulate words and to support what is at best a pedantic argument is tiresome.
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't help the argument... you'd then be arguing 25% percent of the country is certifiably insane.
The trump argument doesn't hold water. The people that voted for either candidate on average are demonstrably functional adults. They work, they pay taxes, they have car insurance...
when you compare that to people that are generally deemed to be insane... you see people that are unable to work, generally don't have money they aren't given for charity, and are not able to interact with basic institutions in a productive way.
This is why these groups are frequently homeless, addicted to drugs, and end up in prison.
As to definitions of insanity, please don't attempt to destroy a valid point with pedantry. Mental incompetence and similar concepts exist and are well understood. There are also good proxies for the concept. Again, if you are unable to take care of yourself due to mental illness, then you're obviously across the line.
Honestly, I feel like you've fallen for a troll comment from a stupid AC and doubling down on it with pedantry. I merely pointed out that his argument doesn't work and moved on.
Don't defend stupid arguments, please. Mine is valid. The "trump voters are insane" position is damaging to the integrity of those that make it. Perhaps you don't care... but it will make it impossible to take you seriously if you take it.
If only about .3% of the US population voted for Trump then you'd probably have something.
Roughly "59,400,000" people voted for Trump in the last election... Hillary got about "59,600,000" votes.
Presuming the ratios hold for this sample to the general population, the argument here would be that 49.915966% of the population is insane. "0.084034%" is the line between the insane and the sane.
One thing is that roughly 25 percent of the US prison population is certifiably insane.
In the 1950s we had about 500,000 people in mental asylums in the US.
Today, with double the population, we have about 50,000 people in asylums.
The consequences are in our public parks and in our prisons.
Consider, I'm talking about roughly .3% of the US population here. Would you believe that .3% of the US population is medically insane? Of course. In fact, the actual number if probably a bit higher. But we can at least accept .3%. That is 1 million people.
We need to reconsider "de-institutionalization" which was a push after the 1960s and finally finished in the 1990s.
Look at most of the mass shootings... Nearly all of them are known mental health risks with records of mental illness.
Look at the prisons and consider what filling 25% of the seats in the prison with the certifiably insane does to the internal prison culture? Think about that. Imagine warehoused hardened criminals being mixed with people that don't know which way is up or down.
Look at our streets, our public parks, etc... look at those people and tell me honestly if you can say "that could be me". Because it couldn't. You're looking at substance abuse and mental illness almost entirely. If were economic, then people wouldn't be coming from Guatemala to work and then send money BACK to Guatemala.
If you want to seriously deal with the US prison problem, then you have to first have the courage to admit that it was used as a dumping ground for the people that were de-institutionalized.
Any attempt to deal with the prisons without examining that with eyes wide open... is going to fail.
You can talk about computer algorithms or procedures until the stars burn cold. Actually look into what the prison population is at this point and how it has changed. The increase in US prison populations had two things happen at the same time.
1. The Drug war. Everyone knows about this and it has been discussed to death.
2. And this is masked by the drug war and in part because many people don't know anything about it... De-institutionalization. They happened at the SAME time. So the numbers don't point to one or the other. They just show an increase at time X.
The threat of "ai" or whatever shiny toy they come up with next won't be that it turns into a cheesey science fiction disaster movie... but that the same thing that always happens with this stuff will happen again.
Those that wish to oppress, those that wish to dominate, those that wish to exploit... will attempt to use the new toy to do what they always want to do.
The AI interestingly is actually less useful to these people than such things typically are... it has applications for the common man. The AI doesn't have to run on absurd super computers. It can run on your humble personal computer. It won't run quickly and its ability to do X or Y will be less. But that will be more than what you have now. And what oppressive entities can get out of this is less RELATIVELY than what you and I can get out of it.
Example, navigating government or corporate bureaucracies... understanding the law... personal accounting that is as detailed and responsive as what any blue chip corp manages.
It isn't really "ai" it is just very well honed rules based systems. But consider how large organizations oppress anyone that doesn't have a team of lawyers on retainer by simply bombarding people with paperwork and esoteric rules that even experts struggle to remember? Good computer systems distributed broadly could eliminate the ability of such organizations to legally push little people around.
Just one example. That is what I find exciting about this technology. For every oppressive thing it does, there are two or more liberating things it does.
The whole thing is two steps forward and one step back. Don't let the Perfect be the Enemy of the Good.
The link I provided is for the US.
The article was about the US.
the article says US numbers are going down... actually US numbers are up strongly over the last generation.
https://projects.fivethirtyeig...
General stats are in a positive trend. And if you break down the data by cause of death, most of the negative things are highly concentrated in a few troubled communities. The overall statistics are pretty solid.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1...
Denial
Anger
Bargaining
Depression
Acceptance
Do you really need to go through all five stages? Just move to acceptance and save us the time.
I'll let the jury decide. I see no point arguing the issue with the rival advocate when there is no judge or jury to render a conclusion.
https://www.spj.org/ethics-pap...
Anonymous sources are being cited continuously to say all sorts of things.
Given that the stories that were being leaked often are not true... the ethical standards being applied are self evident.
I can provide lots of credible and uniform standards on this... this is the standard.
What you cited is not.
worth looking at:
http://ethics.npr.org/tag/anon...
Regardless, we've seen anonymous sources issue personal attacks in mainstream press reports. So the violation is there regardless.
It won't get better until people sharpen up their standards. And until that happens confidence in the press will continue to deteriorate. If the press wants their credibility to improve, then the impression of unethical behavior will have to be addressed. Simply denying everything and refusing to make any reasonable reforms is just doubling down on what is causing the problem.
well yes and no... we used to be closer to our politicians.
In the colonial days there was one representative for every 30k people. Power was less centralized.
Even now, if you want to talk to politicians in the US, they are generally obliged to listen to you. the hoops have increased recently mostly because of terrorism. But if you want to see your congressman that is generally not a big deal. You can just call up the office and make an appointment.
Talking to senators, governors, and presidents is generally pretty hard. But let us not pretend that those are listening to much of what anyone says on twitter in any case.
Generally when ever anyone goes back and forth with someone on twitter it is a congressmen anyway.
I send mine emails all the time and get responses back. Often it is a staffer responding but sometimes I get a personal response from my congressman.
... it is twitter... it is the place you go to read drunken rants from celebrities or updates to a concert or something.
Twitter is a terrible information source and always was a terrible information source.
Who "honestly" thinks twitter even should be fact checked? And who would be crazy enough to pay someone to do that. Imagine that job listing "wanted 5000 people to fact check tweets"... No.
Most information sources shouldn't be fact checked because you can get to the same place just by exercising a little skepticism.
And really, a lot of the mainstream media guys deserve to be in the same boat. Look at mainstream media guys using anonymous sources. We're seeing that in the New York Times now. This was understood until recently to be a gold standard violation of establishment media. You don't do certain things.
1. You don't mix your editorials/opinions with straight news reporting. They violate that all the time now.
2. You don't use anonymous sources because they can't be fact checked by third party sources which means you could just make it all up. They do that all the time now.
3. You don't pay people for sources and you don't use information as a source that was bought. We've seen a few examples of that recently as well.
The above violations are what used to separate tabloids from the boring but accurate newspapers.
Well, what actually is the difference now? Seriously. What rule or code of ethics separates the two? I don't see it.
And on top of that to suggest Twitter of all things should be fact checked when they're clearly not upholding journalistic ethics in the mainstream newspapers?
The mad are running the asylum.
As it stands, fact checking organizations or processes seem to have entirely broken down. So, I have to fact check everything myself personally. And I suggest everyone do the same until this bought of unethical behavior passes. Keep an open mind, listen to what people have to say, but reserve judgment until you've checked it out. And until then... jump to no conclusions.
it is a little like your local water utility leaking sewage into the pipes. Which happens sometimes. Don't just drink it... boil it to kill the bacteria that might be in it and muddle through the mess. At some point, the media will fix itself. But at this point, the media won't even acknowledge it has a problem.
You've commented like three times on the same post with basically the same comment.
Do you need to breath into a paper bag or something Jeff?
What a twist ending if what you needed was to slowly inhale your own CO2 emissions... to help you... Seriously... calm down and try again.
I'm not an idiot.
I'm not the reincarnation of Hitler.
I don't want the world to choke to death on poison.
I'm not anti science or anti human.
If you want to understand... I can explain. If you don't... then go back to barking at the moon.
Refusing to acknowledge the tribalism, hyperbole, ad hominems, and other corrupting elements on this topic that are pervasive even in academia is not productive.
If you want to have a legitimate discussion, then you first have to appreciate why conversation shut down in the first place.
If you can't even acknowledge the no-platforming that occurred... then the discussion ends. That is the price of ending the debate.
That the discussion ends. That doesn't mean a concession. It means silence. Choose.
Whatever your conclusion, we know the fault is climate change.
Climate change causes me to not agree with you.
Climate change causes you to be rude to people on the internet.
It is all climate change.
It probably is why you have irritable bowel syndrome.
If only we had listened to Al Gore.
*tears to eyes*
I get there are regions. But you are also aware that there is a lot of politics on this issue that inclines people to say "whatever my problem = climate change"... the auditing and checking on that is often not great. And this is not helped by the tribalism that follows any issue permitted to become political.
To address what is and isn't credible... the whole topic would have be understood to permit discussion and debate. And as everyone is more than aware... discussion, criticism, and debate is discouraged on this topic.
Until that changes, I find any conclusions suspect as they haven't gone through unfettered evaluation.
"denalist"
A hyperbolic association between holocaust deniers and people that poke fun at the obvious over the top climate change alarmists.
Do you even Godwin's law, amigo?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
These are the sorts of silly things that alarmists do that make any kind of productive discussion impossible.
Any reasonable criticism is dismissed by immediately making personal attacks.
And it is pretty telling that you aren't comfortable one the issues if that's all you do. You say mudding the waters of science? What science did you demonstrate there?
You associated someone with the nazis, you without any particular supporting argument questioned my integrity and education, and then you made some appeal to authority by suggesting science was with you.
Do you know what science even is? Go look it up. The underlying philosophical concept and method.
Where in that process does it say "step one, accuse anyone that disagrees with you of being a nazi"... or some other absurd ad hominem that ignores relevant criticism?
Your little post there surrendered any pretense at an intellectual high ground. And to make that matter all the clearer... you don't even realize it... and probably still don't after it was explained to you.
Also wetter...
hotter...
colder...
if nothing happens that is also climate change...
if there is a disease break out like.. the "flu" that will be climate change.
A rash is climate change.
An increase in the birth rate of anything is climate change.
A fall in the birth rate of anything is climate change.
The only solution is to send money now to the new church and repent sinners.
Remember, if anything bad happens in your life... or anything even bothers you... at all... it was probably climate change.
Some people were offended by this post... that was climate change too. You probably didn't give Al Gore enough money and you probably still drive a fossil fuel guzzling car. Sinners.
... we'll see what happens. The hope is that you get industry built around the industry that feeds on that and so on. Look at any manufacturing hub or a finance center or any other mecca of whatever. If you can get a seed going then you can get a feedback loop running if it is profitable to do that.
If the initial investment starts that process... "IF" then this will be a great investment.
"IF" it doesn't, then it may well be a boondoggle. But it is too early to tell.
As to robots... get over that. That's happening everywhere. If you insist on Brave New World type employment then it is going to be a shit show.
Nice try pretending to be a third party, AC scum. ;-D
Anyway, it is good to know you're only posting to get the last post in there.
It removes any doubt that you were doing anything but trolling from the start.
The links I provided made the matter very clear. Pedantry and and obtuseness is a poor defense.
Naturally with only one other person in the discussion, the other party can pretend that their case has value simply by gainsaying any counter position. One could say 1+1=2 and the other party could disagree endlessly without getting laughed at my onlookers because there are no onlookers.
I say for the final time... Good day.
This is what I get for talking to ACs. I had a policy of not talking to them but they're not "all" trolls. Sadly, I've clearly picked up some AC trolls lately. So back to the old policy of not letting one guy pretend to be a dozen by posting everything under AC. People like you, are literally the problem with Slashdot. Troll another community... this one doesn't need you.
I didn't say non-affiliated.
Go away.
67% is materially different from 70% when referenced "off the cuff" as I said repeatedly in what sense?
I remembered that the number was something like 70%. So I did not make it up. I was being general.
My general remembrance was that it was something like 70%. On examination, it was 67% which is 3% off.
Amongst "human beings", remembering a statistic like that to within 3% is generally considered to be pretty good.
I actually explained all of this above when you first attempted this particular line of pedantry. I explained at the time what I had done and also my surprise that you would think being off by 3% on an off the cuff reference is a "gotcha" moment for you.
That you would even ask if I made up the 70% number when it was explained and you've seen data that is within 3% of that figure cited by me... it is just baffling.
Kindly go away. You've been nothing but bad faith and pedantry in this discussion.
I actually cited evidence.
You've cited nothing.
I offered opinions and insight.
You offered nothing.
I actually brought something forward that could enlighten or inform.
You brought nothing of value.
All you accomplished is wasting the time of someone actually contributing to this community.
My own fault for engaging with an AC. Disappointing. Be a better person.
Good day.
""Someone who is disengaged is not participating at all. Someone who is tired of it might still be participating (as in voting) even if they don't like the state of politics. That is a huge difference. While the USA suffers from abysmally low voter participation in some areas, your earlier claim of 70% not bothering to participate is not supported by any source you have given. ""
I say again, GOOD DAY, sir.
So you're going to change what you said now?
You implied that "tired" implies engaged and said that the 25ish percent of the population at the wings were activists.
Now you can goal post move and double down on pedantry as much as you like. Your posts taken together show clear bad faith on your part in this discussion.
My initial statements were validated by my links. And your attempts to manipulate words and to support what is at best a pedantic argument is tiresome.
Kindly realize you have no case and shuffle off.
I said, GOOD DAY, sir.