TheVat

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

A related phenomenon I've seen a fair amount of is the Abilene paradox. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abilene_paradox Another thing I experienced, working for a couple years in a state government office, was jargon used by people to conceal work duties that really had minimal utility or purpose. What David Graeber famously called Bullshit jobs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_Jobs Graeber suggested that if we only worked at necessary and meaningful tasks we would all by now have arrived at Keynes's prediction that people would only need to work 15 hours a week. What was funny to me in my time at that state job was that the people in the BS jobs would openly admit it, if you met them in an off-work social setting. I can't tell you how many times I'd hear, "I have no idea what I'm doing there." But in the office, it was stuff like "I facilitate and optimize the cross-departmental coordination of multilevel synergies" blather.

Hehe. I would respond with more thought to this, but it's suppertime here and I'm hungry like the wolf. True. Hidden tax is everywhere. Though one could, in theory, never pay tax to the federal government by keeping to a low income, never owning a car or consuming anything imported. But state and muni taxes would still be there. Along with the Reaper. Who reportedly is a good chess player, per this Swedish movie I saw.

It's about balancing the collective good with the fact that the collective is composed of individuals who cannot be categorized with any certainty. Yes, there's a deontological aspect where one asks, "what sort of nation are we if we start imposing abstract requirements to vote?" And there's also a more consequentialist argument, in that nations which actually do start classifying some voters as problematic, don't have enough skin in the game, don't meet the criteria for good voters... have not done at all well. Real consequences, not just existential fretting. Also, how can we really know an older voter would not bear some consequences solely on the basis of longevity? If I die knowing my grandchildren will live in tents due to a horrible policy on housing, it may not affect me directly, but I am still dying in despair. I very much want to vote against the scoundrels pushing "let them pitch tents." Your grabbing that wedge again. Where do we draw the line on say, voting on school bond issues? Can only people with children vote on this? Obviously unworkable and also begs the question: don't childless couples and singles also have an interest in younger people being educated? Statistics on crime and incarceration rates show where kids wind up if they don't have decent schools. And 40-50% of American workers (it varies) don't pay taxes, because their earnings fall below the line where there's any tax liability. They fill out "the short form" and they're done. Should they not vote? Same thing as with the schools - cause and effect ripples through all of society, and everyone has an interest in responsible governance and spending.

Good point. Yes, it's hard to really carve out any exception without getting into murky waters of definitions of that exception. And there are places where felons can't regain their vote after theyve discharged their debt to society. I find that problematic, too.

Well you've already heard my thin end of wedge argument. And as I said over in the Gits thread, "so many ethical matters fall back upon the dignity and worth of the individual and not the statistical aggregate of social behavior." If a national government is to so assert this worth and dignity, then must not its charter or constitution or whatever document then state that no individual can be excluded on the basis of a social classification? (I mean, sure, maybe criminals forfeit the right because they overtly attack their society - but I don't see any other exceptions which wouldn't have thin wedge problems) For example, imagine a law based on the statistic that most murders are done by men. So every man is required to submit to thorough psychiatric evaluation before marriage, or purchasing any tools or cookware which could be used to lethal effect, or co-signing a lease or (etc). Other laws might involve forms of surveillance targeting just men. And so on. This would seem to deny a citizen liberty, not through any personal fault or transgression, but because of a social classification, in this case gender.

This raises tough questions of how much life trajectories vary between people. I would hazard a guess there is a lot of variation. Some brick throwers repent and become sympathetic towards their brick targets. Some ossify in their bigotries. Some have transformative experiences and some avoid them. My views have shifted some - partly because I just started paying more attention to politics and ideologies, and noticing rotten spots...or areas where I'd been clueless. What I'm getting at is that so many ethical matters fall back upon the dignity and worth of the indivdual and not the statistical aggregate of social behavior.

I think the ethical principle also applies: if one demog is deemed unfit to vote, why not others? Are people who flunked, or skipped, social studies (aka civics or, in UK, broken down into citizenship, history, geography), really capable of selecting a candidate in an informed way? You see the problem here. Pretty soon it's just an elite voting, like Athens or Rome.

I strongly suspected as much. I admire putting that space to use. Like people who live in attics. The latter helps the housing crisis, the former helps the jam crisis. Looks like. Cinammon, perhaps. I normally wait an hour before breakfasting, it's a little after seven a.m. here, but that ship has sailed I can see. I think the indigenous tribal people in my area adopted bannock from early traders, and it became "frybread," which is now an important part of cultural identity. It's wonderful. Blueberries would fit in with the local native tradition.

Emily's offer to help Iran is rejected. Raw onion, shallot, Ayatollahs? No, I...no! War!

The similarity of the Polish doughnut to the American doughnut is remarkable! I like the way the sack has been ripped open, as if by some ravenous animal. This creates a dramatic tension with the superhuman restraint which the young gentleman is displaying. I just ate an odd snack: mashed a leftover potato, mixed in butter, green beans, a spoonful of crushed almonds and some dill pickle relish. It works.

Funny, I had just posted something gloomy and Forsythian on another site this morning, re suitcase bombs in midtown Manhattan. Yep, the US has set up at least a couple more generations of America loathing, and are no doubt mobilizing terror assets as we speak. The Turnip regime is beyond stupid. Though, as someone noted elsewhere, this could also be a chess tactic for the MAGAists to declare a national emergency and take over the Congressional elections in November to prevent "fraud" and so on. I didn't really know much about numbers stations, so you are again one of my main TIL posters. Thank you.

Entertainment media don't help with such myths. I've met people who think of autism as Christian Bale in The Big Short, who plays someone with mathematical skill in analyzing financial markets and has minimal people skills. Such characters in movies and television have become the cliche. They're all brilliant coders or mathies or pianists... or they're Temple Grandin. They tend not to show the folks who only eat white food, can't manage a phone conversation or make their own purchases, and engage in handflapping (stimming) when there are more than two people in the room. As @swansont notes, it is outliers who are singled out for attention. When I was a young fellow, the public figure most commonly mentioned in this context was the pianist Glenn Gould, who was on the spectrum (and also had synaesthesia, which helped him as a musician - he saw musical tones as colors).

A chilling example. And one that points to the Australian model, where children below a certain age are legally blocked from social media. Let educators and parents and RW mentors reach children before the Andrew Tates do. This actually suggests one respect in which the dotard bloc might have something to contribute, as they keenly recall the world pre-internet. Not all conservative forces are regressive, if they foster healthy distrust of bro influencers, AI slop, crypto-fascist subcultures, etc. Now I must recover from your link and do the sensorily deprived monkeys. Phew!

I'll see your Purcell and raise you one Nepomuk Hummel.

I do get that you're playing DA here for stimulation of discourse, and am enjoying some of the responses. Also learning a Zimmer frame is limeyspeak for a walker, so that's a good TIL for me. I thought to explore @CharonY proposal to disenfranchise penises, but there are simply too many bad jokes crowding out other thoughts, so have to move past that. (Though it could help to solve inflation?) (Dammit. Moving. On.) I do recognize that old voters can, even with kind intent, impose policy hardships on the younger, and I wish I saw a practical approach to this. If everyone in the USA around my age had been a treehugging flower child (like me, sort of), then our descendants would at least have us a voting bloc for renewable energy, eco cleanups, social justice, peaceful geopolitics, no or few nukes, organic farming, etc. I.e. the stuff they need more than we do. But that didn't happen, and people seem to have lost some grip on the Social Contract, in which elders are supposed to be humble and caring servants of future generations. I realize this walks me right into a social malaise rant, where I chastise my peers for selling out to late stage capitalism and having a poverty of spirit. A useless tack, since the topic is how to make better voters. Back later.

Well, yeah, there has to be some leeway to talk about whatever we're watching on YT recently, for sure. Not sure where the line is there. Stringy posts about a podcast on the war with Iran - does that take over this thread or do we form a separate thread on that? Help me, oh moderators....😀

TBH, I may not be as well versed in the stats as I'd like, but I was trying to address deeper characteristics here: Am I saying that being younger doesn't correlate with fresh ideas or openness or less rigid partisanship? Not at all. But your environment can really influence your priorities and how you define "fresh." Rural people often feel the federal government is distant, doesn't care about them, doesn't understand their apprehension about regulations or social change imposed from far away, etc. So even moderately bright people, of any age, will get sucked into the group belief that a populist candidate who's a flawed vessel (i.e. Turnip) at least sees and hears them and doesn't bring an entourage of urban elites who dismiss them as "flyover country." One reason Harris chose Tim Walz as her VP was precisely because of that rural thihg: she hoped that his being rooted in, and understanding of, flyover country would help her ticket. And she wasn't wrong, but it just wasn't enough that year for a variety of complex reasons.

My point was that, had under-50 voters voted as they did in 2020, then Harris would have won. The over-50 vote didn't change much, so those in that demographic who saw through Trump still did so. Or to put it another way, younger voters greater facility for switching sides isn't always an indication of mental sharpness or openness to change: those who changed in fact were won over by an appeal to very old-school bigotries and fears. And again, it's demographics at work: rural people tend to vote for Republicans regardless of age. And rural states have older populations. So you simply have more old folks in rural areas, because younger people have tended (until quite recently) to leave for urban areas to seek careers and further education. So when the electoral college system favors smaller population rural states, this favors Republicans. Rural people favor Trump because of rural priorities and traditions, not because they're old.

Afterthought: The fact that 54% of voters over 50 went for Turnip in 2024, has more to do with the demographics of older Americans than a particular impairment of mind. And it's also worth noting that the 46% of older voters who voted Harris were key in states which did go for Harris. The primary increase in votes for Trump came from voters UNDER 50, not over.

Voting age ranges sounds like one of those political hot potatoes that people would fight over for a long time. While I can understand the theoretical basis, disenfranchisement has not had a happy history. I also note the way it strongly punishes wise, savvy and alert octogenarians for the mental sclerosis of their peers. We've fought so long and hard to get the vote for every adult, I feel any attempts to start clawing back voting rights could go to some really bad places. Especially if it removes people from the voter rolls who have spent their lives developing better ability to judge character - old folks may lose their mental math skills and knowing where they left their keys or remembering names, but that doesn't mean they will also lose powers of judgment - and often they gain in such wisdom.

Can we take political digressions over to the politics forums, please? Good grief, we need spaces where we don't have to focus on that sickening, sordid and depressing business for a few precious moments.

Two different Boleros...

Tommie Emmanuel must never ever switch to decaf.

Dear "Mr President," Just trying to keep track of your principled and unwavering position on Iran: 2012: “Now that Obama’s poll numbers are in tailspin — watch for him to launch a strike in Libya or Iran. He is desperate.” 2013: “Remember that I predicted a long time ago that President Obama will attack Iran because of his inability to negotiate properly — not skilled!” 2016: “We’re going to stop the reckless and costly policy of regime change.” 2024: “I’m not going to start wars. I’m going to stop wars.” 2026: "...the United States military is undertaking a massive and ongoing operation to prevent this very wicked, radical dictatorship from threatening America and our core national security interests." Wait...what?