Things to argue about over the holidays instead of politics
dynomight.net
dynomight.net
If things like 1, 2, 3, 4, 5... don't immediately become intensely political then somebody is being very ineffective at politics. There seems to be a weird assumption here that politics is fundamentally in bad faith and people aren't acting from value judgements and reason.
"Politics", used in this context is used to mean: the set of topics that professional politicians and certain media figures are arguing about, that are liable to cause big arguments that leave everyone involved feeling bitter and not change anyone's mind.
Interpreting the term in a literal manner is not useful.
Then go with a really fun topic. Why are the professional politicians consistently talking about things that cause big arguments that leave everyone feeling bitter and stubborn? Are they actually leading people to discuss the important political issues, or are they trying to stir up division and a fanatic voter base? Is the nature political discourse going to lead to a good outcome for either side of the argument? How should fair compromises be achieved?
If the call here is for interesting discourse then sure, all for it. Good list. But the title shows a confusion. Arguing politics isn't going down a list of talking points. Anyone doing that with their own family just isn't acting like a smart cookie and needs to understand that they are really bad at politics to the point where they might be damaging their own community.
The point of the list is not to generate interesting discussion. It is to generate interesting enough discussion while minimizing the chance of the discussion blowing up at a family gathering.
If participants are skilled communicators and can stay calm and listen to each other, what gets revealed is a different set of lives experiences. This is rare and exremwlr valuable.
If participants are not skilled and do not stay calm (as is most often the case when talking about things we care deeply about, cannot experience directly, and cannot control, ie most of the world), what gets revealed is a bunch of anger and hurt feelings.
I could care less about what consenting adults do that don’t affect others. But some people have a really deep seated religious beliefs that I can’t for the life of me emotionally understand.
I don’t care about illegal immigration because it doesn’t affect me. They aren’t competing for my job or the job of anyone in my social circle.
I haven’t spoken to him in awhile because…life. But there is someone I consider a friend who is the polar opposite of me. I’m a Black guy working remotely in BigTech, came from an upper middle class family, and if I were 20 years younger, I would be considered your typical “tech bro”. He is your stereo typical “MAGA” (no insult intended) - white, army veteran, anti illegal immigration, gun enthusiasts, grew up in rural America and had to take care of himself since he was 17.
What he is not is racist. He is the only White guy at a predominantly Black church. He’s married to a Vietnamese lady who he loves dearly and is all for supporting anyone who goes through the immigration process legally.
We don’t agree on some things. But I can understand where he is coming from.
This seems like kind of a naive take. Illegal immigration affects your country>state>community>social circle>family>personal well being in that order. You might be several orders of magnitude removed from its effects on a personal level but that doesn’t mean it isn’t affecting you. E.g. simply the fact that illegal immigration is happening in your country means it IS influencing nationwide politics which in effect influences voters and your local politics. Your anecdote about your friend is testament to this.
Your opinion on illegal immigration matters, man, whether it affects you directly or not!
<h1>YOUR IMMORTAL SOUL</h1> > country>state>community>social circle>family>personal.
They have a deep emotional belief that supersedes everything else.
They think that anything that doesn’t put “God first” is “naive”
Yes I know HN doesn’t support HTML markup.
What i am saying is that regardless of whether or not you take a stance on illegal immigration, the fact that the issue is ingrained in our political system means that it does in fact affect you albeit indirectly. It follows that you should probably have an opinion on the matter and be open to discussing that opinion even if you are not directly affected by it.
I’m going to chalk this one up as an L and move on.
I think there's a real problem right now that these people are often represented as strictly being racists / their beliefs being strictly the result of racism. It is often true, but, as in your case, it is often not true. But that heuristic has become pretty absolute among anyone who believes themselves to be "on the right side of history".
I'm glad you don't have that knee-jerk reaction.
Ironically, until last month, I lived in not only one of the least diverse counties in GA, it was a famous “sundown town” until the mid 80s. It would be really easy to make assumptions here - none of which are generally accurate from my experience.
At some level, everything anyone does affects everyone they interact with. You and I are affecting each other right now, in some small way.
It seems like what lots of people do is say, “some of these causal effects are unimportant to me, and so I can approximate them as being zero.”
Perhaps politics changes us more than we want to admit?
And frankly, that's a pretty big problem for a side to have. I think a good question that isn't being asked in earnest is "why would those people, who seem to have a stable income and lifestyle, subscribe to such a radical view of reality?"
There are legitimate views from the side viewed as 'evil', but most of those people seem to have gone silent since no one is listening.
In my opinion, politics is about deciding where society should go. It's inherently about directing shared resources and convincing/forcing others to do things. All politics is based on value judgements, but not all value judgements are political.
E.g., for prompt #4, I can say my child's school focuses too little on "the classics." I might not want to change the curriculum, just teach him the classics myself at night. That's not really a political discussion, because I'm not involving or intentionally affecting people outside my family.
But honestly, if any term reaches the point where "Everything is X," then X is a useless term.
#2 goes directly to economics. #3 goes directly to the One Child Policy in China (one of the worlds most intense political policies!) and the intellectual underpinnings of eugenics.
#4 is a firestorm topic in the US that links directly to a current culture war, #5 goes to a major issue in the medical system which is how people die. If I bought up #7 in my family the conversation would veer into veganism as a political statement and probably get ugly because we have a practising vegan at the table.
#1, the Guinness World Records might be safe. Might. Maybe. #6 isn't directly political but I can guarantee that the term "human progress" is a risk of bringing up some very stiff argumentation if people are in a mood to quarrel. What we call "progress" is hardly at a consensus.
For someone who argues from principles, this list is extremely politically charged and is going to obliquely hit a bunch of hot-button topics. It goes to principles that are perennial features of politics at all levels of society.
If the goal is to avoid a big argument that'll need to be negotiated directly. If someone is going to argue, these topics are likely hit-and-miss for being likely to quiet people down. I would not bring up a lot of them when talking to my family, that is for sure.
I think this is actually what makes the last seen non-political to some people.
In lots of cases, I think people don’t have abstract principles that guide their thinking. Their political ideals are a collection of specific beliefs without a unifying set of abstractions that links the beliefs together into a coherent thesis about what is good.
Another pro tip for argues over the holidays: don't be that nit-picky... even if you are right on some level, I'm not sure who would call such topics current political discourse topics (:
Best tip though: keep the discussions away, delve in the happy shared past, dream about a better future, or just enjoy the moment! Merry christmas!
me, them, a lot of ppl here... they are intensely political topics, it's your conception of politics to be very narrow: electoral politics news.
The easiest thing to do is to check out the NY Post, and don’t talk about anything they are upset about. Of course, if Uncle MAGA is looking for a fight, the only way to win is not to play.
As each person decides who will represent them, or in a direct democracy where everyone votes on laws, discussing ethics, logic, news, is paramount.
> politics - The art or science of government or governing, especially the governing of a political entity, such as a nation, and the administration and control of its internal and external affairs.
Every one of these questions touch on administration of societal affairs. There’s a fun nativity calling these questions non-political. The questions themselves already assume certain positions as well.
I personally think politics is important to discuss. But if you REALLY want to avoid real discussion - sports, weather, food, gardening, or play games is the best bet.
People get stuck thinking that politics mean Republicans v. Democrats. The Republicans don't represent the interesting parts of right wing thought (they can't even put in a serious attempt to balance the budget!). Ditto Democrats and the left (insert favourite example from the long list). Most of what they argue about is distracting trivia or flat-out intellectually dishonest lies. Avoiding that at Christmas is a good idea, but ideally avoid that in all in-person discussions of politics.
I do understand your exact point. This wide umbrella of "everything is politics" is akin to "all roads lead to philosophy" : https://www.xefer.com/2011/05/wikipedia
That said, I can also what understand what people mean when a dinner host says, "let's not discuss politics". (Previous comment about that interpretation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14473441)
Even though I perfectly understand what roenxi means by "You can't discuss anything important and uncertain without running in to politics.", I'm still able to grasp what the dinner host means by "no politics".
Likewise, the HN moderator dang tried the experiment of "no politics for a week". However, people didn't want to use the "dinner host" meaning and would rather litigate on the "but all roads lead to politics" meaning to make dang look naive in his social civility experiment.
If a family has anyone intelligent and disagreeable, this list won't help. And as strategies go, trying to control what topics come up is a great way to generate some bad feeling. Believing there are important topics that people refuse to discuss is a really good way to drive a wedge into a situation and split people apart. Indeed, it'll also hurt the person bringing the topics up if they believe they have to start squelching or moderating their beliefs to make life easy for someone with ideas they don't respect.
There is an implicit call here for some sort of family agenda where the time is spent uncovering shared values and goals. Which is a great idea, and which this list does try to go to. But everyone will get better results if they go in saying "this is time to identify commonalities" rather than trying to change the topic or pretending that the root problem is politics. It isn't politics, it is either an impossible situation or bad strategy at the personal level. Trying to change the topic is a good tactic for about 3-5 minutes, but it doesn't deal with the root causes that make arguments bubble up.
The article is a call to polite and interesting political debate. It is a good idea. But it is, nonetheless, politics around the dinner table. Can't escape it, learn to enjoy it. Practice some tolerance, learn some respect and be polite. Learn that you don't have to have the last word, I more or less everyone on HN knows that trick.
The options are politics or unimportant trivia. Can't talk about something important without running in to people's principles and risking a heartfelt argument.
Though this only works because the politics of Tolkien's time have been mostly forgotten. LOTR is intensely influenced by politics, some extremely hamfisted (eg, how the Shire is ruined by all the industrialization), but in many cases one side decisively lost the argument to the point that few remember there was even anything to argue about.
That's still not a guarantee though. Those topics didn't magically disappear, and you can still run into the odd person who'd care to argue for the side that lost.
"well YOU blah blah blah vaccines blah blah blah Tucker Carlson blah blah blah Twitter blah blah blah misinformation blah blah blah insurrection!!!"
"well YOU blah blah blah woke racism blah blah blah Hunter Biden blah blah blah Twitter blah blah blah groomers blah blah blah drag queen story hour!!!"
For most people politics is about current laws, policies, and politicians.
Any time I asked this question it produces some joyful brainstorming. It doesn't matter if it is a room full of highly technical people(engineers, mathematicians) or a family dinner.
I've already heard most of the arguments from the topological definition of a hole to difference between a hole, a cavity and a hallow but it is still very fun for me to watch people getting excited over such a boring looking question. (:
(I think I count holes, when in a rigorous sort of mood, by counting independent homotopy/homology classes of 1-dimensional loops in the complement of the object, so a straw has one hole, the surface of a ring doughnut has two, and e.g. a sock in good condition has none if you ignore the structure of the fabric it's made from. But meaning is contextual and I'm happy to talk about a "hole in the ground" which typically isn't a hole at all in this sense, and if someone said "did you know there's a big hole inside Mars", presumably meaning a cavity, I wouldn't object but would then be thinking of a different sort of topological hole.)
Also, probably I'm too engineer to understand the phrase "independent homotopy/homology classes of 1-dimensional loops in the complement of the object" so I don't know how this definition covers the case but an interesting extension to question is adding "holes" to the straw sideways. (exactly face to face or randomly located?, different sized if face to face?)
Brief explanation of the mathspeak:
You could run a thread from the top of the straw, down its inside along its length, and back up, and join it up to form a loop. This loop is, so to speak, genuinely tangled up with the straw: without breaking either it or the straw, you can't separate it from the straw and scrunch it up to a single point.
If you have a loop like that, any continuous deformation you can do to it is called a "homotopy". (The word comes from Greek roots and means something like "same place".) The loops before and after deformation are said to be "homotopic" or "homotopy-equivalent". Anything homotopy-equivalent to (i.e., deformable into) a "trivial" loop of size zero is called "null-homotopic". The loop we constructed in the previous paragraph is not null-homotopic.
There are other genuinely different loops we can make. For instance, we can go down through the straw, up again on the outside, down again on the inside, up again on the outside. This is genuinely different from the previous one, but not very interestingly different: it's just two copies of the previous one, "one after the other".
It turns out that every loop you can make, in a universe containing just this straw floating in space, is homotopy-equivalent to some number of traversals of the loop we constructed earlier. (The number might be negative, if we're traversing it in the other direction. It might be zero, for a "trivial" loop.) So in this world, there's only one "independent" kind of nontrivial loop, and I accordingly say that the straw has one hole.
If we put one more perforation in the straw, some other kinds of loop appear, but it turns out that if we call our original loop "A" and (let's say) one that runs from the top down the middle of the straw as far as the new perforation, out through that, and back up the outside "B", then every possible loop is (homotopic to) some combination of As and Bs. (And backward-As and backward-Bs.) So there are only two independent kinds of nontrivial loop here, and the straw-with-perforation has two holes.
If we consider all the possible loops "up to homotopy", we get something with the grand-sounding name of "the fundamental group", which tells us about what sorts of paths there are within the space we're looking at (which in this case is ordinary three-dimensional space minus the straw). If you take (say) a sheet of paper and put n holes in it, the fundamental group of (space minus that sheet of paper) is what's called the "free group on n generators", which basically means you can take a loop L1 that goes through just the first hole in the "obvious" way, and a loop L2 through the second hole, and ..., and a loop Ln through the nth hole, and then all the possible loops are (again, "up to homotopy") just the things you can get by doing some sequence of Ls and backward-Ls, and the only cases in which two of them are equivalent are the ones where you can see the equivalence just from looking at the sequence of Ls and backward-Ls.
The notion of "independence" I'm appealing to there is a little bit subtle, which is why I also mentioned "homology" which gives you another (closely related) way of "counting the dimension" of the set of all possible loops, but in this case what you get is that the possible loops now correspond to sequences of n numbers -- think of the k'th number as saying how many times you go through hole k -- which is an n-dimensional thing in a simpler sense.
If I haven't already bored you to tears and you want to know more about this, the magic words are "algebraic topology", but be warned that formal presentations of the topic are going to be full of formality and abstraction and may be painful to read if your background is more engineering than mathematics.
Thanks.
I've transleted it from Turkish which is my native language. If the purpose of the question is to get some insight, I can give my intuition about it but that will be the opposite of "a full definition" (: When I see the word hallow ("oyuk" in Turkish) I think there is a opening in the structure otherwise has a solid body.
For example, a tree can have a hallow(hollow?)like this: https://www.elitetreecare.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/tre...
But it seems there is no strict boundary between the words, so if you say it is a hole I won't oppose that.
I only recently came across the word "hallow" and assumed it was a misspelling or US-Americanism for "hollow". Thanks for a full answer.
I've wondered this for years.
Like seriously, is there anyone who seriously reads poetry for fun nowadays?
I understand if it's the 1800s and there's literally nothing else to do.
1. IMO, there is some really great poetry out there. But the ratio is terrible. It's honestly worse than Youtube comments.
2. Poetry 1.0 mostly died for... reasons. But it's replacement - Poetry 2.0 - people absolutely love. You'd know it better by its common name "rap".
If you want some encouragement to wade through sewage to discover gems, here's one that really speaks to me:
Aedh Wishes for the Cloths of Heaven
------------------------------------
W. B. Yeats
Had I the heavens' embroidered cloths,
Enwrought with golden and silver light,
The blue and the dim and the dark cloths
Of night and light and the half light,
I would spread the cloths under your feet:
But I, being poor, have only my dreams;
I have spread my dreams under your feet;
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
Back into my TECO going, with my pounding heart now slowing,
Soon again I heard a feeping, somewhat louder than before.
"Surely," said I, "surely this is some strange bug of RMS's
Which an interrupt professes, though I have no other job;
Let me then ask DDT if it thinks there's another job --
'Tis a bug, and nothing more!"
Reclaimer, spare that tree!
Take not a single bit!
It used to point to me,
Now I'm protecting it.
It was the reader's CONS
That made it, paired by dot;
Now, GC, for the nonce,
Thou shalt reclaim it not.
Quaxity quuxity,
Backus's BNF
Drives a preprocessor,
Generates code.
Parsing is specified
Metasyntactically;
Writing it's easy, but
reading, I'm snowed.
Def Jam, Young Money, and Roc-A-Fella might be laughing all the way to the bank.
My classics teachers mentioned the possibility of musical accompaniment, and length instead of stress oriented metres would also point in that direction?
[Edit: cf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dithyramb ]
(ancients also wrote poetry so the text of the words formed an image, which the Victorians considered Not Real Poetry. compare http://99-bottles-of-beer.net/language-javascript-1948.html )
I could just as easily say: all this modern stuff isn't poetry either. Poetry always rhymes.
Oh wait - some people get to break the rules and others don't?
There is also hip hop, of course -- which saved my life, probably others as well -- halfway between music and verse
Poems are good if you are in public transport. They are shortly to any story and they give you to think.
This is the one I'm familiar with, for anyone with a penchant for exploration.
It’s a life skill to not get pressed over conversations even if the subject matter is important. The funny thing is we all learn it for our professional lives but tend to turn around and forget it when for different topics.
Make the discussion meta is a good way to get perspective
If you're going to watch exactly five Die Hard movies, would the fifth be Die Hard 5, "A Good Day To Die Hard", or the Die Hard battery commercial[1]?
Questions like…
> Do we focus too much on classic books/music/movies/plays/art/ideas, or too little?
require critical thinking, in the moment, to form an opinion (as do most other examples on the list).
More “suitable” topics to argue about would be ones that don’t require very much critical thinking (sadly), and topics where everyone is likely to already know what “side” they’re on.
So, instead let’s argue about what to argue about before we start arguing.
>> Do we focus too much on classic books/music/movies/plays/art/ideas, or too little? >require critical thinking, in the moment, to form an opinion (as do most other examples on the list).
Do they? Maybe it's my superpower but I can form opinions on these things without any thought at all. Whether the opinion is defensible is a different question.
It's a question to which one cannot even begin to formulate an answer without quite a bit of thinking.
Why did spicy foods become so popular when the first sensation they cause is pain?
So at some point in our evolutionary history some weirdo who liked a bit of spice was born, burned the parasites out of their gut, and then with their increased health and no calories being stolen natural selection did the rest.
Initially, capsaicin was produced to prevent mammals from eating the fruit (peppers) and instead encourage birds to spread seeds over a wider area (which is why they are brightly coloured to attract birds). Now that humans can travel greater distances than birds, the plants have switched strategies (or at least we've deliberately grown flavourful varieties everywhere we can).
> But the ultimate reason is most likely that spices help cleanse foods of pathogens and thereby contribute to the health, longevity and reproductive success of people who find their flavors enjoyable.
From: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/420058
Same vein: why do we do towel laundry since we're using them after the shower once we're clean.
Great idea for the weekend, thanks!
But I also think these rituals are about being pure. Washing off the struggles of the day.
Their original spread was likely for the same reason as most other spices, it could be used as a preservative by masking the taste of semi-rotten food.
My parents hate spicy food. They have never mentioned endorphins or feeling good.
Could be related to why BDSM is popular.
I think the part in the book of Luke at chapter 2, where Jesus, as a child, stay in the temple after Passover to discuss with the priests and how he answers his parents: "is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?" (Chap 2, verse 49 of the KJV) seems to indicate that he was already aware of that, even if he then waited his 30s and meeting with John to start his work.
KJV use always seems quite pharasaical to me. So, why? Thanks.
Does meeting John occur before or after he rides the donkey into Jerusalem?
(I used to think riding a donkey was a sign of humility, but I've recently learned that in biblical times, on state occasions, —kind of like how commoners drive Bugattis but the King rides in a carriage— commoners and lesser lords rode horses but kings rode donkeys, that having been a more archaic mode of transport. cf Absalom)
He was made as the image of God. God is mentionned as ´him´ and ´Father´ in English and popular representation, but it´s supposed to be an asexual figure. What about Jesus then ?
Convincing Jesus was a woman is full points, convincing of having both sex gives double the points.
[0] A TV preacher, visibly shaken, comes on stage and proclaims "I have good news and bad news. I just met God ... and She's Black."
There's a lot of male specific words in the bible referring to Jesus and there's the rumours about him having a relationship with Mary Magdalene, so I'd conclude that he identified as male. Similarly, the Christian god is often referred to as male, and the Garden of Eden story suggests that Adam was made in God's image (i.e. male) and then Eve was conjured out of a rib, so presumably that's when females were invented.
My personal take is that our society wants god to be a father figure and Jesus a man, so what was said in ancient scriptures or whatever got lost in translation is probably irrelevant at this point. Culturally I expect to see people distancing from religion will happen faster than seriously debating what sex Jesus was.
From a logical perspective, having a unique god gendered and him sending his son on earth feels so clunky. Even angels are asexual, why would god be more limited. Lucifer having a defined sex probably comes from —-fanfics—-popular litterature ?. On the Adam/Eve split, Adam could become what we know as man _after_ Eve is created from him, it wouldn’t make sense to have a sexed individual with no opposite sex at first.
As an atheist, I'd propose that the bible/scriptures aren't self consistent and I'd describe a lot of stuff as being clunky or not logical within them (though a generous interpretation would be that details have been lost in translation/transcription).
Historically, it seems to me that eunuchs were often considered as the typical asexual gender, and they were made by removing parts from a male, so it could be argued that Abrahamic god was male and the angels were created as less-than-male eunuchs. Of course that doesn't explain angels with breasts.
Edit: read through the thread, it wasn't as long as I first thought. Some fun ideas there, but the side wound being a vagina doesn't sound convincing to me (but then I'm no theologian).
Oof, that is a really good one.
Some people are addicted to reading (or HN even).
For those who are meeting family: Use ChatGPT to prepare for your arguments.
I tried it with the poetry question. I had to change the prompt a bit otherwise ChatGPT just gives a typical midwit answer.
Q: Why do most people seem to hold poetry and poets in high esteem yet have approximately zero interest in reading any poetry ever? Give me a humorous response
ChatGPT Response: Well, perhaps it's because people just love the idea of poetry more than the actual act of reading it. You know, it's kind of like how people love the idea of exercising and eating healthy, but actually doing it is another matter entirely. Or maybe it's because people just love the way that poets look in their berets and turtleneck sweaters, all brooding and deep in thought. Or maybe it's because people just love the way that poetry sounds when it's being read aloud by someone with a really pretentious accent. Who knows? The mysteries of human behavior can be strange and elusive at times.
Prior to that, it was giving me midwit responses (I didn't post those in the comment.)
Yellow or Blue dress
Windows or Linux
Perl or Python
Fotball is played with hands or feet
Vörtbröd with or without raisins
Oh, what a horrid thing to do to Vört! Leave that poor bread out of your raisin-infested schemes.
If you want avoid big arguments then just talk about weather (and even that can get crazy). Maybe sports?
That 1.7 trillion USD omnibus package was passed. Mitch McConnell seemed pretty happy, along with the Democrat caucus. Things are starting to look normal again.
Georgia voted for Brian Kemp and Warnock in the same election. Another data point pointing towards the newfound chillness.
Alright so maybe we’re going to draw straws to see who has to defend the affirmative, and they can open presents first or whatever
I don't get this. Why is it true?
Richard Dawkins talks briefly about this in his Selfish Gene book
It’s also the kind of discussion that gets completely neutered by someone whipping out their phone and just looking up the definitions.
When someone engage the discussion on Twitter, and that start in a 'this group is X, this group is Y', start talking about what is Twitter, what it should be, how it would work, advertising, multinational reach and soft power implications.
Do the same thing for Biden, Trump or the election. Talk generic instead of specifics, systems rather than persons. Power structure rather than personal power.
- Politics are really important actually
- Those disagreements will still be there
Your racist uncle (or, ok fine, your grating progressive auntie) will still hold those views tomorrow.
OTOH fighting will probably only make things worse.
Suggest instead meaningful, loving, gentle conversations that are permitted to range across many subjects, including politics.
This is the time of year when life presents you with opportunities to practice. They are precious :D
< Pie and cake are two different types of baked desserts that are made with different ingredients and have different textures and flavors.
Pie is a baked dish that is typically made with a pastry crust and filled with a variety of sweet or savory ingredients. The crust can be made with a variety of different flours and may be either shortcrust, puff, or flaky, depending on the recipe. Pies are often filled with fruit, such as apples, berries, or peaches, or with savory fillings, such as chicken, beef, or vegetables.
Cake, on the other hand, is a sweet, baked dessert that is usually made with flour, sugar, eggs, and butter or oil. Cakes are often frosted or decorated with icing, and can be made in a variety of flavors, such as chocolate, vanilla, or lemon.
It is not necessarily worth fighting over the difference between pie and cake, as both desserts can be enjoyable in their own right. The choice between pie and cake may simply come down to personal preference, and it is generally more important to focus on enjoying whichever dessert one prefers.
I did something that would usually be taboo recently. I talked about “politics” in a business setting with a customer at dinner. Neither one of us talked about our personal belief system. We talked about the politicians we admired as far as their ability to get things done and navigate the system.
We talked about our admiration for politicians on every part of the spectrum from the disciplined campaign that Republican Brian Kemp ran while being constantly attacked by Trump, how Pelosi was better able to keep her side disciplined when in power, etc.
American politics, as seen by someone who's never visited America but is hooked to the spectacle is fundamentally a difference in opinion about the reality we inhabit.
In other countries, political arguments are not as contentious because we can broadly agree on the state of reality. I might think my local MP is corrupt and is better replaced by another while my uncle who lives nearby might think he might be a bit corrupt but more "effective" at "getting things done" than the other guy. Therefore, political arguments of this sort might render the dinner table conversation lively but never descend into acrimony.
It's an entirely different thing if the starting point is that one of us thinks that the party the other one supports is filled with satanic vampires that murder children and drink their blood.
To an outsider American politics is like a slow moving train wreck. It's horrifying but you just can't look away.
Trying to look away from American politics suffers a similar problem.
(I once asked a farmer in a remote mountain village what her goats were named; the answer was: Hilary, George, and Barack)
I have seen several of the infamous "superbowl ads" though, those seem truly inescapable.
American style polarization is common in most countries, from Latin America to Asia. As a Bangladeshi, where a country that’s 95% ethnically, linguistically, and religiously homogenous but still manages to have violent disagreements about politics, American polarization seems tame to me by comparison.
Not that our politics aren't super weird and unusually contentious. They are, often even relative to the same people twenty years ago. It's just that the particular archetype you're citing here is still pretty unusual in the scheme of things.
Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommybeer/2021/05/27/nearly-30-...
Yeah, maybe the Satan worshipping thing is off the rocker. But a known pedophile ran a pedophole tape party island that lots of wealthy powerful men were at, somehow none of them got charged and the guy died in jail with video cameras blanked out.
Are they really ~crazy~ for thinking that maybe something is up there? Or are they just going overboard when diagnosing a real problem, like the half of democrats who supported COVID internment camps?
Source: https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/par...
2) Should (English-speaking) residents of England be considered the only native English speakers?
3) Before compulsory education, was the general population really stupid?
4) Has compulsory education made the world a better place?
>> It's native to Ireland, surely; in which case it seems fine.
English is also "native" to many people in all countries around the world. In Ireland, many families speak Irish at home, not English.
You're right, about politics. There are good historical reasons to hate what [English] nobility did in the past, but it's a mistake to dispense with using a common tongue because of that. My nan was shot at by "the English".
Common Latin use across Europe seems to have had a positive effect on the development of science for 1800 years or so?
https://preview.redd.it/rrd2hci4j5f41.jpg?width=960&crop=sma...
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EQFdckqW4AAwQ6A?format=png&name=...
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e5/Tr...
Not sure what is there to debate on that one? Compulsory education has been a vehicle for giving children time away from child labour and abusive parenting.
For that reason alone it is a net positive specially in developing economies where child labour is accepted.
Capitalism? Fossil fuels?
;)
There's a correlation between IQ and general health, and most of your "processing" is subconscious.
Could this correlation be due to high IQ brains being better at strategizing and organizing the autonomic systems in the body?
Stress has a profound impact on the growing body.
Also: IQ as a measure of cognitive development only makes sense in children.
certainly, I just wonder about IQ. Of course IQ is itself an inexact proxy for things such as processing speed but the correlation does exist so something is going on there. Whether it's causation or not, who can tell.
I just think the idea is interesting. People often think of the body's ability to maintain itself as sort of set in stone based upon DNA, and of course there's truth to that. But we also know the body can learn, that's literally what vaccines do. So the question becomes, if the unconscious mind can strategize it implies better or worse outcomes based upon "decisions" and learning. Peanut Allergies are less likely to exist in populations that are around peanuts than those without. We know this, but I'm not sure I've seen anyone explain the mechanism that causes this to be true.
I'm also not a biologist so it's probably completely ignorant, but that doesn't stop it from being fun to think about.