Some of them get it -- Sullivan Before the Election

[base698 20]

3 hours ago, jakee said:

 You said you don’t care, he shared his opinion of you not caring, you attacked him for falsely claiming you don’t care, and now have explicitly reiterated that you do in fact.., not care. 

Here's an AI analysis of the exchange:

 

This exchange centers around a fundamental misunderstanding and emotional response from Person A to Person B’s statement. Here’s a breakdown of each side:

1. Person A’s Interpretation and Response:

   • Person A seems to interpret Person B’s statement, "I actually don't care about any of those issues," as a sign of callousness toward potential human suffering, specifically the hypothetical mass deportation of undocumented immigrants.
   • Person A responds emotionally, focusing on empathy for the lives of undocumented individuals who might be affected by deportation. They interpret Person B’s detachment as apathy or even implicit support for harsh immigration policies.
   • Person A then takes a moral stance, suggesting that such perceived indifference would make it impossible to vote for anyone who held a similar view.

2. Person B’s Original Statement:

   • Person B’s response is minimal and straightforward, simply stating a lack of interest or concern in the specific issues Person A raised (deportation, drilling, and government agencies). This could imply:
     • A general indifference toward these political topics.
     • A disinterest in debating these specific issues at that time.
     • Or possibly a preference for focusing on other political priorities that aren’t mentioned here.

3. Analysis of the Misinterpretation:

   • Person A appears to project their own values and assumptions onto Person B's simple statement. Person B didn't express a stance on deportation or disregard for undocumented individuals; they simply said they don’t care about the specific issues raised. This doesn’t necessarily indicate indifference to human suffering—it might simply mean those aren’t the topics they’re focused on in political discussions.
   • Person A’s response, though well-meaning, reads as a misinterpretation. They assume that a lack of interest in certain issues equates to insensitivity or support for harmful policies. This is not supported by anything explicit in Person B’s words.

In summary, Person A is likely incorrect in interpreting Person B’s statement as callous disregard. The exchange highlights how discussions of political views can quickly become charged with assumptions and interpretations that aren't always warranted by the other party’s words. For clearer communication, Person A might consider directly asking for Person B’s views on the specific topics rather than making assumptions.

[jakee 1,535]

35 minutes ago, base698 said:

Here's an AI analysis of the exchange:

So you’ll immediately disbelieve anything that the media reports on (when it suits you) but you’ll take at face value anything an AI tool designed by Silicon Valley elites says? Ok.

37 minutes ago, base698 said:

Person A appears to project their own values and assumptions onto Person B's simple statement. Person B didn't express a stance on deportation or disregard for undocumented individuals; they simply said they don’t care about the specific issues raised. This doesn’t necessarily indicate indifference to human suffering—it might simply mean those aren’t the topics they’re focused on in political discussions.

Clearly you decided not to show it the entire discussion. You have explicitly clarified that it is the human suffering you don’t care about. 

[base698 20]

1 hour ago, jakee said:

So you’ll immediately disbelieve anything that the media reports on (when it suits you) but you’ll take at face value anything an AI tool designed by Silicon Valley elites says? Ok

Are you not capable of seeing three possible interpretations from the phrase, of which you picked the least charitable?

Here they are again: 

A general indifference toward these political topics.

A disinterest in debating these specific issues at that time.

Or possibly a preference for focusing on other political priorities that aren’t mentioned here.

I stated the third was what I meant, and even an AI tool understood that was possible.  Maybe I should have been more clear in my response but jumping directly to accuse me of callousness about a cause I don't think about deeply or rank in my priorities is exactly why people tire of the left.

"A homeless guy punched me in the face this morning on the way to work."

"Excuse me, they are just unhoused!"

> Clearly you decided not to show it the entire discussion. You have explicitly clarified that it is the human suffering you don’t care about.

Yes, to show that your assumption was wrong from the jump.  

Edited November 9, 2024 by base698

[jakee 1,535]

12 minutes ago, base698 said:

> Clearly you decided not to show it the entire discussion. You have explicitly clarified that it is the human suffering you don’t care about.

Yes, to show that your assumption was wrong from the jump.  

How could it be wrong when you have since clarified that it was indeed what you meant? You don’t say you care, but it was outweighed by other bigger concerns, you said you don’t care at all. 

But back to things you do care about - why  are the wars on your list when you only know about them through the media? Why are you making decisions based on what the media has told you?

[base698 20]

4 minutes ago, jakee said:

But back to things you do care about - why  are the wars on your list when you only know about them through the media? Why are you making decisions based on what the media has told you?

Opportunity cost.  I know a lot of dead opiate addicts, the media reports there are 100k a year it seems to jive with personal experience.  In addition, the town I grew up in is post industrial and no one has really figured out what to do about it.  Tons of despair, addiction and no route to being productive.

 

[base698 20]

8 minutes ago, jakee said:

How could it be wrong when you have since clarified that it was indeed what you meant?

I stated I have other concerns.  The world has infinite suffering.  The way this is supposed to work is a bunch of people go to the polls and some people care about immigrants. Others care about deindustrialization and children of addicts.  Everyone votes.  

America's suffering, and suffering I am familiar with, took priority, individuals don't have infinite time or resources to consider every kind of suffering.

 

[gowlerk 2,218]

3 minutes ago, base698 said:

Opportunity cost.  I know a lot of dead opiate addicts, the media reports there are 100k a year it seems to jive with personal experience.  In addition, the town I grew up in is post industrial and no one has really figured out what to do about it.  Tons of despair, addiction and no route to being productive.

 

I can offer no real solution to that problem which is just as bad here in Canada. Are you saying that in desperation you support Trump in the hope that he can somehow help this? Do you think that so many resources are going into Ukraine that it is causing rampant drug use and addiction?

[base698 20]

7 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Are you saying that in desperation you support Trump in the hope that he can somehow help this

I voted Vance and Elon, sucks it had to be Trump, and expected Elon to get involved after Trump, but here we are.  Vance has direct experience with addiction and post industrial issues. He even wrote a book about it. 

Elon, whom I am sure if I go back a few pages will be accused of being an idiot for buying Twitter. Elon is such a dumbass. He spent $44 billion on Twitter and all he got was control of all 3 branches of the federal government. 

[gowlerk 2,218]

2 minutes ago, base698 said:

I voted Vance and Elon, sucks it had to be Trump,

I'm confused, you seem to be defending him and saying that all the bad things he has done are really just inventions of the media. As if "the media" is under the control of some evildoer. I remember first hear about Vance and his book when it first came out. He was interviewed quite extensively on NPR which I listen to a lot. He did indeed have a many interesting viewpoints and things to say. And he clearly showed that he understood the immorality and danger that Trumpism and MAGA represented to him and to the nation. And now he even more clearly has shown how the lure of money and power can corrupt an ambitious person. 

I sincerely believe that you and many like you have been fooled. The people who worked very closely with Trump nearly all have warned you that they have seen him up close and that he is basically not interested in helping anyone but himself. The only thing you are going to get out of this election result is the joy of sticking it the libs. Enjoy it while it lasts because lighting dumpsters on fire is what comes next. These people can be counted on to continue to attack those they don't like and to try to impose their will but they are not interested in helping drug addicts. 

[JerryBaumchen 1,387]

8 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

I'm confused, you seem to be defending him and saying that all the bad things he has done are really just inventions of the media. As if "the media" is under the control of some evildoer. I remember first hear about Vance and his book when it first came out. He was interviewed quite extensively on NPR which I listen to a lot. He did indeed have a many interesting viewpoints and things to say. And he clearly showed that he understood the immorality and danger that Trumpism and MAGA represented to him and to the nation. And now he even more clearly has shown how the lure of money and power can corrupt an ambitious person. 

I sincerely believe that you and many like you have been fooled. The people who worked very closely with Trump nearly all have warned you that they have seen him up close and that he is basically not interested in helping anyone but himself. The only thing you are going to get out of this election result is the joy of sticking it the libs. Enjoy it while it lasts because lighting dumpsters on fire is what comes next. These people can be counted on to continue to attack those they don't like and to try to impose their will but they are not interested in helping drug addicts. 

Hi Ken,

Re:  The people who worked very closely with Trump nearly all have warned you that they have seen him up close and that he is basically not interested in helping anyone but himself.

Trump has shown this his entire life; he will not change.

Re:   they are not interested in helping drug addicts. 

Just another form of 'suckers & losers' to Trump.  He will do nothing to solve this problem.  They are not squatting at Mar-A-Lago, so why care.

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  Re:   now he even more clearly has shown how the lure of money and power can corrupt an ambitious person. 

Yup.  

Edited November 9, 2024 by JerryBaumchen

[jakee 1,535]

48 minutes ago, base698 said:

Opportunity cost.  I know a lot of dead opiate addicts, the media reports there are 100k a year it seems to jive with personal experience.  In addition, the town I grew up in is post industrial and no one has really figured out what to do about it.  Tons of despair, addiction and no route to being productive.

What does that have to do with a war you only think is being fought because the media tells you it is? Money you only think is being spent on it because the media tells you it is? 

[jakee 1,535]

44 minutes ago, base698 said:

I stated I have other concerns. 

And that you don’t care, at all.

33 minutes ago, base698 said:

 Elon is such a dumbass. He spent $44 billion on Twitter and all he got was control of all 3 branches of the federal government. 

What is it you think the most selfish man in the world is going to do with it?

[base698 20]

52 minutes ago, jakee said:

What does that have to do with a war you only think is being fought because the media tells you it is? Money you only think is being spent on it because the media tells you it is? 

I know in the years I paid almost $200k in taxes I have yet to see any improvements in any of the areas I've lived.  Everything seems to get worse consistently.

Also, like I stated above my p(media is telling the truth) is 5%.  Not zero.  That means for every 100 stories on average I would be inclined to believe 5 of them.  Conditioning on the type of story (trump is racist, sexist, racist) it probably goes down.  But not to zero.  For instance, I believe the Miss Teen story about him.

[base698 20]

53 minutes ago, jakee said:

What is it you think the most selfish man in the world is going to do with it?

Hopefully whatever you find the most horrifying.  Making the immigrants work in cobalt mines to build Tesla batteries?  Using IV drug users as rocket fuel?

[base698 20]

1 hour ago, gowlerk said:

I'm confused, you seem to be defending him and saying that all the bad things he has done are really just inventions of the media. As if "the media" is under the control of some evildoer. I remember first hear about Vance and his book when it first came out

Sigh.  Trump sucks.  I have no confidence in the Democrats to solve any of the problems I see in the world, and most of their policies seem to make things worse.  In addition, they actively campaigned to get me fired.  Boomers, would not have voted for Vivek or someone else so alas, we have Elon and Vance to align with someone to fix things.

I think I quoted earlier, "misery makes strange bedfellows"

[gowlerk 2,218]

24 minutes ago, base698 said:

I think I quoted earlier, "misery makes strange bedfellows"

I appreciate that you are making an effort to explain. Democrats do not have answers either, that is very true. But they are not led by someone who is basically evil and a con man. So the main thing I can take from you is that you are conservative and believe in conservative policy over what a liberal administration would bring. No matter who is the leader, you don't care, it doesn't matter. 

[jakee 1,535]

35 minutes ago, base698 said:

Also, like I stated above my p(media is telling the truth) is 5%.  Not zero.  That means for every 100 stories on average I would be inclined to believe 5 of them. 

So what are the chances that both wars they tell you are being fought are actually being fought and that the USA has any involvement whatsoever in either of them? After all, you only have the media’s word for any of it.

39 minutes ago, base698 said:

Conditioning on the type of story (trump is racist, sexist, racist) it probably goes down.  But not to zero.  For instance, I believe the Miss Teen story about him.

You believe he is a pervert who spies on underage girls getting dressed and therefore you choose to disbelieve any suggestion that he’s a sexist? 

[jakee 1,535]

42 minutes ago, base698 said:

Hopefully whatever you find the most horrifying.  Making the immigrants work in cobalt mines to build Tesla batteries?  Using IV drug users as rocket fuel?

That’s what I thought.

[kallend 2,067]

Unfortunately the "winner take all" system we have here totally disregards that the winning margin is in low single digits, and the winner may well be extreme, like implementing Project 2025 (which, I suspect, even a lot of Trump voters don't/won't like)  with no incentive whatsoever to compromise with the very large minority. 

Added to that, if the winner turns out to be really awful, it is almost impossible to get rid of them (as compared to a parliamentary system where dreadful leaders can be got rid of pretty quickly).

And a system where an indicted criminal gets to choose his/her own judges is just absurd beyond belief.

[base698 20]

1 hour ago, gowlerk said:

the main thing I can take from you is that you are conservative and believe in conservative policy over what a liberal administration would bring. No matter who is the leader, you don't care, it doesn't matter. 

I think it's close.  Wasn't a Trump fan.  Aware of some of his faults, never voted red until very recently.

Been kind of on the anti woke bandwagon in a few instances (donglegate being the most notable) but still a dem voter.

Even voted yes on weed this time in Florida but can see why it failed and was kind of glad it did.  In case you ask, smelling it in public sucks and it's already prevalent on the beach.  

Edited November 10, 2024 by base698

[JoeWeber 2,769]

5 hours ago, base698 said:

I think it's close.  Wasn't a Trump fan.  Aware of some of his faults, never voted red until very recently.

Been kind of on the anti woke bandwagon in a few instances (donglegate being the most notable) but still a dem voter.

Even voted yes on weed this time in Florida but can see why it failed and was kind of glad it did.  In case you ask, smelling it in public sucks and it's already prevalent on the beach.  

At the end of the day you voted for a convicted felon. You agree he’s odious but you held your nose and voted for him in the hopes that his VP and Billionaire fanboy, both who are obviously in it for themselves, might do some good. Trump, you think, with his Supreme Court enablers will temper his worst impulses? You are in for an awakening.

[base698 20]

5 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

At the end of the day you voted for a convicted felon.

Show me the man and I'll show you the crime

Lavrentiy Beria, prime deputy under Joseph Stalin. 

[olofscience 487]

14 hours ago, base698 said:

I think I quoted earlier, "misery makes strange bedfellows"

Sorry to hear about the issues in your town. Could you share the name of the town? I'd like to check again in 4 years if anything improves for it.

[base698 20]

4 minutes ago, olofscience said:

Sorry to hear about the issues in your town. Could you share the name of the town? I'd like to check again in 4 years if anything improves for it.

I was jointly referring to Santa Monica, which I left in 2020 and various towns in NC not in the major hubs, if you can call NC cities a major hubs.

[jakee 1,535]

55 minutes ago, base698 said:

Show me the man and I'll show you the crime

Lavrentiy Beria, prime deputy under Joseph Stalin. 

For someone who says the problem with the media is that they portray Trump as a fascist you're awful quick to accuse the Dems of behaving like a communist dictatorship.

Ultimately, if the Dems were abusing the system the way you say they are, Trump wouldn't have won this election. You can't have it both ways.