Hot topic political thing about thing currently happening

[brainbomb]

Discuss the latest hot topic thing thats happening and have as extreme of viewpoints possible so oct can show up and have the most shrill conservative counter points here

[DiplomacyandWarfare]

I heard that brainbomb posted another joke post

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Oct is rarely shrill and not especially conservative.

His core worldview seems to be that nothing bad ever happens. It's an anti-alarmist instinct that's probably more often right than wrong—but it puts him on the side of reflexively defending people and actions that I believe even he thinks are reprehensible.

When cornered into accepting that something bad may in fact be happening, Oct almost always takes comfort in a no-new-things-under-the-sun understanding of history. That historical analogizing can indeed be grounding and useful. But it's way too often used as an implicit argument for "everything will be fine" even when things were clearly not fine in his own historical example, and when it was in fact people becoming agitated and upset (in a manner Oct never will) that improved the historical precedent he's pointing towards.

Oct's actual politics seem to be broadly populist. He perfectly typifies the "anti-anti-Trump" phenomenon—folks who are more upset about the excesses of anti-populist and anti-fascist movements than they are about the bad behaviour of the populists themselves (which they don't totally dispute).

Oct is truly the perfect match for Jamie. Jamie's approach risks making a ton of type 1 errors, Oct's approach risks making a ton of type 2 errors.

[Octavious]

The everything will be fine theory of yours is cute, but not particularly accurate. I have my red lines, but they don't typically apply to much that happens overseas over which I have no influence.

What I will say, and what used to be well understood but seems to have slipped somewhat in recent years, is that defending people who are reprehensible is rather important. Defending people who are broadly seen as the good guys is extremely easy and rarely necessary.

[Ernst_Brenner]

Trump tells Greta Thunberg to go to anger management. No, that's not an onion headline.

[Jamiet99uk]

Oct is rarely shrill and not especially conservative.

His core worldview seems to be that nothing bad ever happens. It's an anti-alarmist instinct that's probably more often right than wrong—but it puts him on the side of reflexively defending people and actions that I believe even he thinks are reprehensible.

When cornered into accepting that something bad may in fact be happening, Oct almost always takes comfort in a no-new-things-under-the-sun understanding of history. That historical analogizing can indeed be grounding and useful. But it's way too often used as an implicit argument for "everything will be fine" even when things were clearly not fine in his own historical example, and when it was in fact people becoming agitated and upset (in a manner Oct never will) that improved the historical precedent he's pointing towards.

Oct's actual politics seem to be broadly populist. He perfectly typifies the "anti-anti-Trump" phenomenon—folks who are more upset about the excesses of anti-populist and anti-fascist movements than they are about the bad behaviour of the populists themselves (which they don't totally dispute).

Oct is truly the perfect match for Jamie. Jamie's approach risks making a ton of type 1 errors, Oct's approach risks making a ton of type 2 errors.

So, essentially, what you are saying here is, Octavious and I should be running the country.

[Jamiet99uk]

Trump tells Greta Thunberg to go to anger management. No, that's not an onion headline.

Her anger is a powerful force.

[Jamiet99uk]

What I will say, and what used to be well understood but seems to have slipped somewhat in recent years, is that defending people who are reprehensible is rather important.

Why?

[Octavious]

What I will say, and what used to be well understood but seems to have slipped somewhat in recent years, is that defending people who are reprehensible is rather important.

Why?

For truth and just ice

[DiplomacyandWarfare]

What I will say, and what used to be well understood but seems to have slipped somewhat in recent years, is that defending people who are reprehensible is rather important.

Why?

For truth and just ice

Personally, I find just ice to be overrated. What we need is water

[Jamiet99uk]

Why?

For truth and just ice

Personally, I find just ice to be overrated. What we need is water

I DEMAND JUST ICE

[Klaus klauts]

Guys, have we just witnessed how Octavious and Jamie found common ground?

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

So, essentially, what you are saying here is, Octavious and I should be running the country.

The truth probably often lies between your and Oct's view, but the conflict of your views hasn't proven to be a reliable way to get at that truth—and occasionally, the friction it causes is probably counter productive. It's a microcosm of democracy.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

What I will say, and what used to be well understood but seems to have slipped somewhat in recent years, is that defending people who are reprehensible is rather important. Defending people who are broadly seen as the good guys is extremely easy and rarely necessary.

I don't mean to re-litigate old disputes on a joke thread, but there is such a thing as taking this virtuous charitably you describe above to absurd lengths. "Putin is not a dictator" is one memorable example. There's a fuzzy line somewhere between earnestly stress testing recieved wisdom and being unproductively contrarian—I think I've seen you on both sides of that line, but of course that's a matter of opinion.

[Jamiet99uk]

Guys, have we just witnessed how Octavious and Jamie found common ground?

We've established that he's wrong 50% of the time, and I'm wrong the other 50% of the time, so if we cancel each other out, we can be right 100% of the time.

That's science!

[Klaus klauts]

Guys, have we just witnessed how Octavious and Jamie found common ground?

We've established that he's wrong 50% of the time, and I'm wrong the other 50% of the time, so if we cancel each other out, we can be right 100% of the time.

That's science!

Unfortunately, those things work the other way around most of the time, so that you both would probably be right 0% of the time.

[DiplomacyandWarfare]

Guys, have we just witnessed how Octavious and Jamie found common ground?

We've established that he's wrong 50% of the time, and I'm wrong the other 50% of the time, so if we cancel each other out, we can be right 100% of the time.

That's science!

Unfortunately, those things work the other way around most of the time, so that you both would probably be right 0% of the time.

so jamie was wrong about the chances of them both being right, and therefore octavious was right!
nice job, octavious!

[yavuzovic]

We've established that he's wrong 50% of the time, and I'm wrong the other 50% of the time, so if we cancel each other out, we can be right 100% of the time.

That's science!

Unfortunately, those things work the other way around most of the time, so that you both would probably be right 0% of the time.

so jamie was wrong about the chances of them both being right, and therefore octavious was right!
nice job, octavious!

Quantum entanglement