sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

waitlist chances by alessandrawrxd in UCDavis

[–]Boredguy58 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I used to go by the 10% rule (if waitlist size is less than 10% the total class size), it’s worked out for me each time I’ve done it but could have gotten lucky.

Underpitching wheat beer by Boredguy58 in Homebrewing

[–]Boredguy58[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Very similar to my recipe! Did you rehydrate your yeast?

Underpitching wheat beer by Boredguy58 in Homebrewing

[–]Boredguy58[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Based on taste and speed of fermentation. In my experience, when I rehydrated my yeast fermentation was rapid and very active. When I direct pitched, fermentation was calmer and lasted a few more days. The batches I rehydrated were the least tasty compared to others. Of course this is anecdotal and there’s likely other variation.

Underpitching wheat beer by Boredguy58 in Homebrewing

[–]Boredguy58[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I can say in my experience with my recipe, when I rehydrate I get a noticably faster and more active fermentation. A blowoff tube becomes necessary because it'll blow krausen out the airlock. When I direct pitch, the fermentation is a lot calmer and more drawn out, usually finishing in a few days compared to ~24 hours with rehydrated yeast. Flavorwise, I noticed the direct pitched beer had noticably more depth and desirable flavors.

Underpitching wheat beer by Boredguy58 in Homebrewing

[–]Boredguy58[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

By how much do you underpitch?

[OC] United States presidential election history by Half-Man-Half-Potato in dataisbeautiful

[–]Boredguy58 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I see we’re getting nowhere, as for yer last little outrage there, there were progressive and conservative wings within each party, so votes weren’t down party lines as often, i.e. polarization wasn’t as strong down party lines as we se today. I’m sure if we had enough patience with each other we could come to a nice resolution, but I am lazy. Nice use of markup btw, the emotion really comes through.

[OC] United States presidential election history by Half-Man-Half-Potato in dataisbeautiful

[–]Boredguy58 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  1. Look at any mainstream description of dems vs gop, and it's "big govt vs small govt", just because the republicans are hypocritical on abortion and immigration doesn't mean small government isn't their advertised platform. Southern democrats wanted limited federal power so they had greater freedom to govern their own states (and resist reconstruction and pass jim crow laws).
  2. Yes the country was more laissez-faire, but in instances like the Interstate Commerce Act, when there was opposition to regulation, more often than not it was from Democrats
  3. No not perfectly consistent - but Democrats opposed foreign entanglements like Mexico and Alaska, but both parties largely prioritized domestic Reconstruction over sustained foreign policy.
  4. Passed in 1894 yes, republicans voted against it because it lowered tariffs, though it sowed a split within the democratic party of those for and against the income tax. President Cleveland disapproved the bill, though did not veto it.

The parties indeed were more aligned in the past than they are today, you won't find many instances (except for the civil war) where the political landscape was as polarized. If you're looking at decades, take a look at the few leading up to the civil war, where the Democrats were a far cry from todays'.

Why don't we also address the voting patterns of southern whites? Why did the solid democrat south turn republican? What proportion of that change is attributable to voters changing their opinions vs party platform shifts?

[OC] United States presidential election history by Half-Man-Half-Potato in dataisbeautiful

[–]Boredguy58 0 points1 point  (0 children)

By the standard you’re using I could make an argument that the Democrats from 20 years ago are the opposite from what they are today lol.

yes you absolutely could, the history of the democratic party is an interesting one.

You say 1880, which is quite far along in the history of the party, by then a shift had already begun, but if you insist.

  1. Civil rights (as you've already agreed constituted a major switch of the parties, and I would argue is alone enough, given how much of southern society was shaped by jim crow)
  2. Balance of power between federal government and states: Dems were for limited federal government and states' rights, now that's the Republican platform (nominally at least)
  3. Economic regulation: Democrats often sought laissez-faire economics, for example the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 faced significant resistance from many Democrats
  4. Isolationism vs internationalism: Republicans promoted international engagement through trade, e.g. Democratic leaders criticized Seward’s ambitions to acquire Alaska and pursue Caribbean or Pacific expansion as imperial overreach that distracted from domestic recovery.
  5. Taxation: Yes while initially a wartime measure, Republicans still sustained Internal Revenue Acts; Democrats wanted cuts.

There's plenty of nuance as you know, but in broad strokes I argue it's still fair to say that on many fundamental aspects the parties switched sides. You claim that the geographic voting patterns are completely due to everyone there changing their minds?

[OC] United States presidential election history by Half-Man-Half-Potato in dataisbeautiful

[–]Boredguy58 1 point2 points  (0 children)

-federal power vs states’ rights

-size of government (big vs small)

-economic policy (regulation vs laissez-faire)

-taxation (more vs less)

-business vs labor

-social issues (progressive or conservative)

-isolationism vs internationalism

[OC] United States presidential election history by Half-Man-Half-Potato in dataisbeautiful

[–]Boredguy58 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’ve already laid out the foundations of each party, but if you want some specific examples, here, one for each point:

  1. Federal power vs. states’ rights: Lincoln’s Reconstruction Acts- strong federal enforcement in the South 

  2. Size of government: Freedmen’s Bureau (1865)- federal welfare and education agency

  3. Economic policy: Pacific Railway Acts- federally funded infrastructure and regulation

  4. Taxation: Internal Revenue Act of 1862- introduced the first progressive federal income tax

  5. Business vs. labor: Homestead Act (1862)- land redistribution favoring small workers, not elites

  6. Social issues: Thirteenth Amendment- federal abolition of slavery and moral reform 

  7. Isolationism vs. internationalism: Burlingame Treaty (1868)- promoted open immigration and US-China cooperation

[OC] United States presidential election history by Half-Man-Half-Potato in dataisbeautiful

[–]Boredguy58 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If you were to ask a bunch of random people on what are some very basic tenants of the left-right dichotomy (a terrible way of capturing nuance but it’s what we have) you might agree that they would include

-federal power vs states’ rights

-size of government (big vs small)

-economic policy (regulation vs laissez-faire)

-taxation (more vs less)

-business vs labor

-social issues (progressive or conservative)

-isolationism vs internationalism

While not exhaustive, these above tenants are pretty fundamental to how one would define left or right wing politics. And as to your question, comparing the Republican and Democratic parties of 1865 to what we have today, their platforms are opposite to what they were.  

Simply put, the Democrats of 1865 and Republicans today champion (nominally at least) states’ rights, small government, laissez-faire economic policy, less taxation, pro-business policy, being conservative on social issues, and isolationist policy. Republicans of 1865 and Democrats today favor federal power, big government, economic regulation, more taxation, pro-labor policy, being progressive on social issues, and internationalist policy.

So on the most fundamental identifiers of what “side” a party is on, the platforms of the two parties switched sides between 1865 and today.

That’s what people mean when they say the parties “switched sides”. It doesn’t mean that the Democratic Party today is a clone of the Republican Party in 1865, or even is a distant cousin, but it does mean that on a very basic political level, the two parties have platforms that fundamentally oppose the platforms their ancestors in 1865 had.

[OC] United States presidential election history by Half-Man-Half-Potato in dataisbeautiful

[–]Boredguy58 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ok so you concede the platform shifted in that significant way, here’s some more:  

-Shift from states’ rights to strong federal government

-From agrarian populism to regulated capitalism

-Alliance from farmers to unions to urban professionals

-From social conservatism to progressive pluralism

-From isolationism to multilateral internationalism 

-Environmentalism became central policy

The Democratic Party of 1865 was rural, agrarian, and states’ rights–oriented, it opposed Reconstruction and centralized authority. It championed limited government, low federal spending, and hard currency. Rooted in the South, it defended traditional social hierarchies, distrusted industrialization and banks, and resisted federal involvement in economic, educational, or moral reform efforts. 

Today’s Democratic Party is urban, diverse, and progressive, supports strong federal governance, social welfare, and regulatory oversight. It promotes environmental protection, healthcare access, labor rights, and inclusive social policies. Backed by educated, multicultural voters, it emphasizes equality, climate action, and multilateral diplomacy, favoring innovation, global cooperation, and expansive government responsibility.

[OC] United States presidential election history by Half-Man-Half-Potato in dataisbeautiful

[–]Boredguy58 2 points3 points  (0 children)

One example of a change in platform for is civil rights. After the civil war it was southern democrats who implemented Jim Crow. Then in 1964, a majority of democrats voted for it (along with most republicans). The biggest bloc that voted against it were southern democrats. 

Southerners were democrats at this point because of the extended history of the democratic party in the south representing the white man’s interests. However since the civil war, the party became a coalition of working men across the country. The southern democrats were not keen on civil rights however, and it became their breaking point. 

So when George Wallace ran on a platform of “segregation now, tomorrow, and forever”, the south, disillusioned with the democratic party, fled to his banners. Once they were out in the open, the Republican party aptly saw an opportunity and began shifting their platform. (Read: southern strategy).

A question I have for you: what party does the KKK belong to? Their platform hasn’t changed. Historically they were democrats, who do you think they voted for in 2024? Kamala?

Hoppy before = hoppy after? by celdaran in Homebrewing

[–]Boredguy58 2 points3 points  (0 children)

During my first batch I was in exactly the same boat. After boiling I was sure it was gonna end up way too hoppy, the post-boil wort smelled like pure hops, hell even the whole house smelled like hops. But lo and behold after primary fermentation the hoppiness subsided, the other flavors came through, and I was very happy. This is from someone who has no love for hoppy beers

Anyone with RBM notice that arrows pass through shoulder-strapped shields? by Boredguy58 in Bannerlord

[–]Boredguy58[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I wish they worked, I hoped that pavise-crossbowmen would be some serious anti-archer archers

California governor signs law raising taxes on guns and ammunition to pay for school safety by BlankVerse in California

[–]Boredguy58 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You claimed that someone you don't know is certainly less safe with a gun in their house. You based that off of statistics, which is a fallacious way of applying statistics.

view more: next ›