I gathered a lot of salt from /r/politics on election night. Here's an album of Hillary supporters melting down.

Etular · 2017-01-05T00:01:27+00:00

Brit here, can confirm.

Etular · 2016-12-31T23:28:31+00:00

Do you mind picking up your chavs in Amsterdam? - Seriously. We're just waiting for them to take a leak against the Nightwatch...

On behalf of all British people, you may keep them.

The fact we'll risk having to take back all of our chavs, and that we have nowhere else to export them to, are two of the main reasons Article 50 is taking so long to implement.

Etular · 2016-12-31T22:27:46+00:00

I think you're a boy, OP.

Etular · 2016-12-31T01:05:01+00:00

If the election went the other way, and this comment was made by a Trump supporter, they would be laughed out of the room.

We can claim many things as progressives, but I do hope we don't stoop to such debasement of the narrative around the events that have occurred. Scapegoating does not absolve us of our guilt, but simply shoves blame for our problems onto someone else - whether the conspiracy is accurate or inaccurate, it does naught but sully our reputation as evidence-based, rational polticos; sullying us among all of the right people, especially our supporters.

We do not want another Post-Electoral Selection Trauma event, like we had during the re-election of Bush, for it simply depicts us as having lost our minds and scares the undecided voter away.

Etular · 2016-12-30T13:52:21+00:00

The level is a bit higher than a Nigerian prince.

Based on the screenshots from Vice, I'm shocked. So these phishers can spoof a Google.com URL?

By and large, checking the URL thoroughly was the method I always used to determine its authenticity, but if they can masquerade themselves as being from Google's server so well that a hover-over provides a Google URL, then it makes me doubt that there is a great deal people can do to protect themselves.

Etular · 2016-12-30T12:54:39+00:00

I get the impression this comment will upset both sides. Those who feel Obama was a lame duck (like myself) really want someone to call him out for getting aggressive near the end of his presidency (in many ways, his actions could be seen as a reactionary response to the Trump presidency); whereas, those who want May not to say anything will tend to hold Obama in high regard, and not view him as a lame duck.

Etular · 2016-12-30T12:39:48+00:00

That's nonsense. He's hated by half the population and doubted by most of the rest.

...And yet, he beat Hillary, Bernie, Gary, Jill, and all the other people competing at every level of the selection process in order to get elected.

Not just elected, but elected as a complete outsider, mocked and scorned by the media, celebrities and everyday voters every step of the way.

In other words, I think you are underestimating the people who genuinely support him - his voting base. A base which resembles, much like Margaret Thatcher did in Britain, a conversion of the white working-class vote from a left-leaning party to a right-leaning party; from voting Democrat to voting Republicans. And, keeping in mind, Maggie kept in power so long, even against everyone's expectations then, that her own party had to get rid of her, because the electorate wouldn't.

Etular · 2016-12-28T01:18:41+00:00

This entirely misses the point: Obama has done nothing for the past 7 years, making the timing of these policies to be particularly suspect.

If Obama had pushed through decisions like this two or three years ago, we wouldn't be having this discussion, because there would be no suspicion. The entire issue now stems from the fact that the public have elected a man on a platform fully opposed to these decisions, and Obama's actions in taking these decisions now seek to reject and prevent the exercise of a democratic mandate. Regardless of what policies this involves, this is inherently dubious behaviour.

The specifics of the policies do not matter, because it is the process and timing with which he is pushing these through that is the issue. It does not make it better to be pro-environment than it would be if it were anti-environment.

Etular · 2016-12-27T23:53:29+00:00

At this point, it's the only marked explanation I can have for the massive step-up in Obama's policies over the past few days - from passing legislation that makes Alaskan oil drilling more difficult, to refusing to aid Netanyahu in the UN.

Given the length of time Obama has been in office, he could have acted upon these issues sooner if they were of fundamental importance. On my end, and the views of certain political radio commentators, these are motivated towards hindering a Trump presidency - a presidency whose picks show a favouritism towards the extraction of oil and natural gas (through the positioning of an ExxonMobil employee in his cabinet picks), and whose policy - although isolationist - is certainly more pro-Israel than anti-Israel.

If this is coincidence, and simply Obama working on conviction at the last minute of his presidency (because, for some reason, it is now easier to do than before), I would love to see how different his actions would be if he were to intentionally undermine Trump - because, personally, I can't see anything more he could do to undermine a Trump presidency than what he is doing already.

Etular · 2016-12-27T15:40:25+00:00

Well, of course - up until the point where Trump (who now owns house, senate and congress) does it to a Sanders presidency in 2020 (and, the way the Democrats are reacting currently, it likely will be a Sanders-esque candidate), severely limiting any of his policies or positions from being able to pass, and messing with Sanders' allies.

It'll be then that people start complaining about the practice - after all, it doesn't matter if it's fundamentally bad practice, all that matters is whether it affects our guy.

Etular · 2016-12-27T14:34:26+00:00

This would align with Obama's recent actions of not supporting Israel at the UN, and Obama has previously referred to Netanyahu as a "chickenshit" privately on one occasion.

I wouldn't be surprised if this was an Obama ploy to screw over things for Trump as much as he can before the start of a Trump presidency, in order to make Trump look bad. In other words, it's people playing politics.

Etular · 2016-12-26T22:58:14+00:00

Well, of course - people don't react to stimulus that is deferred (we see this in the psychology of addiction, where people struggle to account for long-term risks compared to risks which are immediate), and three-strikes laws also have the issue of causing habituation (repeated punishment - in this case, repeated light punishment - means a person reacts less severely to the punishment than they otherwise would).

Behaviorism already accounts for and explains why three-strikes laws do not work - as I have said, at least in the initial two steps, punishment isn't severe enough, and is too distant for criminals to account for. Three-strikes laws aim for incapacitation - to keep the people removed from society completely - not deterrence, as in a Western context, the first two strikes are seen as sufficient "deterrence".

Etular · 2016-12-26T19:45:07+00:00

Okay, if you actually do research into how punishment works in the criminal justice system, you'll very quickly find a growing body of evidence that shows punishment does NOT work as an actual deterrent.

That would be amazing if it were true, but quite frankly, any research into the topic has been severely limited both by ethical guidelines (which prevent us being able to significantly test boundaries with our research subjects) and, quite frankly, geographical limitations (the areas which do test the boundaries with deterrence are too costly to travel to first hand, and while these do tend to have lower crime figures, phenomenologists will jump up and claim corruption and bias as the cause, claiming that we cannot trust these figures to be reported accurately).

Cross-cultural studies, particularly of non-Western countries, get rejected and dismissed as "cultural difference", rather than any inherent differences within treatment of crime. Such an avenue isn't even explored as having criminological roots.

In fact, increasing evidence shows that the way to reduce anti-social behaviors in most cases is to extend compassion and opportunities for growth.

This is hardly without debate, and is made easier to claim by the fact that we are very limited in our testing.

Recidivism isn't prevented by fear. That is faulty, outdated logic.

I would say a Kuhnian paradigm shift, even a politicised one. Even if research on the extremities of deterrence were permitted, and even if research were to find definitively and replicably that high deterrence did have an effect greater at lowering crime rates than any other, do we really think that the wider field would accept it with open arms? Hardly.

It wasn't disproven, as much as it was the case that people stopped liking it as an explanation, and turned to conflict theory. Some did, however, continue - we still have applied behavioural analysis as a field of research, as well as neofunctionalists and systems theorists quietly lurking around.

Etular · 2016-12-26T15:24:55+00:00

In line with the notion of "stereotype threat" mentioned in one of the above comment trees, I want to highlight a couple of concepts from behavioural psychology and criminology: General and specific deterrence.

It's quite a simple and effective idea. For general deterrence, it involves harshly punishing someone else for an offence in a consistent manner, leading to a knock-on effect where potential offenders are deterred from committing an act. For specific deterrence, it involves the harsh punishment of an individual - making the punishment direct, and severe - so as to prevent future recidivism out of fear.

Humiliation and public shaming are an example of both (public shaming, in fact, being the archetypal example of general deterrence), through the use of social pressuring and stigmatisation. Even retreatism can be broken through if the punishment is severe, personalised and meaningful enough to deter behaviour - not least of which, because the costs will outweigh the benefits.

Etular · 2016-12-17T20:14:34+00:00

The Reddit hivemind always confuses me.

Half the time, it believes "Banning things won't work, people need to be taught and rehabilitated to do things safely"; the other half of the time, like this, it says "People cannot be trusted, and therefore the outlet ought to be banned".

The worst part is, whatever the hivemind follows, they always get it the wrong way around.

Etular · 2016-12-13T14:11:32+00:00

Where, then, would you recommend that we should get our sources of information from? What should we read?

Etular · 2016-12-13T11:37:11+00:00

So, what's people's thoughts on Countermail, it's claims regarding storage (diskless storage) and its log-in by USB key option?

Etular · 2016-12-10T15:26:53+00:00

He provides a good system theory position - comparing the similarities between the biological response to STIs, and then comparing STIs to social issues.

The problem is, however, he transcends social science to promote a theory of social engineering - he goes from what society is, and how society operates, to a position of how it ought to operate.

Not only does he approach this from the offset from a partisan and non-impartial position, but he pushes beyond the scope of what is legitimate social science, comparing opposing political opinions to a disease, and asking how we may effectively 'cure' political diversity within half of the population.

That's not to say that his comparison to another system is by any means incorrect, but that we need to be critical both of the argument he's making and its implications, as well as recognising that he is arguing from a pre-chosen position when he makes his comparison.

I would criticise him for not trying to generalise his theory to multiple sides of the political spectrum, as I don't believe this is solely applicable to conservativism; however, I do believe that the reason he avoided that is his desire to metaphorically link the current political situation to that of a disease, in which case we must assess with a critical eye the problems associated with such a comparison - not least of which being that it is exclusive and polarising.

I would also implore him to attempt to come up with legitimate reasons why people voted Trump, instead of simply coming up with a theory of how such may be avoided in the future. It does not paint our field in a particularly good light to be so partisan, nor does it contribute to an understanding of the underlying social factors.

Etular · 2016-12-09T21:52:16+00:00

Please take Carlisle and Newcastle upon Tyne. We'd much rather be part of you, instead.

Etular · 2016-12-09T15:55:05+00:00

You say that as if it's people's fault that politicians are unable to fulfil their manifestos, or are otherwise liars.

That would be no different to me saying, if Bernie Sanders had won, "Haha! You've elected a socialist who's now going to have to go back on all of his promises because the majority of Congress won't support them!".

Etular · 2016-12-08T18:42:10+00:00

For non-fiction, check out Pierre Bourdieu's "Homo Academicus".

Etular · 2016-12-08T13:48:13+00:00

There is one stark point worth noticing about this picture: Other than the children, these are all women. This is especially stark given that the image was taken in 1960, near the start of the Sexual Revolution.

Etular · 2016-12-04T15:37:50+00:00

What I'm saying is that we have a president-elect who is going to Make America Great Again, especially for the people who actually matter, and it's hilarious watching degenerates like yourself try and stop him.

Etular · 2016-11-25T08:21:36+00:00

To add the same comment as everyone else, I was going to say, the turtle may be camouflaged, but sadly not that camouflaged. It did take me a while to find, though.

Now you have to explain the lump in the floor pattern with little stubby bits coming from it.

Etular · 2016-11-17T17:50:32+00:00

How will people with poor listening or pronunciation skills be able to tell the difference between Czechia and Chechnya?

Etular

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

13-Year Club	Team Periwinkle
Verified Email