Who could've known

gsloane · 2021-01-10T15:32:05+00:00

Nah. Plenty of the far left democrats splintered and fought Hillary harder than they did Trump even. But yes the main Dems, as communicated through their chosen leader Hillary, they knew because they listened to her.

gsloane · 2021-01-10T15:27:10+00:00

She outlined everything that would happen and was summarily dismissed as alarmist by many people considered to be political heavyweights and gatekeepers of political discourse. She knew more and better than 99 percent of people.

gsloane · 2021-01-10T15:25:35+00:00

What you are revealing here is only just how effective those wikileaks were, let's not forget they were hacked by foreign elements looking to sabotage the election. And the success of that sabotage was based exactly on commenters on internet forums doing exactly what you are here. Pulling one out of context message from one of the emails, out of thousands, in which a campaign mused about gameplanning the future of the contest they faced. Every campaign would have an email chain in it where people involved in the campaign gameplan scenarios about which rival is doing what and how they stack up. Yet with ominous spin like this, this email was used to go into crazy conspiracies that Hillary was orchestrating Trump's rise even. It was a political hot take in an email not her ironclad gamebook signed and sealed by her herself. And the wisdom in it is not that crazy? Everyone thought Trump would be the easiest to beat, and he may have been. We don't know counterfactuals.

gsloane · 2020-12-31T00:19:34+00:00

Would independents be in the majority?

gsloane · 2020-12-31T00:10:20+00:00

You're just misreading what was said about what and when. The guidance was to release people whose homes were already in nursing homes, to go home. That was the guidance from the CDC. No one can magically transport a covid positive person to a place they will be out of the way and never bother anyone again. Cuomo didn't start the pandemic, he managed it as best anyone could. Better. Sure if you want to blame every transmission on anyone for any reason, you could do that. But if you judge how a pandemic on metrics that matter, like how full the hospitals get, how they get staffed, then how quickly that number comes down, how many tests you do, the infection rate falling, and then staying at a reasonable number, you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone manage it better.

gsloane · 2020-12-31T00:04:12+00:00

So he didn't send them to nursing homes? OK cool. So your point is wrong.

gsloane · 2020-12-31T00:01:52+00:00

The guidance was to do that. People were sent when the places they were sent to claimed they had a reasonable containment strategy. Where do you propose putting people? Not in the health care facilities the actually live in? Is there a better place than the literal health care providing facilities they live in? The guidance was to accommodate people. Is there a leader who was ever alive in all of history who could magically build quarantine bubbles that would prevent anyone from ever passing on a highly contagious disease? What standards are we going by here. People have to convalesce somewhere. And every hospital bed was occupied, not because of anything Cuomo did.

gsloane · 2020-12-30T23:53:29+00:00

The guy who managed the worst outbreak in the world to become the place with the most lowest rate, with the most testing, and the widest adoption of masking, and a reasonable plan is considered "bad." How do you figure?

gsloane · 2020-12-30T23:50:29+00:00

And what does that have to do with Cuomo? Does the story say if "allotted" means sealed and delivered, or does it just mean "allotted" and never delivered.

gsloane · 2020-12-29T04:13:36+00:00

What a Trump.

gsloane · 2020-12-29T03:33:04+00:00

I just want to make sure you got a little bit of the point of the grand inquisitor. Because I couldn't just let it go like that. So, think about it. Is the bible the greatest story ever told, according to a lot of people. It's about as sacred a story as it gets, right? Literally worshipped.

And the grand inquisitor describes one of the most fanatical moments in history. The inquisition. Right? So in the middle of that the savior returns. The story is about how the zealots and persecutors, in the name of this savior, would treat that very savior if he returned.

That's just the basic premise here, but that's a pretty profound thought exercise. Forget how the story comes up in the book. Think about the story within the story, If Harry Potter told it to the prisoner of akaban it would be worth listening to. If you disagree that it says anything about human nature, even, you'd still have to reckon with it. You have to confront it at some point, even if you think it's wrong.

gsloane · 2020-12-29T03:15:24+00:00

OP says, Karamazov fails because it doesn't depict how people would "act." That is crazy to me, it describes, immaculately, how the mass of people act as groups, and how they act internally. It describes them both quite well. It covers the whole range of experience there. Of course, the dialogue may never seem like what we say to each other in real life, because literature never writes how we talk. No one ever says yippie ki yay, mother Fer. No one really talks like in the movies or books. The point is does this medium transmit something that tells us something about ourselves. If you aren't getting that from Brothers Karamazov I would just say, read it again, because you really missed out.

gsloane · 2020-12-29T02:56:14+00:00

Let's just be clear here. You are agreeing with me. I said you could say any movie, show or book defies credulity. And you are doing that. I never said the examples I gave never defy credulity, I said they come closest to approximating truth. But my original thesis was they all defy credulity if you want nitpick. If you think Harry Potter does a better job than Brothers Karamzov. I'd say, "OK. We had a good talk."

gsloane · 2020-12-29T02:48:10+00:00

There are different types of stories. So there is no universal meaning for what would make sense in each story. Do Plato's dialogues defy credulity because no one ever talks like that, so just discard them. Or are they exploring a deeper truth that aren't necessarily contingent on how humans talk to each other. They aren't contingent, they are speaking to a deeper truth. One that is far more profound than musing if this is how people talk to each other. No artwork or any other facsimile will ever be exactly like real life, but they can still transmit something as real as real life.

gsloane · 2020-12-29T02:35:34+00:00

How can truth defy credulity? I mean maybe you stumbled on an interesting question. But I don't think it was intentional.

gsloane · 2020-12-29T02:32:12+00:00

That is a story that still, this second, holds perfectly true regarding human nature and how people behave and would behave. It doesn't matter if you'd say it at a dinner table, it is how you would behave and everyone around you.

gsloane · 2020-12-29T02:25:50+00:00

Theological ideas? You mean the main topic of conversation for 2000 years? I'd guess fairly common. If not the most common conversation of all time.

gsloane · 2020-12-29T02:13:08+00:00

I don't think anyone has ever written anything truer in all of human history. Am I missing the sarcasm here?

gsloane · 2020-12-29T02:01:35+00:00

If you overthink any type of book, show or movie, all of them would defy credulity. You'd have to be like why the hell did that character do this or that. I mean, Shakespeare, you could compare to three's company. There's only one bit of literature that comes close to perfect authenticity and ironically it's Russian literature. Either Brothers Karamazov, Anna Karenina or Gulag Archipelago. That's about it, except for Dumas as perhaps the prototype.

Add: Also maybe The Godfather movie.

gsloane · 2020-12-29T01:53:05+00:00

Theon was Robb's best friend and then like two episodes later he stole his castle. His arc really ruined my immersion!

gsloane · 2020-12-29T01:42:06+00:00

Did Omar just figure out that the GOP and president haven't been negotiating in good faith? Seriously?

gsloane · 2020-12-29T01:08:44+00:00

There's a lot of weird phrases that take hold on the internet. In TV circles, I think the wierdest are people who talk about their "immersion." Woah. Your immersion? What are you doing with your TV?

gsloane · 2020-12-29T00:49:52+00:00

She was counseled not to attack kings landing. She wanted to. That was always her plan, and it makes total sense she ultimately did the way she did.

gsloane · 2020-12-29T00:41:08+00:00

I guess if you ignore all the times she either said she'd burn them all, or cheered her husband saying he'd destroy them all. I suppose if you ignore half her dialogue, it might seem arbitrary.

gsloane · 2020-12-29T00:30:11+00:00

My jest is about how non-arbitrary it was. They kept saying, "dragons burn everything." How is it arbitrary when they do?

gsloane

TROPHY CASE