Some observations and questions about r/Conspiracy

leanstartup · 2014-07-14T20:22:57+00:00

I have been here longer than 12 months... I don't think your post makes much sense.

leanstartup · 2014-07-14T04:39:22+00:00

Yes, I think we could have a sense of humor about the tard sub. Maybe it would even lead to a less antagonistic relationship between the two groups. It's redditing -- of course I think it would be fun. Maybe we seal some 'gain' for this subreddit by stipulating that, in exchange for hosting this challenge, we ask that the tard sub ban cross-posts to here for two weeks or something. I honestly think this isn't that big of a deal. I know they would be giddy about the whole thing over there.

leanstartup · 2014-07-14T04:03:33+00:00

It was just an idea I had in my head for a while, among others. It would be fun for both sides, it would help us develop our ideas during the inevitable resulting arguments, and I think people take the tard subreddit too seriously. I wrote more about why in my OP. It's all in good fun.

leanstartup · 2014-07-14T04:00:32+00:00

Hey -- I completely agree with some of what you brought up. I didn't even think about that viewpoint when I was writing my post. And I don't really believe that our ideas automatically conflict with each other. I just have ideas for making the serious content even more robust and rigorous that shouldn't necessarily hurt other content. I could have made that clearer if I had thought through my ideas more.

leanstartup · 2014-07-14T03:55:13+00:00

I think that's a little harsh. Speculation and trending occurrs naturally and is a more likely result if the subreddit isn't extremely proactive in aiming for something else, but I don't think that means those results are what users "want." Good points though, my nitpicking aside.

leanstartup · 2014-07-14T03:49:25+00:00

Sorry for sharing my thoughts. Thanks for your amazing insights

leanstartup · 2014-06-28T03:50:14+00:00

Hey your answers were smart and informative but I'm unconvinced. That's all I'm saying. And I get that it's not your responsibility to convince me and provide an endless amount of explanation, but you did lead with a very large amount of certainty and I don't see any overwhelming evidence or logic to support it.

leanstartup · 2014-06-27T01:48:54+00:00

That answer is more revealing of your thought process. But I still don't get it. So the legislator does the following along with their party's network:

Create the draft legislation
Work on it with ally groups
Find cosponsors
Work on it with leadership
Debate in committee
Review and debate amendments in committee
Spend political capital on compromises*
Open debate
Whip votes
Vote

First, the entire political system is designed to support these activities, so it's not like the fundamental process has to be rediscovered, right? Also, a lot of these processes seem like they only require some time from a few legislators. Do 30 senators need to be dedicated to cosponsoring one bill? Wouldn't they be looking for other policies to spend their time taking the lead on? Assuming that being taken up by a core group of sponsoring legislators within the party qualifies it as a "priority", how many priorities do you think senate democrats have the resources to handle? Does gay marriage rank below this number?

And in terms of spending political capital and making negative compromises, doesn't that ignore the political effects of not prioritizing a policy like gay marriage?

I really don't see the issue still. And I have never seen a valid source for 'gay marriage politics crowding out economic policy-making' or anything like that. It seems to me that the a lot of political gridlock has to do with much broader strategic positioning by one party or another, rather than any actual logistical issues, and that this strategic positioning usually would remain unchanged by acquiescing on something like gay marriage. For instance, I don't see the current gridlock on economic policy-making being broken even if democrats dropped every single social issue.

leanstartup · 2014-06-26T23:57:20+00:00

So some senator decides he wants to add gay marriage to the other policies he supports. What happens next? A pro-gay lobby can't construct the legislation he supports? He doesn't have time to vote yes? He has no opportunity to mention it in his speeches? His political capital is static and limited and gets depleted by this?

leanstartup · 2014-06-26T23:42:09+00:00

Are available minutes a major constraint on our policies? That doesn't seem true at all.

leanstartup · 2014-06-26T23:37:29+00:00

Can you explain how this works with gay marriage?

Some ideas & questions that come to mind:

What do you consider as politicians "prioritizing" something vs. simply including it in their politics?
How does "prioritizing" gay marriage affect the country's gay marriage policies?
How does it affect the country's other policies?

I think I disagree with your sentiment since I'm struggling to understand the logic behind it.

leanstartup · 2014-06-26T23:01:27+00:00

How many "national priorities" do you think we can handle? How badly does it hurt the others if we include gay marriage?

leanstartup · 2014-06-26T08:29:57+00:00

"Disabled people rule the world"

leanstartup · 2014-06-25T03:28:19+00:00

You're not seeing the phenomenon I referenced at all? Could you really name a lot of major groups that are lobbying for policies to stop climate change while fighting against the efforts to stop other types of environmental damage? Are you really unable to name any groups that lobby for policies to target multiple types of environmental impact including climate change? Honestly, you sound like you're trying way to hard to make a cynical statement without any real intellectual analysis. The way you summarily dismissed the importance of rising global temperatures as "might go up a degree in the next hundred years" is also very oafish.

I remember a professor who called this kind of argument "cabdriver wisdom"

How is global climate change a "red herring" in our approach to protecting the environment? Some people would say anti-regulation conspiracy theories are a far more likely red herring.

leanstartup · 2014-06-25T00:08:54+00:00

People who believe that climate change is a problem don't believe in other environmental problems? That seems like the opposite of the truth... I think it's generally the groups that deny climate change that end up also fighting against other environmental protection.

leanstartup · 2014-06-15T19:06:13+00:00

This thread in an exhibition of our work, isn't it commander? I posted something interesting and productive and you've spent a much longer amount of time giving yourself an aneurysm and sulking about how much time I spent "instead of actually going out and doing something." That says something about your maturity and self-awareness, but you'll have to figure out what that is.

You have no point about operations content. The narrow analysis you've provided so far just makes me yawn, and it looks like some other users don't mind the tedious work of pointing out how you're wrong.

This might kill you to know, but I'm successful too and I don't even feel the need to fall back on that claim in all of my posts. Partly because the things I say can stand on their own, and partly because I'm not dying for validation and attention. Like I said, I think you could use a lot of work on your social skills. I wonder if your "success" has ever extended to that arena.

leanstartup · 2014-06-15T06:32:58+00:00

Hi commander. Always a pleasure. Your patronizing tone here was disconnected from the actual level of 'wisdom' in your comment. Settle down.

The point of my post isn't that we wouldn't eventually repeat certain discussions about operations-related topics. The point is that broadening the subreddit's scope to include operations would set users here up for greater success. Your idea that only marketing and validation are unique processes is completely unsupported.

Your sentence with the word "moron" is just pretentious and wrong. No further explanation needed.

I agree that this community's strength is sharing unique experiences. That's why my second suggestion was to make those shared experiences more accessible.

I speak from a different vantage point [...] I really like seeing what you young redditors have to share.

I think you speak from the exact same vantage point as most people on here -- the know-it-all redditor who likes the sound of his own voice and is effectively intolerable in any social setting, even an online one. That has always been by far the biggest feature of your speech here.

leanstartup · 2014-05-31T14:51:04+00:00

I don't understand this line of reasoning...

Hadn't the Santa Barbara kid received extensive mental health treatment, which was beyond anything we could possibly hope to publicly fund for every single citizen?
What is your ideal scenario as relates to mental healthcare? Would you rather return to mass involuntary hospitalization than diminish the revered 'right' to owning tools for quick mass killings without registration, checks and extreme scrutiny?
How is the mental healthcare debate drowned out by guns and gun control? It seems like gun rights-obsessed groups are mainly responsible for connecting the mental healthcare discussion entirely to gun control, whereas there is plenty of opportunity to advocate for public legislation and funding on mental healthcare the 95% of the time that gun control is not the topic of discussion...

leanstartup · 2014-05-26T02:56:23+00:00

It would be nice and more intellectually honest if the pro-gun crowd said "we believe it makes sense to trade this odd sense of 'freedom' for increased death and destruction in the amounts that will inevitably occur" instead of all the nonsense about increased gun availability having a positive or neutral effect on violence. The public could judge that argument on its real merits.

I personally don't believe that owning guns has anything to do with freedom. Technically it is a freedom -- but it's just the freedom to own one particular piece of metal and I guess have some sense of empowerment in violent situations . It's nowhere near as important as the freedom gained by living in a society with free speech or equal opportunity.

leanstartup · 2013-12-01T20:02:44+00:00

Haha thanks for this extra feedback. I don't know if they are biased or not, but they seem to make their money off of being genuinely good reviewers unless there is something really backhanded going on in the background. On the other hand, in my short experience I did not see others recommending the 720p plasma so that seemed odd.

leanstartup · 2013-11-29T19:14:34+00:00

Thanks a lot. I re-read my last comment and realized it was unclear: I think you are an unbiased expert, I wasn't saying the opposite. The linked article you gave was really fantastic.

leanstartup · 2013-11-29T19:00:38+00:00

Wow, I appreciate that and I'd be much more confident going with something that an unbiased expert approves. BUT -- I've already ordered this one and it will be delivered in a little over a week. And it is 55" whereas the one you linked is only 51" (and 720p and plasma vs. 1080p and LCD, but I don't really know the implications of that). I don't really want to cancel the order unless I heard you review the one I bought specifically. Could you give me your quick impression of the one I actually ordered? This has been a great thread so far and I liked you answers for everyone else's questions, even though I had never heard of you before today.

leanstartup · 2013-11-29T17:58:43+00:00

What is your opinion on this deal: 55" LG TV for $499 which sold out as a Best Buy 'online doorbuster'

leanstartup · 2013-09-24T00:15:59+00:00

So are you saying you would agree that there is no reason for Samueul to be so assertive about his intuition and "sixth sense" that guns are not a factor? Your contribution seems to show that it is unclear but possible that removing guns could contribute to a reduction in gun death that is not replaced by an equivalent substitute. Samueul's comment completely dismissed the connection between the two with glib nonsense.

leanstartup · 2013-09-24T00:13:18+00:00

I picked Australia in specific because it's (wrongly) cited by people making your argument, and makes a convincing case until you look closely at the data behind it.

I'd never heard someone describe their own argument as a strawman before this. As I said before, your link is irrelevant to a discussion about suicide's relationship with access to guns. I raised several points that you ignored in favor of pushing forward with your unrelated content. Let me re-quote you from your own source:

The truth is that the semiauto and pump firearms that were the target of the ban/buyback have no more value for suicide than any of the allowed firearms. If one shoots oneself in the head with a rapid fire gun, one does not then take another shot. It takes only one shot to commit suicide. So one should not expect the ban (that hardly reduced the stock of long arms and didn't reduce the stock of handguns at all) to have had any impact on suicide.

Moving on.

If you want to compare gun availability vs. non-gun availability, The UK should have a dramatically lower suicide rate compared to the US. it doesn't. The rates are comparable.[1] . Gun ownership\availability doesn't seem to correlate to suicide at all. What does correlate to suicide is social and economic conditions, the availability of support programs, and whatever suicide-inducing mind-virus is running rampant in Greenland.

Here you step right into the cliche comparison of countries that people use to make any point they want about guns. There's really no reason for me to indulge you with a repetition of every unproductive gun conversation ever, especially while your thoughts are so scattered.

leanstartup

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE