Random Stuff IX: Rogue Admins

[Quiver he/him]

This year has left me rather unhappy.

My country voted against Brexit, but will be pulled out regardless. I've put on all the weight I lost. I've spent all my time working, and thanks to circumstances, I have no money to show for it. I've ended up questioning and losing faith in myself -in how I identify, what I believe in, and what I'm worth- and I've spent more than a fair amount of this year swinging from happy to sad erratically.Multiple family members have had serious, ongoing medical scares. I've made no progress in my writing. Less than no progress. I've considered dropping writing as a hobby and a career all together.

And now, Trump. President Trump. Who is terrible for all the reasons enumerated above, by people smarter than I will ever hope to be. It doesn't feel real, that an utterly repugnant monster could be elected president. That my co-worker could say they are "over" being annoyed by it, or that he'll be "good for the world," in the long run.

But it feels horribly inevitable. Of course that was how this year was going to end. With an unbelievable betrayal.

Why do I feel like that? I'm not an American. I've often expressed frustration at American jingoism and patriotic fever. 

But when I was a kid, I loved America. I loved American shows. I loved American accents. It seemed like an amazing place, more exciting and interesting than the middle of the road, back end if nowhere countryside I lived in. 

This is insane. I don't know why I feel this way. But I'm angry, and I'm sad, and I'm disappointed. And I don't have the words for it.

Trump is monstrous. He's a narcissistic egomaniac with no interest in anyone other than himself. He demeans women, insults soldiers, vilifies immigrants who work harder in one day than he has his entire life. 

And the funny part is? For all that, he has no actual political beliefs. No actual ideologies to pursue. Trumps creed is Republican or Democrat, low class or big business.

The only thing Donald Trump cares about is Donald Trump. And now I wonder how long it's going to be until his voter base realises it.

[WayneSpren he/him]

I was going to say who I supported as president...

...but there's no safe ground here.

Instead, watch this hilarious video!  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryQvzwSaXMA

[TwiLyghtSansSparkles she/her]

"For What It's Worth" by Buffalo Springfield just came on. 

It seems oddly perfect for today.

[The Honor Spren she/her]

This video basically says it all.

Spoiler

 

 

[Pagerunner he/him]

1 hour ago, Kaymyth said:

The craziest part about all this is that thanks to the archaic madness that is the Electoral College, Clinton won the popular vote but not the election.

In engineering, when we want to determine why an undesired event occurred and ensure it doesn't happen again, we use a methodology called Root Cause Analysis (RCA) to approach the situation to make sure we understand exactly why it happens so we don't wind up with a misdiagnosis. In this specific case, if the Electoral College had functioned differently (by not existing), Hillary Clinton would have won. This is a fact. But, as talking heads everywhere are gnashing their teeth and updating their resumes, the root cause appears to be more of a messaging issue. Trump's methodology fired up turnout from his base at levels the pollsters didn't anticipate, while Obama's turnout methods didn't work as well for Hillary and her base as they did when the Democratic party utilized those techniques in previous elections.

The case for the Electoral College is right there in the name of our country - it's plural, the "United States." Individuals don't elect the President, states elect the President. Some states this year felt extremely strongly that Hillary should be president; many more were not as confident, but chose Trump. Two-thirds of the group kinda want to eat at Burger King, but the other third adamantly support going to McDonalds. (Please feel free to judge these hypothetical entities based on their culinary choices. Gary Johnson can be that new sushi place that we're never going to try.) The system is designed to balance geographical diversity, causing a candidate to get buy-in from all over the country, rather than just pile-driving a few select, populous areas. In this case, it was the straw that broke the camel's back for Hillary. But campaigning would look much different if we didn't have this system in place, and the disenfranchised voters who flocked to Trump (whether or not that's the right decision for them) would most likely have still existed, possibly in even greater numbers.

It reminds me of when sports fans complain about bad officiating after their team loses. The response from the other team's fans (and even from more levelheaded members of their own crowd), invariably, comes back as: "If you want to guarantee a win, you have to play well enough that a few bad calls here and there won't tank the whole game." Hillary came up lacking all over the eastern seaboard and midwest, and lost 7 (seven!) important swing states to Trump; don't blame it on the refs!

[Magestar he/him]

35 minutes ago, The Honor Spren said:

This video basically says it all.

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

I'm very happy with this guy right now.  Thank you for posting something where someone realizes that the election is over, and life hasn't changed a whole lot.

I'm looking around me, and I'm not seeing a lot has changed.  Maybe it will in the next four years, but there's a reason we have a system of checks and balances in our government.  Right now, everything is still pretty normal, and I intend to enjoy it while it lasts.

I'd also like to thank all the people who are remaining calm.  

[Kaymyth she/her]

8 minutes ago, Pagerunner said:

In engineering, when we want to determine why an undesired event occurred and ensure it doesn't happen again, we use a methodology called Root Cause Analysis (RCA) to approach the situation to make sure we understand exactly why it happens so we don't wind up with a misdiagnosis. In this specific case, if the Electoral College had functioned differently (by not existing), Hillary Clinton would have won. This is a fact. But, as talking heads everywhere are gnashing their teeth and updating their resumes, the root cause appears to be more of a messaging issue. Trump's methodology fired up turnout from his base at levels the pollsters didn't anticipate, while Obama's turnout methods didn't work as well for Hillary and her base as they did when the Democratic party utilized those techniques in previous elections.

The case for the Electoral College is right there in the name of our country - it's plural, the "United States." Individuals don't elect the President, states elect the President. Some states this year felt extremely strongly that Hillary should be president; many more were not as confident, but chose Trump. Two-thirds of the group kinda want to eat at Burger King, but the other third adamantly support going to McDonalds. (Please feel free to judge these hypothetical entities based on their culinary choices. Gary Johnson can be that new sushi place that we're never going to try.) The system is designed to balance geographical diversity, causing a candidate to get buy-in from all over the country, rather than just pile-driving a few select, populous areas. In this case, it was the straw that broke the camel's back for Hillary. But campaigning would look much different if we didn't have this system in place, and the disenfranchised voters who flocked to Trump (whether or not that's the right decision for them) would most likely have still existed, possibly in even greater numbers.

It reminds me of when sports fans complain about bad officiating after their team loses. The response from the other team's fans (and even from more levelheaded members of their own crowd), invariably, comes back as: "If you want to guarantee a win, you have to play well enough that a few bad calls here and there won't tank the whole game." Hillary came up lacking all over the eastern seaboard and midwest, and lost 7 (seven!) important swing states to Trump; don't blame it on the refs!

This isn't so much blaming the refs as blaming the insistence on sticking to antiquated rules, the reasons for which have mostly been eliminated in modern society.  It doesn't take a week to cross the country anymore; it takes hours.  People in Maine can pop onto the internet and see the ballot initiatives that are up for vote in Arizona.  There's no more information lag and our populace is far better educated now than it was 200+ years ago.

Even if we didn't outright abolish the Electoral College, but instead did away with the winner-take-all system and had every state allocate votes proportionally, it would be a vast improvement and better representative of the people in this country.

[Pagerunner he/him]

4 minutes ago, Kaymyth said:

This isn't so much blaming the refs as blaming the insistence on sticking to antiquated rules, the reasons for which have mostly been eliminated in modern society.  It doesn't take a week to cross the country anymore; it takes hours.  People in Maine can pop onto the internet and see the ballot initiatives that are up for vote in Arizona.  There's no more information lag and our populace is far better educated now than it was 200+ years ago.

Even if we didn't outright abolish the Electoral College, but instead did away with the winner-take-all system and had every state allocate votes proportionally, it would be a vast improvement and better representative of the people in this country.

It's not about practical issues related to gathering votes - it's whether or not the states are individual political entities. Does Pennsylvania have the same priorities as Kansas, or Washington State?

It would be more representative of social issues, but I'm not sure that it would be the best indicator of economic opinions. Cities, which is where the vote is very lopsided towards Democratic candidates, have the mayors who can guide legislation pertinent to their cities' economic states (like minimum-wage policies). Rural areas are more affected by governors, which might be why the governorships are overwhelmingly Republican. The economic priorities of the nation need to be aggregated from the states', and the current system lets larger states have more of a say without dominating the smaller states. For me personally, national economic issues (how much my taxes or insurance premiums rise) are an order of magnitude smaller than the increase in my property taxes this year, which is a locally driven issue. There's a case to be made that certain regional economic issues, the loss of manufacturing jobs, are the defining issue for Trump's supporters, and social issues (even traditional Republic ones, like abortion and gay marriage) have taken a back seat for both sides, including the so-named "Reagan Democrats" in the Rust Belt. 

Our government does have a role in many arenas, including social, economic, and international causes. Which one is the government's most important responsibility is obviously a much larger question, but the Electoral College is more tuned to balancing an economic coalition of states, rather than an arbiter of social values.

[aeromancer he/him]

"Hilary would have won if the Electoral College was abolished."

Please stop saying this. This is false for more then one reason.

Reason #1 - Hillary did not win the popular vote, Hillary did not take more than 50% of the popular vote. That is by definition a loss. In America, you need the majority of all votes to win. If the Electoral College votes were adjusted to match the popular vote, neither candidate would have the necessary 270 votes, and thus the election would be thrown to the house, where they would vote between Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Gary Johnston, Jill Stein, and any other candidate that won more than 0.18% of the popular vote.

Reason #2 - You don't have the data to prove that. The only conclusion that can be drawn from the data is that Hillary won the popular vote when people were voting for the Electoral College system. Would that remain the same if the voting system were purely popular? Maybe. We don't know. There are large segments of the Republican voter base, especially in areas that Republicans cannot win who didn't vote. The same can be said for Democrat. We don't know what a voter turnout could look like if the voting was changed to popular. Is Hillary more likely? Yes. Win for sure? No more than this election.

Edited November 9, 2016 by aeromancer

[Kaymyth she/her]

2 minutes ago, Pagerunner said:

It's not about practical issues related to gathering votes - it's whether or not the states are individual political entities. Does Pennsylvania have the same priorities as Kansas, or Washington State?

It would be more representative of social issues, but I'm not sure that it would be the best indicator of economic opinions. Cities, which is where the vote is very lopsided towards Democratic candidates, have the mayors who can guide legislation pertinent to their cities' economic states (like minimum-wage policies). Rural areas are more affected by governors, which might be why the governorships are overwhelmingly Republican. The economic priorities of the nation need to be aggregated from the states', and the current system lets larger states have more of a say without dominating the smaller states. For me personally, national economic issues (how much my taxes or insurance premiums rise) are an order of magnitude smaller than the increase in my property taxes this year, which is a locally driven issue. There's a case to be made that certain regional economic issues, the loss of manufacturing jobs, are the defining issue for Trump's supporters, and social issues (even traditional Republic ones, like abortion and gay marriage) have taken a back seat for both sides, including the so-named "Reagan Democrats" in the Rust Belt. 

Our government does have a role in many arenas, including social, economic, and international causes. Which one is the government's most important responsibility is obviously a much larger question, but the Electoral College is more tuned to balancing an economic coalition of states, rather than an arbiter of social values.

Economics have also changed a great deal since those times, though.  States are no longer so economically independent from each other.  And in the city/country divide, I live in a city.  (In fact, it's a city that happens to be divided in half between two states, which makes it even more complex.)  My priorities are not the same as those of the rural voters in my state, and as such, my voice is drowned out by theirs.  Kansas just doesn't have that much urban area, so my voice is drowned out.  In the current setup, I essentially have no voice, and this is not acceptable to me.

 

5 minutes ago, aeromancer said:

"Hilary would have won if the Electoral College was abolished."

I did not say this.

I said that as the election stands, Hillary won the popular vote.  This is true.

I said that I dislike the Electoral College system.  I do not like seeing one candidate win the popular vote while the other takes the Electoral College.  I have a problem with this system in general.  You are correct in saying that were the Electoral College not in place, it would have changed the number of people voting and the results would be unpredictable.  Regardless, a straight popular vote would be a more fair system than what we have.

I would like to see the Electoral college if not abolished, then changed across the board to a more proportional allocation.  The winner-take-all system we have now disenfranchises me, personally, as a voter.

Please stop implying that I have no right to be upset at the design of the system and the results of the election.  My feelings are valid.  My fears are valid.  My concern that an actual friend of mine is going to wind up dying because the repeal of the ACA could strip away her health insurance is valid.

 

[marsoupial they/them]

 

4 hours ago, aeromancer said:

Stop pretending this is the end of the world. Stop pretending that racism and bigotry will be allowed to go unchecked, if it is allowed at all. Stop pretending there's a wage gap between men and women. Stop pretending the world will slide into a dark age. 

Uh... I'm not sure this is all accurate. Pay gap is a thing, like it or not.

4 hours ago, TwiLyghtSansSparkles said:

It could be the terrible mood I'm in, but you're coming across as rather combative and condescending right now. 

It's not just you. It did come across a bit abrasive, and condescending.

4 hours ago, Kaymyth said:

The craziest part about all this is that thanks to the archaic madness that is the Electoral College, Clinton won the popular vote but not the election.

Do we have to deal with a future where Trump is the president for the next four years?  Absolutely.  But I am under no obligation to be happy about it.  I have both the right and the reason to worry.  LGBT rights are going to be rolled back.  The ACA is going to be repealed, and people are going to die because of it.  I have a right to be upset about these things.

You do. We all do. 

3 hours ago, The Honor Spren said:

Oof. sorry. I forgot about the conversion therapy stuff. I meant it as in "more trustworthy with nuclear codes" kind of reasonable.

Please don't be mad at me. I hate confrontation.

It's cool. 

I know I'm a bit late on this, but, @aeromancer, good for you for expressing your opinions, but ensure that you don't upset anyone too greatly in doing so. 

[aeromancer he/him]

Clarification: There is a wage gap, but the data on it is grossly inflated due to a statistical phenomenon known as Simpson's Paradox - this essentially boils down to data being averaged where it shouldn't be. I'm sure you can find sources that say that Simpson's Paradox doesn't exist in regards to the wage gap inasmuch as I can find sources that it does. If you need more information about why the wage gap doesn't matter, I encourage you to watch this: Milton Friedman on 'Equal Pay for Equal Work'

EDIT: Milton Friedman was a world-class economist, winning the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences in 1976. If you want more information, just click here.

Edited November 10, 2016 by aeromancer

[TwiLyghtSansSparkles she/her]

7 minutes ago, aeromancer said:

Clarification: There is a wage gap, but the data on it is grossly inflated due to a statistical phenomenon known as Simpson's Paradox - this essentially boils down to data being averaged where it shouldn't be. I'm sure you can find sources that say that Simpson's Paradox doesn't exist in regards to the wage gap inasmuch as I can find sources that it does. If you need more information about why the wage gap doesn't matter, I encourage you to watch this: Milton Friedman on 'Equal Pay for Equal Work'

Find a woman saying the same and I'll consider this claim of yours. 

[Oversleep]

12 minutes ago, TwiLyghtSansSparkles said:

Find a woman saying the same and I'll consider this claim of yours.

Did you... did you just disregard whatever a person has to say based on their gender?

[TwiLyghtSansSparkles she/her]

1 minute ago, Oversleep said:

Did you... did you just disregard whatever a person has to say based on their gender?

I hope you're kidding or being sarcastic, but if not, I'll explain. 

The wage gap affects women. It doesn't affect men who are paid more for the same job, or who are promoted to higher-paying jobs over their equally skilled female colleagues. If a man says the wage gap doesn't matter, then he doesn't have the same stake in it that a woman does. He may not even perceive that there is a problem, because the problem doesn't affect him. (There's room here for an argument that this hypothetical man wants the wage gap to remain because he benefits from it, but let's give him the benefit of the doubt.)

Ask a woman if the wage gap matters. She's the one who's affected by it. She's the one who can tell you, from personal experience, if there is a problem.

[Straw he/him]

Can or Cannot Trump Do This: A List On a scale of 1-10           1=Easy 10=Nearly impossible.

• Can Trump remove all the illegal immigrants? 8. Finding the immigrants and the money would make this difficult to carry out.
• Can Trump deny visa-free travel to countries who refuse to take back their citizens? 1. There is already a law in place allowing the president to do this.
• Can Trump repeal every Obama executive order? 1. Presidents can easily repeal past executive orders. Trump could even do this on his first day in office.
• Can Trump place restrictions on White House officials becoming lobbyists? 7. This law would have to be passed through congress where it could possibly hurt the future earnings of members of congress.
• Can Trump pull out of UN climate change pacts? 9. Due to the climate pact it would take four years to pull out after signing all the paperwork and can be stopped at any time.
• Can Trump spend government money to fix US infrastructure? 6. Trump could do this but raising the money needed would be hard.

Average difficulty: 5.

Note: Hope this is useful!

[aeromancer he/him]

50 minutes ago, TwiLyghtSansSparkles said:

Find a woman saying the same and I'll consider this claim of yours. 

 

29 minutes ago, TwiLyghtSansSparkles said:

The wage gap affects women. Ask a woman if the wage gap matters. She's the one who's affected by it. She's the one who can tell you, from personal experience, if there is a problem.

@TwiLyghtSansSparklesTook me a while, I'm sorry. This is written by a woman (Christina Hoff Summers), which is the only qualification you gave me, but for some general background, it is a Time Magazine article, originally printed on 9/2/14, updated 6/17/16. I'll stop spoiling things, and just give you the link: 6 Feminist Myths That Will Not Die.

[TwiLyghtSansSparkles she/her]

4 minutes ago, aeromancer said:

 

@TwiLyghtSansSparklesTook me a while, I'm sorry. This is written by a woman (Christina Hoff Summers), which is the only qualification you gave me, but for some general background, it is a Time Magazine article, originally printed on 9/2/14, updated 6/17/16. I'll stop spoiling things, and just give you the link: 6 Feminist Myths That Will Not Die.

Two of her sources in that section were other news sites, not scientific studies. The other two were inaccessible due to the sites being taken down. Call me a skeptic, but I'm going to need better evidence. 

[Oversleep]

43 minutes ago, TwiLyghtSansSparkles said:

I hope you're kidding or being sarcastic, but if not, I'll explain. 

The wage gap affects women (...)

Ask a woman if the wage gap matters. She's the one who's affected by it. She's the one who can tell you, from personal experience, if there is a problem.

I hope you're joking.

You won't accept what an expert has to say because he or she is not personally affected by it? This is the same thing as saying that a cardiologist can't cure you if they didn't have a heart condition themselves. Or something along these lines. What should matter is skill, knowledge, experience, efficiency and a lot more things which are not related to gender at all.

And 'personal experience' is just anecdotal evidence. What matters is statistical study. Large samples. Like what economists do.

Edited November 10, 2016 by Oversleep

[+Slowswift]

Something that needs to be kept in mind, I think:

[Straw he/him]

@TwiLyghtSansSparkles, @Oversleep, @aeromancer. Please. Please stop arguing. The shard is a calm place where civilized debate and logic prevail against mindless name calling. 

[TwiLyghtSansSparkles she/her]

Just now, Straw said:

@TwiLyghtSansSparkles, @Oversleep, @aeromancer. Please. Please stop arguing. The shard is a calm place where civilized debate and logic prevail against mindless name calling. 

Stop tagging me. I'm out, okay?

[aeromancer he/him]

This did get out of hand. Like most of America, I was very unsatisfied with this election, and that meant that there was a clash of egos and people pretending to argue while needlessly pushing their own agenda, while the rest of the Shard is scared to intervene, for fear of getting either called out or caught up in the the fireworks. I won't say that the fire was started by me, but I will say that I threw a hefty amount of gasoline onto the discussion, and felt the need to not let up.

I am sorry for these events occurring, for what its worth.

In a week or so, I may be able to have a rational discussion on this forum. Until then, I sign out with a single message from the American national anthem:

"'Tis the star-spangled banner, O long may it wave o'er the land of the free and the home of the brave."

Edited November 10, 2016 by aeromancer

[Straw he/him]

15 minutes ago, TwiLyghtSansSparkles said:

Stop tagging me. I'm out, okay?

Sorry, started writing that before you posted. 

[Oversleep]

I was not trying to attack anyone.
Just to point out a few logical mistakes as I saw them. Since everybody is probably unnerved by the events of this day I went and removed all the sarcasm and mocking etc from my posts so that only logical arguments would be left.
First my post was hoped to be either a joke or sarcasm when I was serious, then I was mocked with something about "the brilliance of my argument" and my post was called "offensive, condescending, and absolutely patronizing" and response to it considered below one's dignity.

Yeah. While I also want to say a thing or two about Twi's posts I won't since we're trying to get this discussion down. And I'll stay the storm out of the discussions from now on. Long did the Shard appear as a place for civilized discussion but sooner or later every illusion breaks: this is internet and discussions just can't be held.

I'll post here again when the politics die down/silence/deaden/whatever. Back to Cosmere then.

EDIT: The post I'm quoting and refering was deleted so it's impossible to say whether she did say those things or not. This does not change anything I said in this post.

Edited November 10, 2016 by Oversleep