Objection

Objection , 3 days ago

MY rotting corpse just has some stiff joints, that's all.

Objection , 4 days ago

"Stuttered"

Objection , 3 days ago

That doesn't give people license to lie about him.

Objection , 15 days ago

All of those examples were successful in comparison to what came before. The ROC had a life expectancy in the 30's, and made no effort to address the basic needs of the vast majority of Chinese people. Cuba had a corrupt, authoritarian gangster state under Batista. Vietnam was suffering under brutal colonial rule. Under socialism, life expectancy, literacy, food security, and medical access rose dramatically and greatly improved the lives of the people living in these places.

So yes, they are success stories, they objectively solved many of the problems they were trying to solve and improved people's lives across a wide number of metrics.

Objection , 15 days ago (edited 15 days ago)

I'm not exactly sure by what standard you're distinguishing between "survey" and "empirical study," considering all of your cited studies also rely on surveys.

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951003089863c

Not prepared to read through over 100 pages of unrelated stuff, perhaps you could add a page number? It sounds like this source is included only for a critique of the original study though, and I'll accept that that study isn't perfect.

http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/1862

Ninety officers returned the surveys for a response rate of 36%.

This type of sampling comes with both weaknesses and strengths. One important weakness of using this convenience sample is that the results generated on the nature of
the police sub-culture and the frequency of interpersonal violence on the part of police will not necessarily be generalizable. Although these results may not be generalizable,
this sample is satisfactory for testing relationships among the variables—traditional police sub-culture, police domestic violence. This sample comes entirely from Central
Florida, which further limits generalizability.

This paper is focused on a link between a domestic violence and a "traditional police sub-culture," it is not intended to be taken as a reliable, generalizable source of overall domestic violence.

http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/virtual_disk_library/index.cgi/4951188/FID707/Root/New/030PG297.PDF

Did not investigate this one because I don't have the means to read floppy disk .iso images readily available.

https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2519&context=fac_pubs

This one does reference the studies you mentioned, along with other studies showing much higher numbers. It then goes on to say:

The data on intimate partner abuse by police officers are both
dated and potentially flawed, but in ways that make it more likely
that abuse is being under—rather than over—reported.59 Most of the
studies rely on self-reporting by police officers to establish prevalence
of abuse. Self-reporting is a notoriously unreliable measure; as one
study noted, “The issue of the reliability of self-reports data is
problematic when considering any socially undesirable behavior.”60
Intimate partner abuse is frequently underreported,61 both by those
who experience it and those who commit it. Underreporting is likely
to be particularly prevalent among law enforcement officers “who
fear, even when anonymity is assured, that admitting their own or
their colleagues’ abusive behavior may jeopardize careers and
livelihoods and break up families."

Objection , 13 days ago

The Western world got a headstart through centuries of colonialism and slavery, while China, Cuba, and Vietnam were all victims of that exploitation. Of course somewhere like Vietnam, that was subject to extreme exploitation and then bombed to smithereens, with Agent Orange dropped everywhere, is going to have some challenges developing, especially when they then face economic sanctions from powerful nations afterwards. Yet, as I said, all of those nations performed remarkably well despite that serious adversity. When the communists first came to power in China, life expectancy was about 35, while it was nearly double that in the US, now, their life expectancy has even exceeded ours.

Western nations remain wealthier due to continued exploitation of the third world, and I'm afraid I don't have the means to immigrate. I am grateful for your highly intelligent and informed response to my points, though.

Objection , 12 days ago

"Oh, you don't like America? Well why don't you go live in [country America bombed]"

Objection , 16 days ago (edited 16 days ago)

Weapons can be used for liberation or oppression at the same time. Lockheed doesn’t get to say who they sell to.

Yes, you've identified the problem.

Objection , 16 days ago

Oh, people associate queer people with drone strikes, alright. Not as much in the US but there are people around the world (global south, etc) who will take stuff like this at face value and hate queer people because they associate us with the US military. It generally doesn't work out well for the queer people living there.

Objection , 16 days ago (edited 16 days ago)

Yeah, it's very stupid. Lots of reactionaries will talk about the concept of queer people being "imported" from Western culture, while at the same time importing their own talking points from the Western far-right media sphere. Obviously, there's plenty of queer history to be found all around the world, and in many cases homophobia was historically imported through Christian colonizers, but reactionaries aren't exactly known for their historical literacy.

---

Imagine being THIS into apologia for homophobia.

Wait, now I'm confused. Did I misinterpret your comment as interpreting my comment correctly?

Are you saying "imagine believing this" in response to people being homophobic, or in response to me acknowledging that homophobic people exist?

Objection , 16 days ago

https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/bc45be77-232c-4549-9cc5-b5a07ef34a7d.jpeg

Objection , 16 days ago

Swing and a miss. Try going in the opposite direction.

Objection , 16 days ago

Ok I'm imagining it. Seems like a really dumb thing to believe. Not sure what that has to do with anything I said tho.

Objection , 16 days ago

Multiple stealth edits lol.

See if you can spot the differences:

there are people around the world who will take stuff like this at face value and hate queer people because they associate us with the US military.

long-standing homophobia in other countries is caused by the US military becoming relatively queer-friendly 10 years ago

Can't read?

"There are people" does not mean "this is the sole source of homophobia," it means, "there are people." It is obviously true that some people believe that, it's just an objective fact about the world. There can still be long-standing homophobia and one of the ways in manifests and gets more people on board is what I mentioned, almost as if it's a complex issue with multiple contributing factors.

Also, the US can be tolerant or intolerant in reality, but that doesn't always conform to people's perceptions.

I understand that you're coming into this with a bone to pick with me, looking for any way to twist my words around. But maybe you, uh, shouldn't do that.

Objection , 16 days ago

Bottom right, third from the bottom.

Objection , 16 days ago

Wow. I genuinely don't know how you managed to come up with that, it's genuinely impressive.

Try: "Manufacturing weapons of war for profit when you can't guarantee that they won't end up in the wrong hands is unethical and war profiteering corporations should not exist."

Objection , 16 days ago

Don’t know what planet you live on , but bad people exist

And Lockheed Martin is giving them weapons, yes.

Objection , 16 days ago

So democracy is to blame?

Again, absolutely bizarre takes. Just incredible how completely unrelated these responses are to anything I'm saying or any coherent line of thought.

You're treating it as if Lockheed Martin just, inherently ought to exist, that it would be impossible for them not to exist. They do not.

Since you seem to be struggling to understand how that could possibly be, I'll tell you: nationalization. The government should seize control of all assets belonging to Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and Boeing (ideally, the CEOs and upper management should be deported to Afghanistan to face justice), no one should be able to make a profit from it (aside from wages), they should not be able to have lobbyists, and there should be no ability to go from war profiteer to policy maker deciding what wars to start or vice versa.

But if you want to lick the boots of warmongers who cause bloodshed for the sake of corporate profits, I guess I can't stop you. But what I can say is that, as a queer person, I completely reject their performative "support" and have no desire to be associated with them in any way, and that they can take their pride flags and shove them up their ass.

Objection , 15 days ago

You should be thanking Lockheed martin

I sincerely hope that you one day find yourself on the receiving end of what you support.

Objection , 15 days ago

That's an interesting assumption.

Objection , 15 days ago

Well, if you told me you hoped I was on the receiving end of what I support, I wouldn't see it as a threat. Maybe you should try supporting better things.

Objection , 15 days ago

I only wished for you to receive the consequences of what you support. If that's death, then I'll turn the question back to you: why do you feel the need to wish people death?

Objection , 14 days ago

I literally only advocated for you to get what you're advocating for. Your conclusion that that means I was calling for your death only makes sense if you were advocating for death yourself.

Objection , 14 days ago (edited 14 days ago)

Why do you see being on the receiving end of "a strong national defense with private enterprises" as a death threat? Were you advocating for killing people?

Objection , 14 days ago (edited 14 days ago)

Absolutely not. You deserve to be treated the way you want for others. If you support a system that kills hundreds of thousands of innocent people in a decades-long occupation following an unprovoked war of aggression, then, well, you do the math on what you deserve.

Anyway I would think you'd be thanking me for what I said. You just told me I should be "thanking Lockheed Martin," so surely to be on the receiving end of what they do is something you should be grateful for.

Objection , 14 days ago (edited 14 days ago)

Lol! Three quarters of poverty reduction since the 80's was in China. "American hegemony" my ass.

https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/c923742b-956b-4e96-8de2-3781eef8d20d.jpeg

Again, I hope the "defense" industry does to you what you want it to do to others. And I hope you have enough time to really appreciate it too.

Objection , 14 days ago

Guess you never heard of the great leap forward or Mao Zedong. He did a number on the chinese population.

Hmm not familiar, does he have anything to do with this though?

https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/4a1253ad-a251-4f6a-b694-1194dff8266a.webp

What’s wrong with you?

What's wrong with you? Why did you choose to become a bloodthirsty, bootlicking imperialist? Why do you support mass slaughter for profit that you won't even see, that will only go to the super rich parasites who are actively making life worse for the rest of us?

Objection , 22 days ago

Authoritarianism becomes necessary as you move toward the extremes because you have to coerce some people/classes to accept the system.

Why is this only necessary at the extremes? I don't want to accept the current system I live under, but I'm coerced into complying with it through force (police).

Objection , 21 days ago

I don't know that I agree with your definition of extreme. On the one hand, there's popularity of various ideas, and on the other, there's how much the idea differs from the way things are currently done. It's possible for an idea drastically different from the status quo to be popular, but it would still be considered extreme because of how big of a change it would be.

Objection , 25 days ago

You can go to archive.is and put in the url of a news story you want to read in the second box and it will usually let you bypass the paywall.

Objection , 25 days ago (edited 25 days ago)

The New York Crimes is a garbage propaganda rag. They don't deserve a red cent from anyone after pushing their transphobic agenda, (and responding to widespread criticism by publishing an article defending JK Rowling) or after they blatantly lied and published a fake news story about Hamas conducting mass rape in an attempt to sway public opinion to be in favor of Israel's genocide. If you have a NYT subscription, you are paying people to lie to you.

Objection , 28 days ago

They're used to emphasize the dubiousness of the thing quoted. You can search for """ on whatever instance and see various examples.

Objection , 29 days ago

What's the historical significance of Tiananmen Square? People sure seem to like talking about it, but personally I don't really see why it warrants so much attention, in the grand scheme of things.

Objection , 29 days ago

Comparing an incident where 11 million people were killed to one where hundreds of people were killed is a form of Holocaust denialism.

Objection , 29 days ago

China has official death estimates so I don't believe that they deny that anything at all happened.

Now, it’s considered patriotic to protest poor government decisions.

Is it now? Would you say the student protests over Gaza are considered "patriotic" in mainstream American culture?

Objection , 29 days ago

At the start of the month I checked them and the Pinkertons and it looks like neither of them changed it this year which made me really happy.

Objection , 1 month ago

Yes, this is why it may happen an election or two after we get critical mass.

This is fundamentally not how things work. It won't just spontaneously happen, just like that, it isn't a trivial issue. Even if every single Democratic voter would prefer the Green Party (for instance), each of them individually would think, "Well, I may want to switch, but nobody else is going to, so it would be a wasted vote." There's no reason this wouldn't continue indefinitely.

This also ignores the fact that certain vote thresholds are necessary to be recognized as a major party and receive things like federal campaign funding and a spot in televised debates. Collecting votes doesn't only help in terms of perceived relevancy, but it also directly helps in spreading the message.

I'd also like to point out that we're not at election day and yet you don't seem to be advocating for a third party, instead criticizing me for doing so. If your position is that you should support a third party up until it comes time to vote, then where is that support?

Objection , 1 month ago (edited 1 month ago)

Wait, what? Why would it continue indefinitely? Lets say we had a Green Party with polling showing 90% of the population interested in that party. In what reason would you not vote for the Green Party (Assuming they are aligned with your goals)? Even if the polls are off we still have an extremely good chance of winning.

The Green Party would not be polling at 90%. When polls ask people who they intend to vote for, they would tell them that they intend to vote for the Democrats, because they consider the Greens nonviable.

You know, like you said you're doing when I asked why you're not supporting them now.

I guess you're expecting people to lie to pollsters or something? Most people aren't going to do that.

You don’t technically need money to win an election, it helps, but all that matters is the votes. If you don’t debate a popular candidate, your opponent can call you a coward. No one wants to debate anyone, it’s just better optics to engage.

This is so absurdly naive that it's hardly worth answering. Money lets you spread your message. Being in a debate lets you spread your message. These are massive advantages that it's virtually impossible to win without. People aren't voting completely divorced from anything campaigns do.

Seriously, this is completely ridiculous and I won't entertain the notion further.

Objection , 1 month ago

Sounds like we need to organize more to get better information. Also, what is this I found? https://news.gallup.com/poll/512135/support-third-political-party.aspx Looks like a poll that supports 3rd party candidates without committing to vote on them.

Well then, seeing as that poll shows 63%, I assume you're voting third party with everyone else then, right? Because that's apparently how you think the world works.

Stop giving me this nonsense and come back down to reality.

Objection , 1 month ago

> cites poll

> "actually, this poll is meaningless."

Good talk.

Objection , 1 month ago

That's not not how you spell ad-hominem or what it is.

If the poll is not meaningless to you, then what number would it have to be for it to make you to vote third party?

Objection , 1 month ago

The poll would have to be about a specific candidate. Not voting third party in general.

Then why did you link it?

Objection , 1 month ago

I'd rather he do nothing than do actively bad things.

Objection , 1 month ago

It's an important point, because you presented it as a form of evidence that could be used to show when "it's time" for everyone to switch to a third party, and then completely rejected it for that purpose right after. Which leaves us back at square one, which is that there is no means of coordinating a sudden switch or recognizing when such a switch would be viable. And without that, your whole position collapses.

Objection , 1 month ago

So, in your mind, if someone did this favorability poll you want, and it showed, say, 60% favorability for the Green Party, you would vote for them, and you imagine that the majority of Democratic voters would all spontaneous switch their votes over together?

Go ahead and ask that to people you know, irl or people online: "If there was a poll showing a third party with 60% (or higher!) favorability, would that cause you to switch your vote? Would you expect it to cause others to switch their votes?" I can already tell you the answer you'll get.

I hate to say this, but the fact that you think this is such a trivial problem tells me that you must be young, and there are no words I can say that are a substitute for experience. I recognize your mindset because I've had it myself, you want to drive a rational answer and the world can simply bend around to what you come up with. You want an answer that's simply correct, because you don't want to face a difficult decision, you don't want to deal with the fact that both courses of action have some validity to them and either one comes with potential negative repercussions.

Let me give you a piece of advice - there are two types of ideas, ones that are molded around reality, and ones that are molded around psychological needs. The ones molded around psychological needs are always more appealing (assuming you have the needs it's designed for), but they're also not real. The ones molded around reality are often less smooth and neat, and less appealing - because they're not designed for you, they're designed to represent reality. The task of anyone seeking truth is to learn how to recognize what both types of ideas look like, what they're "shaped" like, what they feel like. Your idea that you can get all the benefits of supporting a third party while also getting the benefits of voting Democrat - it's shaped around what you want to be true. Essentially, it's motivated reasoning convincing you that there must be some way for it to work, in order to avoid facing a difficult decision.

Seek truth from facts. Put aside how you think the world ought to operate and look at how it does. You can't make a map before you've seen the territory. When you do that, you'll see that this sudden spontaneous shift as the result of some random poll is never going to happen.

That's all I have to say to you about this topic. I'm sorry if that comes off as condescending, but it's genuinely from the heart. I can't force you to see something you're dead-set on not seeing. I don't see anything productive coming from continuing this.

Objection , 1 month ago

If you’re a Democrat and you feel like the Green Party has a candidate polling at a majority

Polling as in "intends to vote for" or polling as in "has a favorable opinion of?"

If favorability: Multiple candidates can have positive favorability, so in that case most Democrats would stick with Democrat candidates because they don't expect the third party to win.

If voting intention: The only way for a third party to be polling at a majority in terms of voting intention would be if people really did intend to vote for them (which would require some people to intend to vote for them before it was clear they had a real chance), or if people lied to pollsters about their intentions.

You're not going to find some clever solution that allows you to bypass the problem of coordinating a mass switch, it is fundamental. This is tiresome.

Objection , 1 month ago

I feel like you are hinting at the possibility of not only a leftist majority but a majority interest in a specific candidate and we would be too dumb to figure that out. Is that your position?

No. If you'd listened to a single thing I said, you'd understand that it has nothing to do with being "too dumb to figure it out." It's a problem of coordinating a mass switch. It's a collective action problem. Intelligence has nothing to do with it, people acting rationally on an individual level are not necessarily going to arrive at the best collective outcome. Read, like, anything about game theory, I am begging you.

Hey, ancient wisdom person, you need to be able to explain why the problem is fundamental and not solvable. I don’t see it. And all that ancient wisdom does you no good politically if you can’t impart it.

I agree, please stop making bad arguments so we can stop this thread or maybe I can learn something.

I have shot down half-assed argument after half-assed argument of yours, and you just keep spewing them out without putting any actual consideration into them.

First it was that polls showing the popularity of third party candidates in general could provide the mechanism for coordinating a switch. I disproved that.

Then it was that favorability polls would provide the mechanism for coordinating a switch. I disproved that.

Now it's that polls you just dreamed up that nobody is asking that are supposed to provide the mechanism for coordinating a switch. I suppose this one could go on forever, with each question I prove wouldn't work being replaced by an equally inane question that you spent 5 seconds coming up with. Just over and over again forever.

You might as well be trying to prove Bigfoot exists by asking one by one about every location you can think of, and each time I check one you simply produce a new location to check.

So I'll tell you what - I will address one, final attempt to produce a mechanism for coordinating a switch. Right now you've offered a suggestion, "We could try “has most favorable opinion of?” or “most ideologically aligned with?”" Before I do: are you confident enough in that attempt that you're ok with it being your very last one? Have you actually thought it through and tried on your own to think of reasons why it might not work? If I'm able to address this one, will you finally admit that you are unable to provide any mechanism for solving the collective action problem, and that you cannot defend your position?

Objection , 1 month ago (edited 1 month ago)

You really should vote for the lesser evil, because your opinion of the people you agree with is very low.

Again, as I already told you, the problem has nothing to do with intelligence. It isn't some kind of personal failing to be in a collective action problem, that's why it's called "a collective action problem." Again, you're out of your depth here, it's very clear that you don't understand how collective action problems work, and you need to stop asserting your ignorance and learn about them. Go skim the Wikipedia article on Collective Action Problems, particularly the part relating to game theory and maybe something will stick. The concept here is important to understand in general, with plenty of use-cases completely unrelated to politics.

I want to hear your response to this: Why would polls worded like “has most favorable opinion of?” or “most ideologically aligned with?" not work to detect a consensus of a single leftist candidate and why wouldn’t people then vote for that candidate?

Ok, great. So you're all in on this one and once I've addressed it, you will not propose any other solutions.

First off, let's note that these polls do not currently exist. Therefore, regardless of whether they would work or not, at the very least until they do, my position is justified. No mechanism currently exists to coordinate the switch and, not owning a trusted polling company myself, I don't have the means to bring these or any other polls into existence. So, while they don't exist, I don't need to incorporate them into my decision making calculus.

Second, if these polls did exist, their implications would not be immediately apparent. If these polls showed that a third party candidate was most favored, but every other metric, from polls about intended voting to political endorsements to campaign finance and so on, metrics that have more established track records and that people are used to relying on to predict outcomes, then it would be much more likely that people would see your polls as a statistical anomaly. And if people saw it that way and did not switch, then the next election cycle, they would say, "see, we were right, it was a statistical anomaly, that question is not a reliable predictor of who would win."

Third, which candidates people like and dislike is influenced by the exposure they have to that candidate. A candidate with a lot of funding and air time can more effectively pitch themselves to a wider audience, even if they aren't as good of a candidate or aren't as aligned with their views. Furthermore, the perception that this happens means that even if an ad isn't convincing to you, it will factor into your calculations about who is more likely to win.

---

Is that enough? Despite your baseless accusations that I'm being "evasive" I have given three crystal clear responses to your latest proposed solution (just as I clearly answered all your prior solutions). I could probably find more, if you like (I didn't even get into the specific questions themselves yet). But at that point you're probably better off reading the Wikipedia article so you can understand the underlying concept.

I could explain it to you myself, going over the Prisoners' Dilemma and all that, but since you're regarding everything I saw in debate-mode, convinced that I'm saying something ridiculous, I think you'd learn more by getting the information from a different source.