Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 352: Cool Aid, Man

(+) Yeah! (+)

StealThisSheen posted...

What it comes down to is we need a plan to roll this out efficiently across the board. There has been no plan, there is no plan in the works, and we're stuck hoping the Biden admin somehow puts one together quickly.

This is part of why the pace will speed up though. States were basically thrown all this stuff thinking there would be a plan when there was no plan.

Now that this is known, they will be able to rectify some of this on their own.

And then once the federal government is changed over and we get a bit more cohesion, this should help some more as well.

Basically, there are still plenty of things that can go right(or in instances, less wrong). The pace is going to go up is something we can be certain of, at least. How much is up for debate, but that is something we will have to see.

---

StealThisSheen posted...

It's not discounting that because that's, again, a hope and an assumption, which is optimistic, not realistic. The realistic view is we don't know if or when states will figure it out, and until there's a plan, there should be no expectation that they all just will in any quick amount of time.

you are confusing realism with pessimism right now.

---

"we dont know if or when" is a fine realistic point of view.

Going from that to "There is no expectation they will improve at all" is pessimistic. So you got it partway right and then screwed it up.

---

You just don't know what "realistic" means, apparently.

Realistic means not making assumptions and going purely by what we know right now. If you start making assumptions that aren't actually based in anything, you're not being realistic.

Optimistic is making positive assumptions.
Pessimistic is making negative assumptions.
Realistic is not making assumptions at all. Right now, we should have zero expectations, because right now we have nothing suggesting anything is changing right now. We can't just assume each state is going to come up with a plan on their own that will put us on pace because, right now, there's nothing to suggest that is happening. Right now, it's literally just a big clusterfuck that has been a failure thus far.

---

StealThisSheen posted...

Realistic is not making assumptions at all. Right now, we should have zero expectations, because right now we have nothing suggesting anything is changing right now.

That is factually untrue. Because states can change this themselves because its no longer a surprise being thrust upon then. We are exiting scramble mode.

How states will respond after this is an unknown.

It is correct to say "We do not know how or if states will improve on this" and be realist.

It is not correct to say "We have no reason to believe states will improve on this". This is where you cross from realist to pessimist.

---

We literally have no reason to believe states will improve on their own in such a way that will speed things back up to the April timeline.

None.

Zip.

Nada.

That's not pessimistic. It's the truth.

---

"States havent done well so far so they wont do well after" is basically what you are saying.

You are making an assumption about how they will respond in the future. This is why it is a pessimistic viewpoint.

---

red13n posted...

It is not correct to say "We have no reason to believe states will improve on this". This is where you cross from realist to pessimist.

I didn't say this.

StealThisSheen posted...

there should be no expectation that they all just will in any quick amount of time.

That is what I said.

---

red13n posted...

"States havent done well so far so they wont do well after" is basically what you are saying.

You are making an assumption about how they will respond in the future. This is why it is a pessimistic viewpoint.

No. I'm saying there is literally no indication that any of them are on a path that will get us back on the original pace, because there isn't. You're assuming they just... Will. Based on nothing.

---

StealThisSheen posted...

We literally have no reason to believe states will improve on their own in such a way that will speed things back up to the April timeline.

None.

Zip.

Nada.

That's not pessimistic. It's the truth.

You are not just trying to claim off the timeline though. You are trying to claim significant(A few months+) deviation based on a data set that is too insignificant to make that claim for certain. This is why you are being pessimistic and not realistic. Realistic viewpoint is that we are not sure. The pessimistic timeline is an option, as is the optimistic, and the more "realist" option likely falls somewhere in between.

---

StealThisSheen posted...

No. I'm saying there is literally no indication that any of them are on a path that will get us back on the original pace, because there isn't. You're assuming they just... Will. Based on nothing.

I have never said they will. My position is that this is still within the realm of possibility.

---

At this point you keep moving your own goal posts and this has gone on for far, far too long.

---

StealThisSheen posted...

At this point you keep moving your own goal posts and this has gone on for far, far too long.

I admitted that I was choosing to hold an optimistic viewpoint. I can admit I may have been overenthusiastic in earlier arguments, especially reading back. Does not mean I buy into the pessimistic argument either at the moment. I prefer to be a realist when I can but am definitely choosing to be more optimistic here for my own sanity.

---

That said, don't argue you are being a realist when you aren't. I tend to be a realist on most things, I know when people are being a realist. You have not been that here, and that definitely irks me.

Nothing says you have to be a realist, you can choose to be pessimistic if you want, especially in things involving the Trump administration. I wouldn't blame you. Just don't claim you are being realist when you are not. You have to look from an impartial viewpoint even when you hate one side of the view. It is the pessimistic take unless you have enough data for certain to back up your point(Data is too small at this point for what you are claiming).

---

red13n posted...

That said, don't argue you are being a realist when you aren't. I tend to be a realist on most things, I know when people are being a realist. You have not been that here, and that definitely irks me.

Following the current data is and always will be realistic. Assuming deviations from the data is not realistic. You're assuming deviations, I am not. The current data suggests we are well off pace, and there is currently nothing to suggest that is going to change because no changes in process have occurred. That's not saying it's IMPOSSIBLE to change that, that WOULD be pessimistic. But as of right now, there is zero reason to assume the pace will rebound back to the April timeline. Hell, a reason could come tomorrow, but at this very minute, there is none.

That is not pessimistic, it's just the truth, and I'm sorry that bothers you.

---

StealThisSheen posted...

Following the current data is and always will be realistic. Assuming deviations from the data is not realistic. You're assuming deviations, I am not. The current data suggests we are well off pace, and there is currently nothing to suggest that is going to change because no changes in process have occurred. That's not saying it's IMPOSSIBLE to change that, that WOULD be pessimistic. But as of right now, there is zero reason to assume the pace will rebound back to the April timeline. Hell, a reason could come tomorrow, but at this very minute, there is none.

That is not pessimistic, it's just the truth, and I'm sorry that bothers you.

We have known forever that there will be a ramp up in pace. And again, I've said the april timeline is not the realistic answer either. Realist requires recognizing uncertainty. You are not doing that. You are choosing to ignore known and potential ramp up.

This is not realistic. This is a pessimistic approach. You are making the same assumptions you were railing against.

---

Okay red

---

The reason you think my approach is pessimistic is because you, yourself, keep moving your own goal posts as for what is "optimistic," while trying to convince yourself that what is optimistic is realistic at the same time, by your own admission. You keep sliding your own stance closer to the middle and misrepresenting my own. You don't even know what you are arguing anymore, and I'd say that's now why you've changed the argument to attacking my approach instead of being about the facts.

That's why the debate's over. It's not worth having anymore.

---

I literally said my argument recently has not been realistic. I am allowed to recognize my own faults.

---

"Realistic" in this case does include both the pessimistic and the optimistic viewpoint btw. It just recognizes that they are part of a larger whole of possibilities. As we get further along, this range of possibilities will shrink, of course.

---

StealThisSheen posted...

You don't even know what you are arguing anymore, and I'd say that's now why you've changed the argument to attacking my approach instead of being about the facts.

I consider this a separate debate, tbh. I take particular offense to you trying to claim realist while taking a pessimistic stance.

At the very least, its sidetracked enough to definitely be off the original subject, if you want to make an argument that they are connected.

---

Can I get a vaccine for this argument?
---

This^

---

We stopped 2 hours ago guys.

After the amount of posts you've made over multiple days about this, don't you dare act like 2 hours means this is obviously all wrapped up.
---

kevwaffles posted...

After the amount of posts you've made over multiple days about this, don't you dare act like 2 hours means this is obviously all wrapped up.

I'll argue anything as long as there is a willing party on the other side.

What the ever loving fuck were you people doing last night?

Can't even just put it on red being a stubborn ass anymore.

StealThisSheen posted...

I'm not going to continue filling up this topic with a dumb argument that's really only happening because you don't want to admit "We're still well on pace!" was a really dumb thing to say.

Should have just stopped when you realized he was never going to admit he was wrong.

MichelBollinger posted...

Can't even just put it on red being a stubborn ass anymore.

Oh no I'm stubborn as hell. We know this. We can absolutely put it on me being stubborn.

Leafeon13N posted...

kevwaffles posted...

After the amount of posts you've made over multiple days about this, don't you dare act like 2 hours means this is obviously all wrapped up.

I'll argue anything as long as there is a willing party on the other side.

Okay redsox
---

kevwaffles posted...

Okay redsox

Hey now, at least I believe in 95% of the things I actually say.

red13n posted...

It is not correct to say "We have no reason to believe states will improve on this".

ok, what's the reason then?

---

My mom is still paranoid about Trump stepping down.

---

red13n posted...

I prefer to be a realist when I can but am definitely choosing to be more optimistic here for my own sanity.

i really do understand this. but at the same time, i wonder if this approach works as well as you think it does, as it will make the disappointment all the more bitter if it turns out that your optimism was misguided. this reminds me of how chris was super optimistic about bernie's chances of winning the dem nomination and how he then had a total meltdown when bernie lost to biden.

it's preferable to have zero expectations and then be pleasantly surprised if things turn out to be less bad than you thought. that's how i (arguably) keep my sanity, at least.

---

Red, you should know better than to argue against orange man bad in this echo chamber.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Red, you should know better than to argue against orange man bad in this echo chamber.

uh, that's not what he's arguing.

he's saying "trump sucks but the vaccine distribution will get better once he's gone."

he's not saying "trump is doing a great job with the vaccine! y'all are crazy!"

---

also, orange man IS bad

---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

uh, that's not what he's arguing.

he's saying "trump sucks but the vaccine distribution will get better once he's gone."

he's not saying "trump is doing a great job with the vaccine! y'all are crazy!"

He said the issue is more of a medical system sucks issue than a Trump issue and he is very against Trump when he says that... Then the orange man bad contingent came in with unrelenting force to tell him he is a piece of shit for not just going with orange man bad.

---

oh, that was more in the previous red/SEP argument.

i don't see all that much difference between the "medical system sucks" argument and the "it's a trump issue" argument, though. did trump make valiant but unsuccessful attempts to improve the medical system when i wasn't looking?

---

---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

oh, that was more in the previous red/SEP argument.

i don't see all that much difference between the "medical system sucks" argument and the "it's a trump issue" argument, though. did trump make valiant but unsuccessful attempts to improve the medical system when i wasn't looking?

Actually he did, at least the ones he did won't take effect til down the road however.

---

Fatal cop shooting during a traffic stop in Minneapolis. First fatal police shooting by the department since Floyd, less than a mile away. Chief says body cam footage will be released today, claims the deceased shot first.

I don't have much doubt in the claim if the footage does indeed come out today for this particular case, but it just goes to show how fast body cam footage actually can be released, and paints the picture that you should assume foul play in any situation where it's withheld for any amount of time.

Also, police should have absolutely zero control over body cams. Should be on at all times and monitored by a third party.

MichelBollinger posted...

Fatal cop shooting during a traffic stop in Minneapolis. First fatal police shooting by the department since Floyd, less than a mile away. Chief says body cam footage will be released today, claims the deceased shot first.

I don't have much doubt in the claim if the footage does indeed come out today for this particular case, but it just goes to show how fast body cam footage actually can be released, and paints the picture that you should assume foul play in any situation where it's withheld for any amount of time.

Also, police should have absolutely zero control over body cams. Should be on at all times and monitored by a third party.

Can't when you defund police and/or deny them extra funds for it, bud.

---

Lol

---

Lol

---

How are you real, Corrik.

MichelBollinger posted...

How are you real, Corrik.

"All police should have body cams and monitored by a third party at all times"

"Defund the police" so they can't afford to do it.

Makes sense.

---

I dont think anyone has the position of police should still exist in their current capacity and authority, but they shouldnt have money to function responsibly
---

Jakyl25 posted...

I dont think anyone has the position of police should still exist in their current capacity and authority, but they shouldnt have money to function responsibly

Yes, many people who want to defund the police absolutely have made it clear they wish to take money away from police departments while also wanting them to do things for greater accountability without the money to do so.

It's why my stance and Biden's has been to fund the police more to do the things necessary for accountability. Ironically, my idea is exactly the same as MichaelBolinger or whatever his name's is, except mine goes one step further in making it a crime to turn off your camera.

However, going about defunding the police is the exact opposite of what gets you to that point.


---

Corrik7 posted...

Yes, many people who want to defund the police absolutely have made it clear they wish to take money away from police departments while also wanting them to do things for greater accountability without the money to do so.

"Give us more money so we'll stop shooting you."

---

Corrik7 posted...

Yes, many people who want to defund the police absolutely have made it clear they wish to take money away from police departments while also wanting them to do things for greater accountability without the money to do so.

The part youre missing here is people who want to defund the police want the police to have authority over fewer things. No ones position is have cops be the same except more accountable with less money.

You can simultaneously defund the police while increasing their accountability because in this scenario there would be fewer police and they would be doing less.
---