@SSCReader's banner p




2 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 23:39:15 UTC


User ID: 275



2 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 23:39:15 UTC


No bio...


User ID: 275

that's no longer true, so all they can possibly write are Mary Sues.

But in the show that kicked this discussion off (True Detective) this isn't true. Navarro is a schizophrenic with anger issues whose mistakes allow her sister to commit suicide and then provokes fights in order to have herself punished and beaten for her failure and is unable to have mature emotional relationships. Danvers is a bitter, emotionally repressed, failure of a wife and mother, tormented by the death of her husband and son, who treats everyone terribly and drinks and has meaningless sex a lot.

They make obvious mistakes, mess up a lot (missing huge clues that are right in front of them) and are pretty clearly flawed in a lot of ways. They are both unlikable characters. And this appears to have been intentional as Jodie Foster describes her character as a horrible Alaskan Karen. Most of the criticism above is not that they were Mary Sues but that they were portraying mostly masculine character traits. Most of the traits we see for them would be entirely normal to see on a hard boiled male noir detective.

The arc they both go through interestingly is to be more open to feminine traits (being more emotionally present and open (and physically present for her kid in Danver's case), and to let go of the rigid hierarchal structure of the law, to see the predominantly female scut work in the town as worthy of respect. It's certainly a feminist message in that respect, but you could have swapped in two male detectives as the leads who would learn the same message without having to change anything pretty much.

For a spoiler we meet a weak female character early on who is missing fingers, they find a palm print on the murder victims clothes which matches those missing fingers, yet dismiss the suspect due to her status. It turns out she was indeed part of the group that murdered the victims. The group of female cleaners has access to the various pieces of information they needed to solve the crime they were avenging because they were able to wander around the police station, lab facility and everywhere else in town as no-one gave them a second thought including our two female lead cops.

Season 2 went to a bigger ensemble, (3 cops 1 mob boss) and yeah had basically none of the supernatural vibes (bar perhaps, Velcoro's dream). I think it is probably the least True Detective season and probably the worst season overall. Though I think it looked worse than it was as it was right after Season 1. I think season 3 got the cop dynamic right but the mystery was weak. 4, tried to go back to 1, which makes sense because most of the criticisms of 2 and 3 were they weren't enough like 1.

It depends what you mean, Season 4 was I think (and the audience scores seem to agree) better than season 2. Was season 2 a real True Detective show? What is the requirement (beyond owning the IP) for it to be a True Detective show? I don't think it can be quality, because season 2 was pretty bad.

I think that (setting aside quality) Season 4 is definitely more True Detective than Season 2. In fact I might argue the reason it isn't good it because it is too much True Detective. It takes Season 1 and turns it up to 11. One detective who sleeps around, 1 with weird visions. A strange seemingly posed body/bodies. The spiral, a conspiracy, an ambiguous ending with something unexplained yet some sort of hope for the protagonists, An emphasis on visuals and a crime still being investigated years afterwards. A final confrontation in a maze like cave. The final reveal not really living up to the set up.

To the extent that True Detective challenges this dynamic by treating two women as hypercompetent, dogged, logically-minded badasses, it’s doomed to fail. I haven’t seen any episodes of any season of the show, so I can’t comment on whether or not that’s the case,

They certainly weren't hyper-logical and hyper competent. Dogged, probably, yes. I think there is also the fact, that of the female police officers I know, they do seem to act more masculine, presumably because they are in an overwhelmingly masculine space. If you are going to portray female cops I think you should show them as more masculine acting than the average woman, because they probably would be in real life. Female cops are likely to be more aggressive, because those who are not, are not likely to want to be cops at all.

The realization that what we had here was a truly transformative technology with the potential to penetrate into every aspect of our lives and our society, and that seemed to be very near to entirely positive in its effects?

Hasn't it been? Online commerce has improved the lives of millions of citizens. I can call my family in different places around the world with full video capability. I can remotely attend weddings and funerals ,that I never would have been able to before. I can debate with people all around the world. And I can access hundreds of thousands of words written on just about any topic I want from best Dungeons and Dragons feats for a Rogue to how to cook an Olive Garden style deep fried lasagna to web novels spanning millions of words, or how to best fix a shelving unit or replace a bulb in my car. I can download 3d printing specs for gaming terrain or miniatures.

Any business can now scale customers with a cheap website and I can order trinkets from a shop in California that I would never have seen otherwise. I can watch and listen to pretty much any music I want to and then read about the background of the album. I can play video games with unparalleled speed and connectivity and help my nephew tame sheep in Minecraft while being able to see him giggle.

I can submit test results to my doctor without having to call them or go in to the office, then he can create and fill a prescription for me at a pharmacy of my choosing, who will then email or text me when it is ready. When I switch dentists they email copies of my charts to my new dentist who has them immediately. I can carry out many of the functions of the DMV online and I can do the same for many government agencies.

I can research people I am about to meet in a professional context and I can check out the boys my daughter wants to date. Right now I can have an AI write me code that has a good chance of working to do all kinds of random things. Or create images for my roleplay characters or backstories. I can stalk prices of plane tickets over time to buy at the best time rather having to call and check or go to a travel agent. I can check reviews of hundreds of restaurants and make and cancel reservations much more quickly than ever before. I can use web chats to deal with issues that would have required a phone call or a physical visit before.

The sheer amount of time that the internet saves me in routine tasks compared to the olden days is astonishing.

If you had offered all that to 80s computer geek me, I would have bitten both your hands off to have it! And I can do most of it from a tiny handheld computer!

Sure the internet has negatives as well, but I would say the positives outweigh them significantly. I would suggest for most people in the West the internet is much more positive than negative.

Well where do you think the laws against abortion came from? They didn't spring forth fully formed, they came from people who believed those were the right thing to do, and the people that supported them doing so, and those are ideas based off of (in the US) a worldview that has been constructed over decades and centuries. The status quo was put in place, and if you want to change the status quo, the people who support it now, are a problem (from the POV of someone trying to change it), even if they weren't around when the status quo was introduced.

This isn't just a blue tribe/liberal thing however. Pro-life people are pushing for abortion to be outlawed through out the US, not just where they live. It's a simple outgrowth of a moral judgement. If I believe X is wrong, then people should not be allowed to do X. It's the fundamental basics of civilization. If I think murder is wrong, I can't simply not murder, I have to try and stop other people murdering. Otherwise Christians could simply not try to outlaw abortion, just simply not get one themselves. But that isn't enough. Not for Christians and not for liberals. We want to live in a society that does the things we think are good, and does not do the things we think are bad.

Sure, sure. Conceded.

Not actually true. We study things we are not able to reproduce all the time. Scientific experiments should be reproducible, but science is not only limited to experiments. Observational science and experimental science are both subsets of science and both can produce scientific evidence.

If astrophysicists detect some kind of pulse from deep space, that is evidence of some kind of phenomenon even if we can't reproduce it. They may look for other such incidences and may keep looking where it came from to see if it happens again, and certainly that will help gather information, but the initial incident and whatever recordings and so on were taken is still scientific evidence. It might not be enough to work out what caused it, but that isn't the same thing.

Recordings of ghosts are scientific evidence, for example. But just like with the pulse from deep space, one of the things the recording might be evidence for is equipment malfunction, or a hoax, or a poorly built camera or antenna, or yes, actual ghosts, or space aliens. That's why you then study the various proposed theories and try to gather more evidence (which does not have to be the same type of evidence), to discard or strengthen theories.

Even once we had a full understanding of ghosts, or black holes then we might be able to reproduce them, using some kind of technology but it certainly isn't a requirement. The power demands to reproduce a black hole might simply be too much for humanity to ever manage, even if we understood the mechanism 100% perfectly.

Reproducible experimental evidence is strong, because it shows that something works the same way under the same conditions, and then you can alter the conditions and see what changes, which gives you more accessible information, but it certainly isn't a requirement for science itself.

What you're missing is that observations are weak scientific evidence and have to be weighed. If you look outside and see the sun, and everyone else in your town can do the same, then even though blind people cannot see the sun, that is good evidence the sun exists as an observable entity. But if 99.99999% of people looked up and did not see the sun, then the observational evidence of the remaining tiny percentage has to be weighed against that. Is it a hallucination? Are they lying? Is it that they are mutants who can see a wavelength of light everyone else cannot? The fact that most people do not see the sun is ALSO scientific evidence.

But no agreement is not the same as no legitimacy! Because this is fundamentally not a symmetrical world. People have to actually disagree and act as if they disagree, because inaction IS implicit acceptance of legitimacy when there is already an existing governmental system. And most people, I submit, will not (and I think this is born out by history) act as if an election is illegitimate just because they have no information either way. Hell even when it is clearly illegitimate most people simply will not act. Government legitimacy is a product of your actions not your beliefs. And most people do not act on things where they have no information (or think they have information).

In other words, it requires actual disagreement, with actual actions taken off the back of it, to render something illegitimate practically. Not simply not agreeing. So I think you are incorrect on where most people actually start from. Bob is not going to go out and start a revolution because he doesn't have information one way or the other. He may not think it is definitely legitimate, but he isn't going to go and take up arms based on that. And if Bob doesn't then the election is de facto legitimate. The courts and the agencies and other world governments will keep on treating the winner as the winner, until and unless enough Bob's actually do something about it.

Bob can internally think the election is illegitimate as much as he wants, but until he actually does something about it, it is irrelevant (and as you pointed out, it is only the contested nature that is important) if Bob is unwilling to actively contest it, then no matter the reason, it is no longer contested.

The election is legitimate until enough someone's do something about it. And they are extremely unlikely to do that if they don't have actual information (or believe they have actual information) showing it is illegitimate. It doesn't even have to be violence, it could be mass civil disobedience. Many millions of American's refusing to pay taxes and daring the illegitimate government to do something to all of them or something else.

Logically by your own definition, Biden's election WAS legitimate enough. Because he remains President. He convinced enough people to act as if he was. In a contested environment it doesn't matter what people believe or say, it matters what they actually DO. It doesn't matter whether the results were accurate, or truthful, only that enough people act as if they were. And that is exactly how people are acting. My MAGA neighbors are complaining about it sure, but they are still filing their taxes, and going to work, and buying their groceries and going about their day, exactly as they would if they thought Biden was legitimate. And therefore Biden is legitimate.

Well, unless aggressive driving is part of why the conditions are so hectic in the first place.

One measure of better driving is certainly road traffic accident rate, but thats not the only measure. How quickly on average do you travel? If everyone was zipper merging more politely rather than forcing in at the last second would everyones drive be smoother/faster?

Philly drivers are aggressive, and I think the road situation would be better overall if they were less so. I don't drive too much in Jersey myself and I don't look out for Jersey plates either so I am certainly open to Jersey drivers not being as bad as claimed.

For my money there are a couple of things almost all American drivers seem to be terrible at, zipper merging and roundabouts. Near universally awful as far as I can tell.

The US drivers tests do seem to be significantly easier than the UK (though it does vary by state of course). Delaware's is so simple I am convinced a 10 yo could pass it.

Every state I have driven in, has had the exact same thing on the freeways, at least 10mph over being the norm. From PA to Kentucky to Florida to Louisiana to Minnesota.

Having said that I have never been to Colorado or Wisconsin so I can't say you are wrong there.

The reputation of New Jersey drivers in Philly is absymal. My wife always checks if someone driving badly has Jersey plates and then will announce that Jersey srivers are the worst in the world.

Having said that Philly drivers are themselves pretty terrible from what I can see.

But the contested environment includes whether people believe the claims of illegitimacy. There may be no presumption of legitimacy but there can also logically be no presumption of illegitimacy.

If a person who has no information is at state 0 and 1 is legitimate and -1 is illegitimate, then the only thing that matters (in your model at least) is convincing enough people to move towards 1 and away from -1.

People (who have no exposure to attempts to sway them one way or the other) don't start with thinking the election is illegitimate or legitimate , they start by not having an opinion EITHER way.

No presumption of legitimacy, no presumption of illegitimacy.

Let's grant that for the moment . Doesn't it then follow that the candidates must ALSO have to convince enough people their objections are legitimate?

Where a candidate demanded that they would only accept the election as legitimate if every single ballot of 200 million or so was tracked from source to counting, then no election is ever going to satisfy them because it is just not feasible for zero errors or mistakes to be made at that scale while keeping to the idea of a secret ballot. Similarly, a candidate demanding his opponent accept the legitimacy of the election when only 5 votes were cast all of which happened to be in said candidates handwriting is asking too much.

In other words, just as the election has to be seen to be legitimate, the objections to said legitimacy must themselves have to be seen as legitimate (as in must be convincing). If you cannot convince enough of the electorate that your objections are legitimate then by exactly the same logic you are using, the objections themselves have no force. If no-one believes the election was stolen, then it was not stolen for these purposes.

Given that around 70% of people do not think the election was stolen, and they are the majority, then wouldn't that suggest the objections themselves have been found wanting in the very court of legitimacy you are talking about?

I think there are people that have such responsibility, but if the PA legislature passes a mail in voting for all law, or Michigan passes a no more than one observer per party per board law, then it isn't up to the election officials to not carry out the wishes of the duly elected representatives of the people. Even if they think it will look really bad from a legitimacy point of view. it simply isn't their remit to override laws like that.


Just to reiterate the PA changes were made in 2019 PRIOR to Covid by Republicans. They believed it would help turn out in rural areas where polling locations might require a lot of travel.

the onus is on election officials to convince the losing party that they lost fair and square.

I don't think that is the job of election officials. Especially having been one such election official. That is way too high level a thing for random local government workers to be worrying about. Their job is to organize the election in line with whatever budget, rules and laws apply in their location. They don't have the time or expertise to be trying to decide what will look legitimate or not. That is done by the politicians setting what rules and laws they need to follow.

If Michigan wants 134 observers of each party and passes a law, then when the election officials deny more people getting in and that looks like they are hiding something, that is not on the election officials. When people are filming through the windows and the city attorney tells them to cover the windows in case some of the ballot information is visible, that isn't on the poor schlubs getting paper cuts inside.

Legitimacy is built way before that point. The fact several hundred people were trying to get in prior to that situation shows that the legitimacy was in question BEFORE the election actually happened. Election officials can't do anything about that.

Michigan law allows one challenger per party, per absentee counting board. There were 134 absentee counting boards ergo 134 of each party should have been allowed in the room. They have to take an oath, have an ID from their organization etc. You can't just walk in. Normally, they don't get close to that, so they weren't keeping count until the room got crowded and when counted they realized they had 570 observers which included at least 227 Republican observers. At this point they elected to not let anyone else in (both Democrat and Republican) until some of those had left. That is what triggered the situation.

Your claim that there was secret counting is false. Your OWN evidence showed that (because they had reports from poll watchers inside the room). So now your claim is that there weren't enough let in. That may be true (depending on how many observers you think should be allowed in) but it is not the same thing as ballots being counted secretly.

Now obviously you can doubt the numbers provided, but just as a check, if you were shown evidence that there were 227 Republican poll watchers inside the room watching the ballots being counted AND you were sure that this was accurate, would that be enough to at least walk back the claim that ballots were being counted secretly?

You'll note that even this article quotes this:

"Both political parties had surpassed the law-mandated maximum of 134 challengers with more than 200 each, and when election workers told GOP challengers the party had hit its limit, some began shouting about the unfair process and lack of transparency. An unidentified election worker shouted back the group was at its maximum size."

Poll watchers were kicked out (or not allowed to enter) because there were already in EXCESS of the legally mandated 134 challengers inside the room.

How is it impossible to trust when there were more than 200 Republican poll watchers INSIDE. How many before you would trust it? 300? 500? 1,000? There has to be some maximum that is enforced.

The elephant is that this was not enough! You can let more people in to challenge than the legal maximum and still people are not happy. Votes were not counted in secret. There were 200 Republican poll watchers inside the room. Even that article does not claim there were none. The biggest claim there is:

"“There were some pretty tense moments inside of this room. Basically some poll workers or some of challengers told us that there was not an equal number of Democrats and Republicans in this room throughout the entire process,”"

That's it. Not that there were no watchers, not that they were kicked out and the ballots were counted secretly. Just that the numbers were not equal.

He would because Philadelphia did not stop counting over night. It had a livestream up the whole time and Republican poll watchers were present. They did file suit to say that they were being kept too far away due to Covid restrictions but nothing about the ballot center closing.

Atlanta is the only one where anything could be seen (with eyes lying or otherwise) as potentially a problem as there was indeed a time period where counting stopped overnight , and resumed and there was no Republican poll watcher present. Legally this wasn't strictly an issue because the independent poll watcher was still there, which is all Georgia law required at the time, but it is at the very least not best practice in a contentious election.

You're the one that brought up the example of Catholics to compare to US citizenship. I am just pointing out that if you really think they are comparable, your own logic is inescapable.

Nothing bad faith about it.

I'm confused by your choices of examples then. No-one is born Catholic. It has to be chosen. Baptism, Confirmation and receiving the Eucharist are I think the steps one must officially take. Presumably then you feel there should be no Pope at all, Muslim or otherwise?

Well then sure, if Catholics want a Muslim pope then they should be allowed to have one. It's their church.

As for the non-American thing, the people we are talking about are American citizens, they just also have another citizenship. So they should meet your criteria.

I'm an atheist so as far as I am concerned, both a Muslim and the pope believe very similar fairy tales, so it would make very little difference to me. Having said that, given I am not Catholic it's not up to me. If Catholics want a Muslim pope then yes they should be allowed to do it. It's a private organization that can choose whoever it wants to be its leader. If they don't want a Muslim Pope (and I imagine they do not) then that is also entirely within their rights.

Or to put it more clearly what do you mean by "allowed"? Allowed by whom?