[News] Post a D&D Picture

Previous incarnations of Cleveland/P&C/D&D have had an image thread, to handle political cartoons and other image-based stuff that doesn't belong in the general post-a-picture threads.

If any of them spawn an extended discussion, please spawn it off into its own thread. Replies to non-picture replies should take the form of a link pointing to a post on a different discussion thread.

And I shouldn't have to say it, but the images still need to abide by the rules.

Picking on trump however is always fair game

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/yEoflsd.jpeg)

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/gduofhP.png)

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/gXBDciy.jpeg)

Why not? Marjorie Taylor Greene already admitted the folks on 1/6 were insurrectionists. The day(s) before the rally in support of the people being investigated and on trial for their roles on 1/6, she flat out said that the "insurrectionists" were being abused.

Tscott wrote:

As a dirty joke on its own I found it hilarious. I did question why it was presented in the context of being said by that person. Unless there’s something else I’m missing.

No context that I know of. She just has the brains of a cheese sandwich and the personality of an infected toenail.

She’s also likely the future template of the GOP. Her fundraising far outstrips every other Republican politician despite the fact that she doesn’t sit on any committees, has no real power to speak of, and is largely viewed as a joke by most of the other Congressional reps. But she “owns the libs” which makes her incredibly popular among the base.

Good thing the filibuster is protecting the downtrodden minority from the tyranny of the majority!

ElectricPi wrote:
farley3k wrote:

Of course no one really believes it is about data for ant-vaxers.

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/hrS2PPU.jpeg)

JLS wrote:

You just wait. Half of those people will fall over dead in 3...2...1... ...(moves goal posts)... 3...2...1...

To be fair (yeah I don't know why I feel the need to do that), in theory something could have side effects that don't show up for years or even decades. We have good reasons to believe that the vaccines won't have such effects, but in the abstract it isn't completely insane to be concerned that there could still be unknown consequences. Clearly the dangers of COVID, and the long term harms of it that we are learning about are *MUCH* worse than those hypothetical unlikely effects, so being more worried about the vaccines is still silly.

Given the choice between using a non-sterile bandage to stop myself from bleeding out in the wilderness, or protecting myself from potential infection from the bandage by refusing it, I'm going to go ahead and risk an infection. The risk side of the analysis isn't zero, but the balance of harms isn't anywhere near a close call.

There has never been a vaccine side effect more than 2 or 3 months past the date of vaccination.

Ever.

mudbunny wrote:

There has never been a vaccine side effect more than 2 or 3 months past the date of vaccination.

Ever.

Yet…

:: stirs the pot :: I’ve never tasted them, but ribbed condoms certainly don’t smell like ribs.

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/h834UQV.jpeg)

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/mMjL59B.jpg)

I sudden laughed hard enough to need extra painkillers.

Tscott wrote:
mudbunny wrote:

There has never been a vaccine side effect more than 2 or 3 months past the date of vaccination.

Ever.

Yet…

That's not a thing, epistemically.

I mean:

A: "Drinking a youtuber's bathwater has never been observed to cure cancer."
B: "...yet!"

fenomas wrote:
Tscott wrote:
mudbunny wrote:

There has never been a vaccine side effect more than 2 or 3 months past the date of vaccination.

Ever.

Yet…

That's not a thing, epistemically.

...yet.

Oops, I mean yes, there already is Goodman's new riddle of induction where's it proposed what if there are colors like Grue and Bleen. Grue is anything that's observed to be Green before time T, and Blue after time T (and vice versa for Bleen). So we can't look at something and call it green, because we don't know for sure if it's green or grue - until time T rolls around.

One problem if we accept Goodman's argument is colors are no longer useful- we will never know if things we see as blue are really Bleen, or Bled, or Blellow, or Blurple if we just keep inventing new sh*t. And inventing new sh*t is what the anti-vaxer/conspiracy theory people are best at.

If we try to convince others with logic, we need a set of rules that both parties agree on, and if the other party keeps rejecting the axioms that our rules are based on there can't be any agreement.

(Sorry, every once in a while I feel the urge to pull out some concept I heard about in philosophy classes in college. )

Tscott wrote:

If we try to convince others with logic, we need a set of rules that both parties agree on, and if the other party keeps rejecting the axioms that our rules are based on there can't be any agreement.

I feel like I should have this tattooed on my wrist. It would save me a lot of time and energy.

Tscott wrote:

If we try to convince others with logic, we need a set of rules that both parties agree on, and if the other party keeps rejecting the axioms that our rules are based on there can't be any agreement.

Do you see a lot of anti-vaxxers running around who agree that existing vaccines don't have long-term side effects, and agree that that implies the covid vaccine doesn't either, but dispute the conclusion on a formal basis because there exists a class of predicates for which the same generalization doesn't hold, and because they believe there's no rigorous way to prove that the claim isn't in that class?

If not, then a lack of common philosophical axioms probably isn't the issue, no?

(Aside: I know this isn't the thread for it, but I half-wish there was an "explain to me why this topic from philosophy isn't just utterly absurd nonsense" thread. First we could do the grue/bleen thing, then after that the Chinese Room, and then on to the trolley problem, etc.)

fenomas wrote:
Tscott wrote:

If we try to convince others with logic, we need a set of rules that both parties agree on, and if the other party keeps rejecting the axioms that our rules are based on there can't be any agreement.

Do you see a lot of anti-vaxxers running around saying "I agree that existing vaccines don't have long-term side effects, and I agree that that implies the covid vaccine doesn't either, but I dispute the conclusion on a formal basis because there exists a class of predicates for which the same generalization doesn't hold, and you haven't formally proven that your claim isn't in class"?

If not, then I don't think a lack of common philosophical axioms is the thing preventing agreement.

Not philosophical axioms, but logical axioms. From my experience in having real life conversations with anti-mask, anti-vaccine folks, they place dramatically more credence in the scientific outlier than they do in the overall scientific consensus of the experts in their field. Maybe it’s underdog bias mixed with confirmation bias. Probably more confirmation bias than anything else.

For instance they place more credence in the opinion of one “naturopathic physician” who has a dissenting opinion to the consensus of infectious disease experts than they do to the experts. They also are extremely unwilling to change their opinions based on new data which contracts previous data. More generally, they cling to facts and opinions which support their current favorite narratives and refuse to consider any data which contradicts their preferred narratives.

I’m pretty sure I’ve just defined abject confirmation bias. Whether you want to consider confirmation bias a logical axiom failure or philosophical axiom failure is really just semantics.

Tscott wrote:

If we try to convince others with logic, we need a set of rules that both parties agree on, and if the other party keeps rejecting the axioms that our rules are based on there can't be any agreement.

I agree. To take it one step further, this makes it impossible to have an actual conversation in the first place. The anti-anti-anti folks won’t even consider the opposing opinion. They confuse stonewalling with conversation.

Sorry. I’m a little tired and am not being as clear as I’d like to be.

RawkGWJ wrote:

From my experience in having real life conversations with anti-mask, anti-vaccine folks, they place dramatically more credence in the scientific outlier than they do in the overall scientific consensus of the experts in their field.

Sure, but surely (in most cases) they don't do that stuff because they're using different logical axioms than you. They do it because they started with the conclusion that the covid vaccine is unsafe, and then chose arguments consistent with that. There are no axioms involved - you can't change their conclusion by refuting their arguments because it never depended on them in the first place.

mudbunny wrote:

There has never been a vaccine side effect more than 2 or 3 months past the date of vaccination.

Ever.

That is good to know. Thank you!

fenomas wrote:
RawkGWJ wrote:

From my experience in having real life conversations with anti-mask, anti-vaccine folks, they place dramatically more credence in the scientific outlier than they do in the overall scientific consensus of the experts in their field.

Sure, but surely (in most cases) they don't do that stuff because they're using different logical axioms than you. They do it because they started with the conclusion that the covid vaccine is unsafe, and then chose arguments consistent with that. There are no axioms involved - you can't change their conclusion by refuting their arguments because it never depended on them in the first place.

I think you're saying the same thing. We argue from a logical framework, using logical axioms. They reject those axioms. Whether they do so because they have different axioms or because they don't use any axioms at all is largely irrelevant to the discussion. Either way it means it's pointless to try to argue with them logically, because the framework our decisions are based on is something they don't (or won't) believe in.

(Also, "the COVID vaccine is unsafe" could very well BE an axiom, from which the rest of their logic flows and twists - anything that contradicts that axiom must somehow be wrong.)

It is an axiom to them. They believe it in the absence of evidence. Then they search for evidence, or fabricate evidence, that will support their conclusion.

An important thing to remember when approaching these types is that it’s very common for them to not just think they’re correct, but that we all also know they’re correct and secretly agree with them but are only performatively disagreeing to fit in, avoid social/professional reprisal, or because we’re being misled by bad actors. Any attempt at logic & reason is starting from the position that we are not only lying to them, but to ourselves. They aren’t going to seriously consider any evidence or facts that are brought before them because they don’t think we’re being sincere.

Where is the line between cult-like and cult?

JLS wrote:

Where is the line between cult-like and cult?

Tax-exempt status?

JLS wrote:

Where is the line between cult-like and cult?

Ahh. I love a good demarcation problem. There’s a list of cult-like traits floating out in the ether which are meant to help define whether or not an organization is a cult. More specifically, the list helps to determine how “cult-like” an organization may or may not be.

I think… there is one specific trait which must be present for an organization to be a cult. There must be a leader to whom all the members are submissive to.

Spoiler:

Our leader use to be Certis but now it’s Meebs.
-

RawkGWJ wrote:
JLS wrote:

Where is the line between cult-like and cult?

Spoiler:

Our leader use to be Certis but now it’s Meebs.
-

The King is Dead, long live the Soverign!

UpToIsomorphism wrote:
RawkGWJ wrote:
JLS wrote:

Where is the line between cult-like and cult?

Spoiler:

Our leader use to be Certis but now it’s Meebs.
-

The King is Dead, long live the Soverign!

Spoiler:

I'm only submissive to The Royal Meebs on MWF and every other Saturday, it's their turn on the other days.

RawkGWJ wrote:

I think… there is one specific trait which must be present for an organization to be a cult. There must be a leader to whom all the members are submissive to.

Spoiler:

Look in my eyes, what do you see?
The cult of personality!

Apropos of that track: if you use twitter, seriously consider following Vernon Reid (the guitarist). He talks politics, music, industry stuff, he's worked with everyone, remembers everything, engages with people all the time, and draws on a breadth of musical influences that's unbelievable. 100% my favorite twitter follow.

UpToIsomorphism wrote:
RawkGWJ wrote:
JLS wrote:

Where is the line between cult-like and cult?

Spoiler:

Our leader use to be Certis but now it’s Meebs.
-

The King is Dead, long live the Soverign!

On the plus side, the Kool-Aid ain't bad.

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/mgjD370.jpeg)

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/Bo4WFth.png)

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/tDXqVPN.png)

This is completely true about America as well.

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/Zd901Y7.jpeg)