[Discussion] The (likely) Depressing Road to the 2020 Election Thread

It's going to be a circus.

Will 45 get impeached or step down or challenged? All 3? MAYBE.

Will the democrats eat themselves alive and hobble literally every potential candidate before the primaries are done? PROBABLY.

Talk about that junk here.

trichy wrote:

... At what point did intelligence become a handicap in elections? (He asks rhetorically.)

When our problems became not puzzles to be figured out, but imbalances of power to be corrected. Intelligence is great for figuring out abstract thought experiments, but lived experience is irreplaceable in understanding oppression.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:
trichy wrote:

... At what point did intelligence become a handicap in elections? (He asks rhetorically.)

When our problems became not puzzles to be figured out, but imbalances of power to be corrected. Intelligence is great for figuring out abstract thought experiments, but lived experience is irreplaceable in understanding oppression.

Emotion overrides intelligence - tap into the “right” ones and poof “dumb, panic-y animals.”

cheeze_pavilion wrote:
trichy wrote:

... At what point did intelligence become a handicap in elections? (He asks rhetorically.)

When our problems became not puzzles to be figured out, but imbalances of power to be corrected. Intelligence is great for figuring out abstract thought experiments, but lived experience is irreplaceable in understanding oppression.

Yeah, I don't buy it.

Lived experience is great. But it also ties you to a very narrow view of the world. You're basing decisions on your personal experiences and views of the world. That leads to things like, "Well, I grew up in Michigan, and I never saw anyone being racist, so I don't think racism is as big an issue as people say!" Anecdotal evidence takes priority over actual evidence.

Education and intelligence help reinforce a more broad view, one that includes viewpoints and information outside your lived experience.

Is the problem in America that there are not enough smart people in positions of power?

Or is the problem how power is distributed?

Top_Shelf wrote:

Is the problem in America that there are not enough smart people in positions of power?

Or is the problem how power is distributed?

Both. I'm not saying intelligence should be the sole defining characteristic that we use to determine our elected officials. However, it's important to realize that critical thinking, evidence based reasoning, and intelligence are essential. Those we elect to office will be faced with making choices on a wide array of topics, most of which are WAY beyond their experience. A military officer who gets elected will vote on farm regulations, a lawyer will vote on defense spending, etc. Having a diverse group of people making those choices absolutely helps, but only if they have the intelligence to set aside their own personal experiences that have nothing to do with the matter at hand and consider it from a reasoned perspective.

Of course, all of this is irrelevant now anyway, because virtually no one in Washington seems to be doing any kind of reasoning at all, but the idea that we have begun criticizing a candidate for intelligence and education is one of the most disheartening things I've realized in years.

trichy wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:
trichy wrote:

... At what point did intelligence become a handicap in elections? (He asks rhetorically.)

When our problems became not puzzles to be figured out, but imbalances of power to be corrected. Intelligence is great for figuring out abstract thought experiments, but lived experience is irreplaceable in understanding oppression.

Yeah, I don't buy it.

Lived experience is great. But it also ties you to a very narrow view of the world. You're basing decisions on your personal experiences and views of the world. That leads to things like, "Well, I grew up in Michigan, and I never saw anyone being racist, so I don't think racism is as big an issue as people say!" Anecdotal evidence takes priority over actual evidence.

Heh, sorry for leaving the premise unstated, but the point is lived experience of oppression, not one missing it. Not all lived experience is created equal.

Education and intelligence help reinforce a more broad view, one that includes viewpoints and information outside your lived experience.

My experience is that education and intelligence just get in the way. What a waste of time and effort.

Even if people don't accept that intelligence is an important thing to have I would hope they wouldn't see it as a handicap.

A person could have both intelligence and experience.

Neither intelligence nor lived experience matter if people in power don't act ethically.

trichy wrote:

... At what point did intelligence become a handicap in elections? (He asks rhetorically.)

Serious answer:

For the American right, that would be 1980, and the election of Reagan. Bush 1 was the last hurrah for a conservative body politic that didn't actively run the other way from intelligence, but the ground under him had already changed.

For the American left, it's yet to happen. The left still adores a technocrat.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:
trichy wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:
trichy wrote:

... At what point did intelligence become a handicap in elections? (He asks rhetorically.)

When our problems became not puzzles to be figured out, but imbalances of power to be corrected. Intelligence is great for figuring out abstract thought experiments, but lived experience is irreplaceable in understanding oppression.

Yeah, I don't buy it.

Lived experience is great. But it also ties you to a very narrow view of the world. You're basing decisions on your personal experiences and views of the world. That leads to things like, "Well, I grew up in Michigan, and I never saw anyone being racist, so I don't think racism is as big an issue as people say!" Anecdotal evidence takes priority over actual evidence.

Heh, sorry for leaving the premise unstated, but the point is lived experience of oppression, not one missing it. Not all lived experience is created equal.

Education and intelligence help reinforce a more broad view, one that includes viewpoints and information outside your lived experience.

My experience is that education and intelligence just get in the way. What a waste of time and effort.

Should Buttigieg get a foot in the lived experience of an oppressed minority as a homosexual?

I will go along with intelligence is a fairly ephemeral trait; I fail to see how education could concievably make someone less qualified as z candidate.

The question in my mind is some of whatever pushback Buttigieg seeing from his policies, at least from my limited understanding, are not in the tear it all down and start over far left camp?

I like that Buttigieg will try and make Chick-fil-a less problematic of an eating option.

As an abstract thought experiment. There are none near me. Maybe someday though.

Garrcia wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:
trichy wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:
trichy wrote:

... At what point did intelligence become a handicap in elections? (He asks rhetorically.)

When our problems became not puzzles to be figured out, but imbalances of power to be corrected. Intelligence is great for figuring out abstract thought experiments, but lived experience is irreplaceable in understanding oppression.

Yeah, I don't buy it.

Lived experience is great. But it also ties you to a very narrow view of the world. You're basing decisions on your personal experiences and views of the world. That leads to things like, "Well, I grew up in Michigan, and I never saw anyone being racist, so I don't think racism is as big an issue as people say!" Anecdotal evidence takes priority over actual evidence.

Heh, sorry for leaving the premise unstated, but the point is lived experience of oppression, not one missing it. Not all lived experience is created equal.

Education and intelligence help reinforce a more broad view, one that includes viewpoints and information outside your lived experience.

My experience is that education and intelligence just get in the way. What a waste of time and effort.

Should Buttigieg get a foot in the lived experience of an oppressed minority as a homosexual?

I will go along with intelligence is a fairly ephemeral trait; I fail to see how education could concievably make someone less qualified as z candidate.

The question in my mind is some of whatever pushback Buttigieg seeing from his policies, at least from my limited understanding, are not in the tear it all down and start over far left camp?

That very much depends on what ones considers a qualification. IF being opposed to addressing climate change, or GMO food, or vaccines (the first one isn't much a liberal issue, but the second two very much are) is a necessary qualification then education in very much a threat to maintaining that credential.

Oh, that reminds me of something I saw about science and education that's...depressing, but relevant:

Americans Are Smart About Science And educating them won’t solve political problems

“And interesting thing about that,” Besley said. “Turns out the relationship between what people know about science and their attitudes about science … is pretty small.” That is to say, Americans who know more science facts don’t necessarily hold the science policy beliefs actual scientists would prefer, nor do Americans who know the least have the least trust in science. And despite very different ideologies on a number of scientific issues, Republicans and Democrats score about the same on the Pew survey. What’s more, Besley said, experiments that tried to change a belief about a science topic by increasing people’s science education have largely failed.

Well that's depressing. It's a lot more pleasant to think people are ignorant rather than fully informed and simply evil.

Eh, science isn't facts. The value of science is humility in the face of insufficient data, persistence, respecting falsifiability and acknowledging that "common sense" is a terrible driver of anything even remotely complex.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

I like that Buttigieg will try and make Chick-fil-a less problematic of an eating option.

As an abstract thought experiment. There are none near me. Maybe someday though.

And Buttigieg taking that position makes me think he's much more of a Log Cabin Republican than a Democrat.

The owners of Chick-fil-A are still homophobic trash who still donate millions of dollars every year to anti-LGBT "Christian" charities. They've never apologized for bankrolling the fight against the human rights of gay people and have only sought to hide their support by shifting the more problematic donations from their corporate charity to their family charity. Either way that money comes from people buying fried chicken sandwiches to stuff into their gobs.

It's really not a big ask to not give a family-owned company who thinks gay people are destroying America money, especially when you can make your own fried chicken sandwiches at home and not support a bunch of religious bigots.

Coming back to politics - I think we agree that being educated and having a high intelligence does not make for a better President. I’m not sure that i completely agree that intelligence isn’t a good trait but I am open to being wrong about that. I will accept that advanced degrees, fancy schools, etc are really not of any use for President of most people in fact.

Also, having an understanding of science is certainly not needed to be President. But I do think science does play an important role in our society and I think that overall at least having some small percentage of members of our society who are intelligent and well educated is pretty important. Likewise, even if our President is not very intelligent or doesn’t have a formal education, I hope they at least acknowledge that science is important for guiding some of our policies.

OG_slinger wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

I like that Buttigieg will try and make Chick-fil-a less problematic of an eating option.

As an abstract thought experiment. There are none near me. Maybe someday though.

And Buttigieg taking that position makes me think he's much more of a Log Cabin Republican than a Democrat.

Okay. Doesn't make me think that. He may turn out to be one, but I don't think that's a sufficient basis.

The owners of Chick-fil-A are still homophobic trash who still donate millions of dollars every year to anti-LGBT "Christian" charities. They've never apologized for bankrolling the fight against the human rights of gay people and have only sought to hide their support by shifting the more problematic donations from their corporate charity to their family charity. Either way that money comes from people buying fried chicken sandwiches to stuff into their gobs.

It's really not a big ask to not give a family-owned company who thinks gay people are destroying America money, especially when you can make your own fried chicken sandwiches at home and not support a bunch of religious bigots.

Is it Chick-fil-A though? I've made Chick-fil-A at home, but it involves putting oil in a pressure cooker and the threat that poses to burning down the whole house.

Man, what were those books before the internet was popular that had those recipes in them? There were two of them, that's where I got the recipe. Man, that might be twenty years ago at this point...

edit: Top Secret Recipies! That was the name of the books!

Docjoe wrote:

Coming back to politics - I think we agree that being educated and having a high intelligence does not make for a better President. I’m not sure that i completely agree that intelligence isn’t a good trait but I am open to being wrong about that. I will accept that advanced degrees, fancy schools, etc are really not of any use for President of most people in fact.

Also, having an understanding of science is certainly not needed to be President. But I do think science does play an important role in our society and I think that overall at least having some small percentage of members of our society who are intelligent and well educated is pretty important. Likewise, even if our President is not very intelligent or doesn’t have a formal education, I hope they at least acknowledge that science is important for guiding some of our policies.

I disagree about education in that I believe it is important. The specifics (liberal arts vs science vs etc) may not be critical, and even scholastic accolades are not critical. I, however, am much more likely to trust the critical thinking skills of someone who has invested in their education. That being said I think one could get into a discussion about the role of formal vs informal education. I think it also demonstrates a willingness to learn, which as we have seen over the last few years a president unwilling to learn new things is less than optimal.

As for science literacy I have a couple of issues. The first is the bar I want to see crossed for science literacy is higher than what I imagine is typical, though that is more my issue. The other is the fundamental failing is in not understanding scientific methods. As an extension of people letting their politics inform what science they want to believe I feel there is also an attitude that science will just swing in and offer some cost/risk free solution to whatever problem I happen to have, which as the meme goes is not how this works, it is not how any of this works.

I would hope that whomever is president is willing to set their personal biases aside for science issues that both support and oppose their policy views.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

Okay. Doesn't make me think that. He may turn out to be one, but I don't think that's a sufficient basis.

He should seriously read the Democratic room. We want someone who's going to fight against Republicans and conservatives and he's busy trying to suck up to people who are entirely cool with trading people's civil rights for some fast food fried chicken.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

Is it Chick-fil-A though? I've made Chick-fil-A at home, but it involves putting oil in a pressure cooker and the threat that poses to burning down the whole house.

It's the brine that makes it Chick-fil-A, not how it's fried. They fry it in a pressure cooker because it's faster than a normal fryer and they're a fast food restaurant.

OG_slinger wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

Okay. Doesn't make me think that. He may turn out to be one, but I don't think that's a sufficient basis.

He should seriously read the Democratic room. We want someone who's going to fight against Republicans and conservatives and he's busy trying to suck up to people who are entirely cool with trading people's civil rights for some fast food fried chicken.

I'd disagree with the way you are characterizing that story. I also figure we're not going to see eye-to-eye when it comes to where the dividing line between "suck up" and "fight against" is.

He may turn out to be the Leeroy Jenkins of Politics, but he's also attacking Mike Pence on religion

“When you have somebody seeming to want to impose his religion on others, as the vice president has, and at the same time teaming up with a presidency that seems to have no regard for at least what I would consider to be Christian values, I do think that hypocrisy needs to be called out.”
OG_slinger wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

Is it Chick-fil-A though? I've made Chick-fil-A at home, but it involves putting oil in a pressure cooker and the threat that poses to burning down the whole house.

It's the brine that makes it Chick-fil-A, not how it's fried. They fry it in a pressure cooker because it's faster than a normal fryer and they're a fast food restaurant.

Nah man, it's also because frying in a pressure cooker keeps it from getting as greasy as it otherwise would because the water doesn't boil out of the chicken as fast.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

Is it Chick-fil-A though? I've made Chick-fil-A at home, but it involves putting oil in a pressure cooker and the threat that poses to burning down the whole house.

It's the brine that makes it Chick-fil-A, not how it's fried. They fry it in a pressure cooker because it's faster than a normal fryer and they're a fast food restaurant.

Nah man, it's also because frying in a pressure cooker keeps it from getting as greasy as it otherwise would because the water doesn't boil out of the chicken as fast.

COMPLETELY off topic, but I feel like replicating Chick-fila chicken ends up being like one of those Claire Saffitz Bon Appetit "pastry chef makes gourmet X" videos. You can't truly replicate it at home because the final product in intrinsically reliant on industrial techniques that can't actually be replicated in a home kitchen

thrawn82 wrote:

COMPLETELY off topic, but I feel like replicating Chick-fila chicken ends up being like one of those Claire Saffitz Bon Appetit "pastry chef makes gourmet X" videos. You can't truly replicate it at home because the final product in intrinsically reliant on industrial techniques that can't actually be replicated in a home kitchen

Trust me, you can.

Just, you really shouldn't.

It was pretty much indistinguishable from Chick-fil-A. It was also a long time ago, when there was nothing better after a long day of finishing a pack of candy cigarettes and playing lawn darts than a homemade Chick-fil-A sandwich.

Some things are better left in the past...

Just wondering, are there any documented cases of LGBTQ people being mistreated or disrespected at a Chik-Fil-A restaurant, or is the bigot label being applied solely for the owners donations?

Not saying there haven't been any cases, but I certainly haven't heard of them. The only thing I know about them is their owners attitudes and contributions to actively making LGBTQ people's lives more difficult or even dangerous. That's enough for me to boycott them, even if my wife likes their food.

Edit: that's not to say I'm stopping her from eating there. Just that I won't.

Chick-fil-A Anti-Gay Controversy: Gay Employees Speak Out

Huffpost and the bias that comes with that, anecdotal, and editorial. buuut it lines up with things I've heard personally from people who have worked there (which is also anecdotal).

Edit: theres also a few lawsuits, but it looks like they all settled out of court with the usual NDAs involved.

A Former Chick-Fil-A Employee Is Suing The Chain For Gender Discrimination

Nomad wrote:

Just wondering, are there any documented cases of LGBTQ people being mistreated or disrespected at a Chik-Fil-A restaurant, or is the bigot label being applied solely for the owners donations?

Pretty much the owners. By most accounts the individual store people are fine.

But it's kind of like Papa John's. Do you want to line the pockets of the founder who used the N-word in a board meeting a few months back? No, thank you, I don't. I know my local delivery driver probably isn't a racist. But f*ck Papa John, he doesn't get a dime from me ever again.

Nomad wrote:

Just wondering, are there any documented cases of LGBTQ people being mistreated or disrespected at a Chik-Fil-A restaurant, or is the bigot label being applied solely for the owners donations?

What is a fair threshold for a bigot label? If one Chick-Fil-A manager fires a guy for being gay, would that be enough to call the company homophobic? Is the company covered if that manager gets fired? Do they need to hang signs saying "No Gays" to be sufficiently bigoted to earn the label?

Why can't the owner offering financial support to organizations that want to remove (or prevent access to) human rights to people count?

Atras wrote:

What is a fair threshold for a bigot label?

In today's multnational corporations I think that question is rougher than it used to be.

I would bet that with almost every company if you dig enough you would find those kind of things. If not by the company directly then by the other companies they deal with.

For example Coke is sold by Chick-Fil-A so obviously they have deals with the company. It it good to boycott Coke? If not, why? Wouldn't a strong boycott of them cause them to rethink their deal with Chick-Fil-A, and depending on how much it could cost them perhaps Chick-Fil-A would rethink their position.

Atras wrote:
Nomad wrote:

Just wondering, are there any documented cases of LGBTQ people being mistreated or disrespected at a Chik-Fil-A restaurant, or is the bigot label being applied solely for the owners donations?

What is a fair threshold for a bigot label? If one Chick-Fil-A manager fires a guy for being gay, would that be enough to call the company homophobic? Is the company covered if that manager gets fired? Do they need to hang signs saying "No Gays" to be sufficiently bigoted to earn the label?

Why can't the owner offering financial support to organizations that want to remove (or prevent access to) human rights to people count?

Don’t get me wrong. You and anyone else are free to abstain from their delicious chicken for any reason you please. With the recent posting outcry against CFA again, I was wondering if they had done something new.