[Verasev]

Nevermind on my state being blue. Obviously they counted the cities first. Florida still leans trump but it isn't set in stone yet. Anybody know what counties they have left to count?

[Dr Lancer-X]

Verasev, on 09 November 2016 - 01:42 PM, said:

Nevermind on my state being blue. Obviously they counted the cities first. Florida still leans trump but it isn't set in stone yet. Anybody know what counties they have left to count?

Palm Beach and Broward. Both heavily lean Democratic but I don't think it matters at this stage.

[Verasev]

And he takes florida and probably the election

[Dr Lancer-X]

Reminder: Nate Silver is the undisputed king of electoral predictions, even when he's being sarcastic.

[Verasev]

So Trump with a republican senate majority and republican control of the house of representatives. Oh, goodie!!!!11!

[Dr Lancer-X]

Exophase, on 09 November 2016 - 03:51 AM, said:

Anyone see this article?

http://www.huffingto...4b0d9ce6fbc6f7f

HuffPo has really jumped the shark this cycle. It's sad how many people in general have been slagging 538 (and Nate Silver in particular) given how robust and transparent their model is. They get these attacks that are completely bereft of any understanding of statistics and it's sad.

Welp

Quote

So Trump with a republican senate majority and republican control of the house of representatives. Oh, goodie!!!!11!

On the other hand, the Republicans hate him almost as much as the Democrats do, so...

[Exophase]

Guess this is it then. Sure didn't see that coming.

It's weird - on an intellectual level I heavily opposed Trump, for what I think are a lot of sensible reasons. I'm at least moderately on the left, and I think he's grossly unqualified to be president and a pretty awful person that has potential to some really terrible things. But at the same time, there's this piece of me that wanted to see him put up a real fight. That is, until he showed to be doing that, at which point I pretty desperately wanted him to lose. I did my "part" and all in voting for Hillary (my girlfriend, who was also in favor of Jill Stein, voted for Hillary as well).. I suppose I could have done more but I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have mattered. Still, I guess I'm sorry.

There are probably some basic lessons here. It's really been difficult for a party to win a third term for a long time now, and America is more politically divided than I've ever seen it - which probably makes it even harder. The polling errors are off the charts this time, and the media in particular is going to have a hard time being taken seriously when it comes not just to political analysis but really accurately describing the state of anything. Which might not be the worst thing in the world.

Maybe the political climate was particularly bad for a "dynasty" candidate. Hillary's positions and experience have been pushed as obvious strengths, but I can see why people wouldn't see it that way and would want someone with less of a political name and establishment. Maybe she wasn't the right person to position as a big game changer (first female president) in light of all the other baggage she was carrying, justified or not.

I'm sad to say so, but I have to admit some possibility that Hillary's gender did hurt her afterall. The gender divide over this election has been absolutely intense. I'll say outright that I'm not a big fan of a lot of feminist rhetoric these days, but I really hope that we can work to break down the divisions between us.. I feel really bad thinking about men resenting women and women resenting men, and people in general not believing in each other and respecting each other because of the group they feel they belong to and need to represent or because of any other matters of bad blood.

But I think there's more to it than that. I can say again that I'm pretty decidedly on the American left, but I've been really unhappy with the attitude of many on the same side. There's much talk of hate being given with a lot of hate. And I think that's ultimately pushed some people away. I feel like everyone's got some soul searching to do.. but I don't have the best feeling that that's the direction we'll all take. I'm expecting a big increase in bitterness and belligerence instead. I hope I'm proven wrong.

[Dr Lancer-X]

Quote

There's much talk of hate being given with a lot of hate. And I think that's ultimately pushed some people away. I feel like everyone's got some soul searching to do.. but I don't have the best feeling that that's the direction we'll all take. I'm expecting a big increase in bitterness and belligerence instead. I hope I'm proven wrong.

Well, the news is only a couple of hours old but the atmosphere I'm getting as I glance around Twitter, HuffPo and other places seems to be that the lesson they learned is more "Let's keep calling people who disagree with us racists and sexists, because that's worked really well so far." than it is "When people are tired of the status quo, maybe making the earthly personification of the status quo our presidential candidate isn't going to work, even if she's a woman."

Anyway, I don't view those sorts of people as being the left, really- they're more the ctrl-left, and like the alt-right infected and gradually took over the right, the ctrl-left has ruined the left. I guess this outcome was inevitable. Will anyone learn the right lesson from it? Every time you see someone saying that the election outcome showed how racist and sexist America is, well, that's a hint that the lesson has not yet been learned.

On another note:


Wonder how much he donated.

[Graham]

This is from the comments in a Facebook post my mom made:

Excellent comments from an article in the feed: Why Hillary? "She was the Democratic candidate because it was her turn and because a Clinton victory would have moved every Democrat in Washington up a notch. Whether or not she would win was always a secondary matter, something that was taken for granted. Had winning been the party’s number one concern, several more suitable candidates were ready to go. There was Joe Biden, with his powerful plainspoken style, and there was Bernie Sanders, an inspiring and largely scandal-free figure. Each of them would probably have beaten Trump, but neither of them would really have served the interests of the party insiders.

And so Democratic leaders made Hillary their candidate even though they knew about her closeness to the banks, her fondness for war, and her unique vulnerability on the trade issue – each of which Trump exploited to the fullest. They chose Hillary even though they knew about her private email server. They chose her even though some of those who studied the Clinton Foundation suspected it was a sketchy proposition.

To try to put over such a nominee while screaming that the Republican is a rightwing monster is to court disbelief. If Trump is a fascist, as liberals often said, Democrats should have put in their strongest player to stop him, not a party hack they’d chosen because it was her turn. Choosing her indicated either that Democrats didn’t mean what they said about Trump’s riskiness, that their opportunism took precedence over the country’s well-being, or maybe both."

[Graham]

Also, I found this comment from Dan Rather to be comforting:

Time to remember to breathe. Smile, have a cup of coffee or big glass of water. Relax. Stay calm. Whatever happens in this election we’re going to be okay. The country is going to be okay.

Remember that this a big continental country with a widespread, very diverse population. It has a deep reservoir of natural and human resources. It has a system of government with built-in checks and balances on power guaranteed by a Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Presidents are powerful; what their character, policies and decisions are matter, but they are not all-powerful; not nearly. As a nation, we have survived and continued to thrive under some bad ones, such as Buchanan, Harding, Nixon. But we have never, in our whole history, had a truly evil President. And whoever wins today, we will not have one going forward.

We, The People, will make our destiny. Deciding to honor another citizen—not some alleged decendent of a sun-god, just another citizen—with the Presidency matters, and matters a lot. But whichever fellow citizen we decide to honor with today’s vote, we’ll be okay; our country will be okay.

Our entire history as a people, as a nation is that we have always had our eyes on the far horizon. And so it will be after today’s election results are in.

[Dr Lancer-X]

TULSI GABBARD 2020

FIRST WOMAN PRESIDENT

or 2024 i guess, i suppose you'll want to give trump his full 8 years first. but after that TULSI GABBARD 2024

[Graham]

Dr Lancer-X, on 09 November 2016 - 07:00 PM, said:

TULSI GABBARD 2020

FIRST WOMAN PRESIDENT

or 2024 i guess, i suppose you'll want to give trump his full 8 years first. but after that TULSI GABBARD 2024

She'll be 39 or 43 respectively, something tells me someone that young won't be taken seriously for the presidency, at least by folks that are older than that.

[Dr Lancer-X]

Graham, on 10 November 2016 - 02:01 PM, said:

She'll be 39 or 43 respectively, something tells me someone that young won't be taken seriously for the presidency, at least by folks that are older than that.

Lots of people didn't take Trump's presidential run seriously, and look at where that got them. I figure, fuck it; most of the traditional rules have been thrown out the window by this point. Might as well elect someone good.

[GetDizzy]

Wasn't Obama only 35?

[Graham]

Insidious, on 09 November 2016 - 08:52 PM, said:

Wasn't Obama only 35?

No, 47

[Graham]

Justin Trudeau Is 44 however.

[Exophase]

I'm actually kind of optimistic about the reflection I've been seeing. You just kind of have to step away from social media to start seeing it. Of course that probably applies to pretty much everything.

It might help that the real upsets came in a wave from states that people aren't used to hating. Remember that old "United States of Canada" vs "Jesusland" picture made after Bush beat Kerry? Guess which three Trump states were in the periphery of it. I really don't think anyone strongly associated Wisconsin with assholes.

Here's a very insightful article from Cracked of all places:

http://www.cracked.c...ne-talks-about/

And I got the link from someone who was really antagonistic towards Trump voters during the race. (I actually didn't realize the article was from well before the election, but the link was from after)

Also this from Bernie:

http://usuncut.com/n...trumps-victory/

He actually is considering a 2020 run, or at least sounds more open to it than he was before (but he probably thought Hillary was a lock). Such a shame, I really think he could have won this.

2020 is going to be interesting because the Democrats will be going up against a much more known quantity and will almost certainly not go for a big establishment thoroughbred. On the other hand, good things may come from a senator or representative who can help drive a coalition in pushing back against some of Trump's worse ideas (especially if it's bipartisan.. which it pretty much has to be)

[Dr Lancer-X]

Exophase, on 11 November 2016 - 12:38 PM, said:

Here's a very insightful article from Cracked of all places:

http://www.cracked.c...ne-talks-about/

That's an insightful article on Cracked by David Wong of all people. Holy fuck.

[Graham]

Wow! Really great article Exo, thank you.

[Exophase]

Another good one: https://www.youtube....g7BcjKs#t=5m23s

[CJA]

CJA, on 02 November 2016 - 10:22 PM, said:

you're right, it's pretty much about the effect of a Trump victory on the American people.

i wish i were wrong now

[Dr Lancer-X]

I love seeing a good national temper tantrum in response to a presidential candidate winning. If this level of enthusiasm was spent at the polling booth we'd be complaining about President Clinton right now. Another thing this had in common with Brexit - oh sure, you can gather a lot of people who say they don't want it after the fact, but where were they on voting day?

[Verasev]

They were busy assuming Trump couldn't possibly win, the idiots.

Also, re: that article from Exophase. I'm not sure how to react. I'm white trash, born and raised in a trailer out in the country but I somehow ended up with slightly more urban values than my neighbors.

This post has been edited by Verasev: 12 November 2016 - 04:04 PM

[Exophase]

Verasev, on 12 November 2016 - 10:49 AM, said:

Also, re: that article from Exophase. I'm not sure how to react. I'm white trash, born and raised in a trailer out in the country but I somehow ended up with slightly more urban values than my neighbors.

It's definitely not as cut and dry as the article makes it sound. Looking at Wisconsin, it had many rural counties that voted in favor of both Obama and Bush's opponents that now voted for Trump. Now they did pass voter ID laws after last cycle, but I don't think that had the massive impact on D turnout that some say it did.

On the matter of your particular point, indeed people on all sides of the political spectrum exist everywhere. And with communication and information as globalized as it has become you're going to see big pockets of progressive minorities in conservative strongholds (and vice-versa). It's just hard to notice thanks to the electoral college. If America switched to a national popular vote the way we see geographic polarization and who deserves to be reached would change dramatically.

[Verasev]

Here, for what little it's worth:

https://www.change.o...-on-december-19

And here's something in the vein of previous articles. This one, however, brings up white fragility, which is something I think needs to be addressed regarding this election.

http://www.vox.com/i...-research-study

I guess this pretty much wraps up the Doctor Lancer-X, Exophase, and Verasev show. Goodnight, everybody!

Edit: with guest stars Graham, Bramble, and Cja.

This post has been edited by Verasev: 16 November 2016 - 03:07 PM

[Dr Lancer-X]

Verasev, on 17 November 2016 - 01:05 AM, said:

https://www.change.o...-on-december-19

i know people say change.org petitions don't do anything ever, but i'm 100% sure this one will work

[Old-Sckool]

related: NSA announced that a "nation-state" used Wikileaks to influence the election. Additionally, there's been talk on reddit about how Wikileaks may have been compromised due to a set of hashes not matching an insurance file or something.

[Dr Lancer-X]

Old-Sckool, on 17 November 2016 - 07:25 PM, said:

Additionally, there's been talk on reddit about how Wikileaks may have been compromised due to a set of hashes not matching an insurance file or something.

Honestly - and I know there's been a lot of weirdness around Wikileaks lately, and I'm not trying to diminish that here - I don't think there's strong enough evidence of any foul play here.

To recap:

• Wikileaks released a set of pre-commitment hashes for various data dumps.
  
• Later, a set of encrypted insurance files were released and they did not hash to the same values as the pre-commitment hashes.
  
• The Wikileaks twitter said that the hashes were of the unencrypted files, not the encrypted files.
  
• People pointed out that previous Wikileaks hashes were of the encrypted files and that it's strange Wikileaks would change things like that. Naturally, as the decryption keys have not been released, there is no way of verifying whether this is true or not.

I have two rebuttals to this:

• Yes, Wikileaks has in the past released checksums along with its data dumps that matched the encrypted files, they were NOT pre-commitment hashes like these. They were released at the same time as the data dumps. Wikileaks is doing something they haven't done previously here, which is why this situation cannot necessarily be compared to past situations.
  
• Assuming Wikileaks is compromised, exactly what is the compromised Wikileaks trying to pull off here? Let's say they modified the insurance files and then released them. The data is still meaningless without the decryption keys. When the decryption keys are available it will be possible to compare the decrypted data against the hashes, so we would find out at that point if the files were modified - nothing at all changes. Besides, they could have easily just not have released these insurance files at all. It's not like there was a public timeline on these things.

In terms of the NSA director's remarks, the obvious implication here is that he's talking about Russia, and it's also obvious Russia had a lot to gain from manipulating this election - Donald and Hillary have very different policy positions on Syria, and it's clear which one Russia prefers. In fact, it's so obvious I'm suspicious. There's no value to divulging this information unless you want to be able to later say "Well, Russia cyber-attacked us, so..." - and whether Russia was culpable or not doesn't affect your ability to do that!

I'll believe that it's part of a new NSA transparency policy on cyber attacks when they formally release everything they know about Olympic Games/Stuxnet.

EDIT: i liked this article. It makes a good point that saturating one particular kind of message about Trump lead to other messages being drowned out. For example I don't think the fact that Trump is going to nominate potentially 4 Supreme Court justices got nearly as much airplay as it deserved. I think this shows that the ctrl-left has an undue amount of influence on the media and to the ctrl-left opposing progressive policies = racism and racism is the worst thing about Trump, not the fact that he's going to leave you with a Supreme Court that you'll be dealing with for decades and won't be able to undo even if you win the next two elections.

EDIT: also this

[Exophase]

Verasev, on 16 November 2016 - 10:05 AM, said:

And here's something in the vein of previous articles. This one, however, brings up white fragility, which is something I think needs to be addressed regarding this election.

http://www.vox.com/i...-research-study

Sorry, late response..

I'm going have to call that article a swing and a miss to me personally. Some of it comes from a good place and there are some valid points in there but the underlying message seems to be that we should come off as nicer to the poor idiots because they're weak fools who don't know any better. Smile and say it'll be okay when they talk but go into it without any thought of listening to what they're saying, much less understanding their perspective.

And this white fragility thing.. sorry, don't really buy it. Go up to a black person and call them a racist. What do you think their response is more likely to be? Wow, I've had to go through a lot of racism so I'm more in touch with it and willing to listen to this criticism? Or the same kind of defensiveness and irritation the white person probably would have responded with?

This isn't about some group being fragile because they're too privileged to conceive racism, this is about how racist is a very loaded and critical thing to call someone. The kind of term that people use to make someone a pariah and shut down any consideration for them, not something said to actually help anyone or lead them to introspection. It's about a notch ahead of being called a pedophile.

And the people who talk about white fragility are the same ones who claim people who aren't white can't even be racist. They talk about how it's really about systemic and institutional issues, but are still happy to brandish the term over any personal indiscretions regardless of how much structural significance and influence the offender has.

[Verasev]

Exophase, on 22 November 2016 - 11:41 PM, said:

Sorry, late response..

I'm going have to call that article a swing and a miss to me personally. Some of it comes from a good place and there are some valid points in there but the underlying message seems to be that we should come off as nicer to the poor idiots because they're weak fools who don't know any better. Smile and say it'll be okay when they talk but go into it without any thought of listening to what they're saying, much less understanding their perspective.

What part of their perspective on race do we need a better understanding of? I understand we should empathise with their economic issues but that's not the issues being discussed by this article. And I can link you to studies showing that race was a factor in this election.

Quote

And this white fragility thing.. sorry, don't really buy it. Go up to a black person and call them a racist. What do you think their response is more likely to be? Wow, I've had to go through a lot of racism so I'm more in touch with it and willing to listen to this criticism? Or the same kind of defensiveness and irritation the white person probably would have responded with?

This isn't about some group being fragile because they're too privileged to conceive racism, this is about how racist is a very loaded and critical thing to call someone. The kind of term that people use to make someone a pariah and shut down any consideration for them, not something said to actually help anyone or lead them to introspection. It's about a notch ahead of being called a pedophile.

People of color have claimed white defensiveness is more disproportionate. In any case, white people have a greater need to get over their defensiveness. There does need to be term for someone that does something mildly racist that isn't so explosive as racist because very mild racism is actually fairly common.

Quote

And the people who talk about white fragility are the same ones who claim people who aren't white can't even be racist. They talk about how it's really about systemic and institutional issues, but are still happy to brandish the term over any personal indiscretions regardless of how much structural significance and influence the offender has.

To be fair, the ones that claim people of color can't be racist usually say they can be prejudiced. They draw a distinction between the institutional nature of racism and common prejudice.