The Democratic Socialists of America pulled its endorsement of Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York this week, accusing the progressive congresswoman of being insufficiently supportive of the Palestinian cause and efforts to end the war in Gaza…
Her approach has increasingly strained her relationship with some of the left’s most strident critics of Israel. When she rallied last month in the Bronx with Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Jamaal Bowman, dozens of pro-Palestinian demonstrators angry over her endorsement of Mr. Biden chanted “You’re a fraud, A.O.C.”
See, what someone with an informed political calculus would have done, would have been to support criticism of the incumbent and demand a proper competitive primary 10 months ago while we still had lots and lots of time and bandwidth for it.
If your views only make sense looking backwards, your views don’t make sense.
You should really consider listening to those whose views predict future states of the world, and weighting their opinions more highly than your own, until you’ve adjusted your calculus sufficiently such that your views predict future states of the world.
Basically, you were wrong, are wrong, and will continue to be wrong until you begin to adjust your thinking.
Oh, someone with an informed political calculus would never have said “The historical advantages of having an incumbent and the disadvantages of a contested primary against the incumbent, which signals a lack of confidence in the candidate beyond what an ordinary primary entails, mean that the best choice is the current incumbent, since he has already declared he is running.” Of course not. What person with informed political calculus looks at stupid things like ‘past trends’ or ‘current polling’?
My view changed because the information available to me changed. I called heads and it was tails. I fucked up. You seem convinced because I fucked up that I’m ready to change my view from “Stopping fascism is good, actually” to “Fascism is okay if it we can show those LIBERALS who’s boss!”
Fucking what.
What the fuck is that even supposed to mean.
Yes, you did. Repeatedly and loudly, while calling everyone who was absolutely right fascists.
Just like you’re doing now.
Its so much more than that. Its that you had a wildly wrong opinion, an opinion that functionally hurt our ability to stop Trump. You had all the information you needed to make the right assessment, but your entire goal with your rhetoric was to shut down any kind of conversation that would allow for that right assessment to be made. It was fucking disgusting and it still is.
What it means, is that if your views only predict previous states of the universe but don’t generalize to new states of the universe, we should ignore you.
“Wow, I think that maybe the actual data might be correct, and that the ‘Biden Senile!’ line that’s been repeated for the past 4 years and not shown itself to be anything but typical GOP barking probably isn’t correct; clearly the fact that I made the wrong decision in that light means I should throw away the idea that stopping fascism is bad, and embrace hope that if enough of America licks boots for long enough, they’ll get tired of the taste and spontaneously spawn socialist movements across the country!”
And how the fuck are you supposed to determine that BEFORE new states of the universe come about? Do you… do you think prophecy is real or something? Like, this is materialism 101, I shouldn’t have to explain this to anyone not trying to cast spells to cure their ailing grandmother - adjusting one’s views in the face of new information is how solid theory is formed; that IS how theories advance to the point of being able to predict future events, it doesn’t just come fucking birthed into a wunderkind’s mind by the blessed seed of knowledge of the universe.
Its that your model of the universe is wrong and you dont seem to care. You only care if it predicts in reverse, which is functionally useless.
Okay, so you didn’t read what I said, or didn’t understand it. That’s alright. You keep casting spells, I’m sure this whole ‘hypothesis-action-analysis-revision’ cycle is a passing fad.
Its about weighting. You take in many many opinions and you weight those where the prior maps more correctly to the posterior, then take the average. Weights can be positive or negative, and might be useful in either case. Its why I stick with dunces like you. I can apply a negative multiplier to your expressed opinions about what will happen and it better informs my prediction of future states.
I can basically take your view, look at whatever the opposite of it is, and use that to predict the future.
lol
Amen
Becasue “someone with an informed political calculus would have chosen to not vote at all, right?
How can you say shit like this, and then suggest that not voting will bring change?