[Winstonm]

Btw, I admit that I have more concern about these wingnuts than about any Muslim violence.

[Kaitlyn S]

 hrothgar, on 2016-December-02, 06:24, said:

I would like to make a serious request that the moderators ban jonottawa from the BBOForums

I argue that any/all of the content that he is posting is equivalent to advertising.
As such, it should be removed and the account should be banned.

1. It has been years since Jon has made any posts on the forums that are related to bridge
2. Jon's twitter feed demonstrates that his primary reason for posting is an attempt to gain credibility in other forums

Consider the following example post from Jon's Twitter account

https://twitter.com/...069160296873984

He's not posting on the BBOForums because he want's to interact with the individuals here.
Rather, he's posting ridiculous abuse in an attempt to promote himself to his cretinous Twittter followers

Frankly, I don't see the difference between this and advertising penis enlargement pills

I see the difference because I see Jon's content as being the (almost) lone voice in the wilderness.

On BGG, where the Water Cooler equivalent is about 2/3 liberal; 1/3 conservative, Jon's posts would be welcomed by some and expanded upon. While 2/3 of the users would try to dis him as you do here, 1/3 of the users will not only agree with much of his content but help find articles to back him up.

However, to call his content "advertising" seems a bit of a stretch. To most rational people, for him to be advertising, he would need to hope to find somebody on this site to purchase a product or service for him or to do work for him. As far as I know, he's not trying to do that.

Because most of you are like minded, you all think his posts are nonsense and your posts are all truth-based because you are the knowledgeable ones. If you were on BGG with the same posts, you would get a lot of agreement, but 1/3 of the users would call you the uninformed and brainwashed liberals and would post to articles to back themselves up. And many of them are better at it than I am (not too hard ) and more intelligent and more educated than I am.

My belief is that if Jon isn't harming anybody that he is entitled to free speech. He hasn't threatened anybody and hasn't intentionally tried to hurt anybody. He hasn't used derogatory words like n***** (to my knowledge, the only time I've seen that word is when the left-leaning posters are talking to me.) He is not advocating Nazism, fascism, or the mantra of the KKK. Most of you strongly disagree with him but that is no reason not to let him speak.

Now, his freedom of speech does not give him the right to make you listen. You can choose to ignore any posts of his or in which he is quoted. However, he is very adamant that he is right. You and your posse are also very adamant that you are right. While I tend to agree with more of what he says than what you say politically, I am questioning some of my beliefs so I'm not adamant. But what I believe is irrelevant, but what is relevant is that the Water Cooler is not a safe space for snowflakes None of you seem like the snowflakes that are proliferating our college campuses so I will respectfully request that you don't try to emulate them. If you can honestly show that he is in fact using this site to advertise to readers of this forum, then I will reconsider the position shown in this post.

[ggwhiz]

 diana_eva, on 2016-December-02, 11:01, said:

Actually BBF TOS specify no hateful material:

[/size][/color]

I'm not sure if the outside twitter nonsense qualifies or if there is enough in this thread...... but it's on my wish list.

[PassedOut]

 Kaitlyn S, on 2016-December-02, 11:17, said:

Now, his freedom of speech does not give him the right to make you listen. You can choose to ignore any posts of his or in which he is quoted. However, he is very adamant that he is right. You and your posse are also very adamant that you are right. While I tend to agree with more of what he says than what you say politically, I am questioning some of my beliefs so I'm not adamant.

There is something seriously wrong with anyone who is adamant that large numbers of illegals voted last month, and if you give that some thought, you'll realize that to be true. (There's no evidence for it, and it flies in the face of common sense.) When something like that happens, it makes sense to be suspicious of that source in the future, no matter how adamant.

[PassedOut]

The US isn't alone in facing this problem: Fake news: an insidious trend that's fast becoming a global problem

Quote

The German political mainstream is getting increasingly nervous about the effect that the rise of fake news might have on federal elections next autumn. Fake news and Russian interference – either by influencing fake news sites, or by hacking or misinformation – are viewed as a serious threat to the democratic process, particularly since the US presidential elections.

From rumours that Merkel was in the east German secret police, the Stasi, to others suggesting she is Adolf Hitler’s daughter, Germans are also proving themselves susceptible to false information.

The most blatant example of fake news to hit Germany so far occurred earlier this year over reports that a 13-year-old girl of Russian origin, known as Lisa F, had been raped in Berlin by refugees from the Middle East. The story received extensive coverage on Russian and German media who reported the allegations that she had been abducted on her way to school and gang-raped. The attack turned out to have been fabricated, as Berlin’s chief of police was quick to point out. According to Berlin’s public prosecutor’s office the girl had spent 30 hours with people known to her, and a medical examination proved she had not been raped.

But having been shared widely on social media and through Russian news sites, hundreds took to the streets to protest at the “attack”, along with far right and anti-Islam groups. Sergey Lavrov, Russia’s foreign minister went so far as to accuse Merkel’s government of “sweeping the case under the carpet”, heightening suspicions in Berlin that the Kremlin was deliberately trying to cause trouble.

The article goes on to discuss fake news problems in France, Myanmar, Italy, China, Brazil, Australia, and India.

I don't think that the answer is to suppress this. Instead, we need to find a way to challenge this stuff immediately and dramatically, much the same way that smart political campaigns respond to negative ads rather than assuming that folks will see through any ridiculous falsehoods.

[Al_U_Card]

 PassedOut, on 2016-December-02, 12:12, said:

There is something seriously wrong with anyone who is adamant that large numbers of illegals voted last month, and if you give that some thought, you'll realize that to be true. (There's no evidence for it, and it flies in the face of common sense.) When something like that happens, it makes sense to be suspicious of that source in the future, no matter how adamant.

And as long as that is in open discourse, it can be seen as well as be seen to be disproved. Driving it away only ensures its success elsewhere and creates a lack of awareness that may eventually lead to the elite not just discriminating against a minority but a potential majority (if only of the electoral kind...).

[Kaitlyn S]

 PassedOut, on 2016-December-02, 12:12, said:

There is something seriously wrong with anyone who is adamant that large numbers of illegals voted last month, and if you give that some thought, you'll realize that to be true. (There's no evidence for it, and it flies in the face of common sense.) When something like that happens, it makes sense to be suspicious of that source in the future, no matter how adamant.

I do know that I saw a videotape of Democratic Party operatives discussing voters traveling across state lines to vote in states where it doesn't matter. I also know that most conservatives are telling me that this tape is damning evidence and most liberals are telling me that the tape was doctored or taken out of context. In light of that, wouldn't you think that most people that aren't going with "doctored or out of context" are going to believe the narrative?

Now I am not convinced that a large number of illegals voted last month. I'm not convinced that they didn't. Since I've been here, your entire posse has been telling me that anything the conservatives have said is pure bullsh*t and I'm just stupid if I believe any of it. To me, it would seem as though you would say it if it were true, or you would say it if you were brainwashed to think it was true, or you would say it if it were the Democratic Party narrative. Personally I think that odds that (say) ten thousand illegals voted is very small. But I can't put it at zero no matter how ridiculous you are telling me it is. Because none of us know the whole truth. If they did so, they likely did it with little risk - using the names and social security numbers of dead people rather than their own identity.

The New Haven mayor wanted to let undocumented immigrants vote. He is probably not the only one and it isn't at all unlikely that if people know that the local bigwigs are OK with undocumented immigrants voting, that those immigrants are less likely to get caught, especially in a sanctuary city - and Lord knows there are tons of them. Also, some undocumented people are uneducated and ignorant, and may be pretty gullible when told that it's OK if they vote. After all, if the Republicans can take Obama's message out of context and say he wants illegals to vote, why can't the Democrats do the same? Nothing bad happens to the Democrats if the undocumented immigrant gets caught, and politicians of both parties have been known to be pretty sleazy. So yes, the probability is non-zero. You can't just say it's totally ridiculous and that anyone who thinks it's possible it totally witless, because people can reason that it could be possible albeit unlikely, and that your stance is the type of arrogance that has driven people to vote for Trump.

What I'm saying here is that once an undecided sees that one of the things you are calling ridiculous is possible, they may question all the rest of your "facts" too. Once they do that, your entire narrative goes out the window, because even if you're right about most things, people won't believe you.

I'm not saying you're wrong about illegals not voting, you are probably right. But to say that it's ridiculous and stupid to think otherwise, is going to alienate anybody that think the "otherwise" is possible.

[mike777]

With trump winning there does seem to be a lot of talk of Russia voting for example in Wisconsin. I think they are suppose to vote from Russia so they do not worry about being deported.

Chicago my hometown has long been famous for having the dead vote, vote early and vote often.

with all of that said I have read reports of up to 97 million legal voters, not voting so I can understand Russia and the dead wanting to take up the slack.

[Winstonm]

This is rather incredible and rather sad and rather apt, given the preceding comments. (emphasis added)

Quote

Team Trump seems to genuinely believe that facts don’t matter.

During an appearance on “The Diane Rehm Show” on Wednesday, Donald Trump surrogate Scottie Nell Hughes tried to defend the president-elect’s entirely baseless claim that he would have won the popular vote had it not been for “millions of people who voted illegally.”

“Well, I think it’s also an idea of an opinion,” Hughes said. “And that’s — on one hand, I hear half the media saying that these are lies. But on the other half, there are many people that go, ‘No, it’s true.’ And so one thing that has been interesting this entire campaign season to watch, is that people that say facts are facts — they’re not really facts.”

She continued, “Everybody has a way — it’s kind of like looking at ratings or looking at a glass of half full water. Everybody has a way of interpreting them to be the truth or not truth. There’s no such thing, unfortunately, anymore as facts.”

The really frightening part is that to 60 million or so people in the U.S., this seems to be true.

[Al_U_Card]

 mike777, on 2016-December-02, 13:36, said:

With trump winning there does seem to be a lot of talk of Russia voting for example in Wisconsin. I think they are suppose to vote from Russia so they do not worry about being deported.

Chicago my hometown has long been famous for having the dead vote, vote early and vote often.

with all of that said I have read reports of up to 97 million legal voters, not voting so I can understand Russia and the dead wanting to take up the slack.

Sad but true...a most abstruce observation but thanks for bringing a little light back to the proceedings

[hrothgar]

 Al_U_Card, on 2016-December-02, 13:09, said:

And as long as that is in open discourse, it can be seen as well as be seen to be disproved. Driving it away only ensures its success elsewhere and creates a lack of awareness that may eventually lead to the elite not just discriminating against a minority but a potential majority (if only of the electoral kind...).

It has been repeatedly pointed out that most of what Al posts in the global warming thread is factually incorrect.
In said thread, he openly admitted to knowingly posting inaccurate information and stated that he is justified in doing so because the "warmists" do it as well.

If only if were possible to drive him away...

[mike777]

Since many of them drive or get benefits of one sort or another perhaps they should also get to vote, if 97 million others dont bother to vote..

[Winstonm]

 Kaitlyn S, on 2016-December-02, 13:24, said:

The New Haven mayor wanted to let undocumented immigrants vote. He is probably not the only one and it isn't at all unlikely that if people know that the local bigwigs are OK with undocumented immigrants voting, that those immigrants are less likely to get caught, especially in a sanctuary city - and Lord knows there are tons of them. Also, some undocumented people are uneducated and ignorant, and may be pretty gullible when told that it's OK if they vote. After all, if the Republicans can take Obama's message out of context and say he wants illegals to vote, why can't the Democrats do the same? Nothing bad happens to the Democrats if the undocumented immigrant gets caught, and politicians of both parties have been known to be pretty sleazy. So yes, the probability is non-zero. You can't just say it's totally ridiculous and that anyone who thinks it's possible it totally witless, because people can reason that it could be possible albeit unlikely, and that your stance is the type of arrogance that has driven people to vote for Trump.

First off, I do not think you are stupid - far from it. I think you are naive and gullible and maybe (as I was in my 30s and 40s), intellectually lazy.

You seem to easily buy into conspiracy ideas - can you tell me what "local bigwigs" means in the real world? Have you volunteered to work in voter registration or worked in a polling place? Do you really have an idea of the inner workings of the actual vote and the safeguards that are established. Can you name (not even a person but a position) in local city government that has the power to overcome the real safeguards in place to protect the integrity of elections, i.e., name your "bigwig", and explain how he or she might accomplish that without resorting to fictional conspiracies?

I have wasted a lot of time online debating with the religious about their beliefs - and what I find quaint about your ideas is that they borrow the exact same argument - that if an idea cannot be disproved 100% then it must have some merit - as much as 50% merit as an opposing idea.

That argument was nonsense in a religious setting and gains no traction when applied to politics instead.

What you have to show to make a case is first, a likely and realistic scenario where a single illegal voted, then explain how and why that scenario would be recreated 3 million times in California, and then explain the motivation that would cause those 3 million to carry out such an organized plan of action, and how all 3 million avoided detection.

And even with all that, you would just reach the level of making a reasonable claim. You should be too smart for the positions you take - and I think you are. There is another motivation that drives your choices - I think it is faith, a religious-like belief in conservative policies. But even then, when the preachers start to lie, it should be time to call them out.

[Kaitlyn S]

 Winstonm, on 2016-December-02, 13:56, said:

I have wasted a lot of time online debating with the religious about their beliefs - and what I find quaint about your ideas is that they borrow the exact same argument - that if an idea cannot be disproved 100% then it must have some merit - as much as 50% merit as an opposing idea.

That argument was nonsense in a religious setting and gains no traction when applied to politics instead.

Some of my point is that it doesn't matter whether your idea is right, even if you're 100% sure it's right and you can prove it; as long as a large enough portion of the voting populace believes the alternative is possible, they are going to see your argument as being arrogant and unsubstantiated, and will start to have doubts about your other ideas too.

[PassedOut]

 Kaitlyn S, on 2016-December-02, 13:24, said:

I do know that I saw a videotape of Democratic Party operatives discussing voters traveling across state lines to vote in states where it doesn't matter. I also know that most conservatives are telling me that this tape is damning evidence and most liberals are telling me that the tape was doctored or taken out of context. In light of that, wouldn't you think that most people that aren't going with "doctored or out of context" are going to believe the narrative?

There is "locker room talk" from people with every political belief under the sun about what they've done or would like to do. That is not evidence to me -- and I am a conservative. If you point me to 12 or 13 people who say they've actually experienced what this locker room talker was saying, then I'd have to take a look at it. So would a lot of people.

[y66]

This seems as good a place as any to post this excerpt from Jennifer Senior's review of Michael Lewis' new book “The Undoing Project: A Friendship That Changed Our Minds:

Quote

Mr. Lewis has always had a knack for identifying eccentrics and horde-defiers who somehow tell us a larger story, generally about an idea that violates our most basic intuition. In “Moneyball,” he gave us Billy Beane, who rejected the wisdom of traditional baseball scouts and rehabilitated the Oakland A’s through statistical reasoning. In “The Big Short,” he gave us an assortment of jittery misfits who bet against the housing market.

In “The Undoing Project,” Mr. Lewis has found the granddaddy of all stories about counterintuition, because Dr. Kahneman and Dr. Tversky did some of the most definitive research about just how majestically, fantastically unreliable our intuition can be. The biases they identified that distort our decision-making are now so well known — like our outsize aversion to loss, for instance — that we take them for granted. Together, you can safely say, these two men made possible the field of behavioral economics, which is predicated on the notion that humans do not always behave rationally.

and this excerpt from Robert Hackett's Fortune mag story based on John Cassidy's October 2016 interview of Kahneman:

Quote

For Daniel Kahneman, a Princeton psychologist and father of the discipline known as behavioral economics, the U.S. presidential election is more than just a political event. It is a case study for the kinds of irrational quirks and biases in human judgment that he has devoted his life to researching.

“I find it unbelievable, this phenomenon that is happening right now,” said the 2002 Nobel Prize winner in economics dusing an onstage interview at the New Yorker’s TechFest in New York City on Friday. “When you have a 7-year-old running for president—a very big 7-year-old,” he added, drawing laughs from the audience. He continued, “the idea that that person can secure some 40% of the base of the electorate is just astonishing and I’m really quite worried.”

Kahneman, a self-described pessimist (“but not enough of one,” he said), referenced neither Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump nor Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton by name during his chat. The conversation quickly turned, however, to the emergence of a political movement of a bygone era: the rise of Nazism in the early 20th century.

Mentioning how the 82-year-old Israeli-born academic had lived through the onset of World War II, the New Yorker’s John Cassidy, a sometime Fortune contributor, asked whether there’s any reason to believe that people would act more rationally nowadays and avoid such conflict.

“Absolutely not,” Kahneman replied, explaining that the Nazi movement grew partially out of economic chaos at the time. “Our brain has not changed since the last century, our impulses haven’t changed,” he said.

Kahneman offered an example of one bias he still sees in effect: people tend to prefer leaders who decide on things quickly, he said. “We don’t like people who deliberate too much, we lose the sense that they know what they’re doing,” he said.

“Our intrinsic makeup hasn’t improved and we’re still vulnerable,” he said.

Kahneman, author of the best-selling book Thinking, Fast and Slow, cautioned about the dangers of herd mentality and of succumbing to engrained biases. The conversation ranged from the potential of artificially intelligent bots to automate decision making to the future of business management to the possible displacement of workplace professionals by software algorithms.

“Individuals yield to social pressure,” he said with an air of academically-interested criticism on the political question. “This appeal to strength, this idea that being big and strong is highly valued—and masculine, I might add—that’s built in and hasn’t changed.”

Perhaps expecting people to act "more rationally" nowadays than historically or to presume they don't know best where their self interest lies is the best example of cognitive bias in U.S. history.

[Winstonm]

 Kaitlyn S, on 2016-December-02, 14:16, said:

Some of my point is that it doesn't matter whether your idea is right, even if you're 100% sure it's right and you can prove it; as long as a large enough portion of the voting populace believes the alternative is possible, they are going to see your argument as being arrogant and unsubstantiated, and will start to have doubts about your other ideas too.

And I think you miss my point. I am not trying to prove anything to you; I am asking you to prove things to yourself.

One thing I have learned over my 65 years is that I cannot compel another person to change, that change only comes from within. With that as my basis, the reason I have pointed out the seeming racist nature of some of your views and the flawed reasoning in many others is not to "prove" myself right and you wrong but was done in hopes that you over time might examine yourself, your own ideas and you own reasoning. My goal is not to sell a narrative but to encourage all of us to adopt critical thinking as our foundation for forming beliefs.

[nige1]

 diana_eva, on 2016-December-02, 11:01, said:

Actually BBF TOS specify no hateful material:

A complaint about abuse from hrothgar or mikeh just confirms that they have a sense of humour

[jonottawa]

People who serially abuse, violate and ignore the rules of THIS forum (that Diana posted) and then call for ME to be banned because they object to some of my RETweets on Twitter are beyond hypocritical. People bringing up places I worked over a dozen years ago or medical mishaps from ~7 years ago ... That's just creepy. I guess my Twitter feed is fair game, I don't make a secret of who I am, but not if it's being used as evidence that I broke the rules HERE. I follow Twitter rules on Twitter. I follow BBF rules on BBF. Retweet does not mean endorsement.

Mr. Hargreaves, I strongly suggest you delete that last defamatory attack against me & refrain from future defamatory libel. My patience and tolerance has limits. You don't like me. Fine. Then ignore me. Your delusional aspersions against andrei and I have passed any bounds of decency or sanity.

As for this spurious 'advertising' argument, that rule is to prevent people advertising outside services/products on THIS forum. Not to prevent/discourage advertising (sending people to) THIS forum on outside social media like Twitter.

Kaitlyn, thanks for telling it like it is.

Now, back to the topic at hand:

Great speech by President Trump yesterday and great appointment for SecDef, General James 'Mad Dog' Mattis

[PassedOut]

Kaitlyn,

I think that this is the sort of whine that makes you put someone in the "snowflake" category:

 jonottawa, on 2016-December-02, 15:35, said:

Mike, I strongly suggest you delete that last defamatory attack against me & refrain from future defamatory libel. My patience and tolerance has limits. You don't like me. Fine. Then ignore me. Your delusional aspersions against andrei and I [sic] have passed any bounds of decency or sanity.

Am I right?