Gorillazrule

I watched this video when it came out and I disagree with the findings in it, because to me it seems less to indicate that people reject logic because of political affiliations, and more people are critical of studies that contradict prior knowledge.

People interpreting results on the skin cream have absolutely no frame of reference. There isn't a brand name associated with the skin cream that might have some kind of recognition for people to have prior knowledge. The study that they are presented with is the first time they are seeing anything about this skin cream.

People weighing in on gun control, have a lot of prior knowledge on the topic. Now whether all this knowledge is based on facts or data is obviously questionable. But regardless they have prior experience with the topic. So naturally you are going to be critical of a study showing you results that directly contradict your prior knowledge. Also from the video it doesn't seem clear that they are asking them to specifically treat it like math problem and make judgements based on the study alone. They are asked whether they think gun control is effective. And while obviously they have the infographic right in front of them, most people are not going to base their judgements solely on that data alone.

To put it another way, what if the study was based on something non-political, like say whether smoking 2 packs of cigarettes a day improves or worsened lung capacity over the course of a decade? I think most people would be heavily critical of the study that shows smoking improved lung capacity even if the data they are presented reflects that. And I don't think it would be because they are simply rejecting logic and numeracy based on affiliations. It's because they have prior information and knowledge that directly contradicts the singular study that is presented to them.

And this is ignoring the fact that while the statistic they use to measure the effectiveness for the cream is very tangible and direct. Either the rash improves or it worsens. And you can make direct comparisons with the control groups. In the gun control study you are comparing different sets of cities, ones that have gun control laws and ones that don't. You aren't comparing the same set of cities before and after gun control. So already this is a poor study. Then to make matters worse the statistic they use to measure the effectiveness is "crime worsened" and "crime improved". Not crime committed with firearms. Or even just violent crimes. Just crimes. And in cities where gun control laws have been implemented, crime is naturally going to go up because there is a new law for people to break. Anybody who isn't following the gun control laws in that city are committing a crime whereas people in the cities without those laws are doing the exact same thing, but it's just not counted towards "crime" because it hasn't been outlawed.

This really cuts to the core of the issue. Why would they need to listen to what people are saying if they've already won the election? To bolster their chances of being re-elected? But then the next election will most likely be a repeat. Vote for me or else the fascists win. Then we elect them, even though they state while they are running that they plan to do [x]. We make a big fuss to tell them we don't want them to do [x]. They follow through with what they clearly stated while campaigning. And then next election it's the same thing again. The only bargaining chip we really have as the American people is our vote.

If the situation is really that dire. (And I absolutely believe it is) And American democracy as a whole is at stake, who is really the one to blame? The people holding steadfastly to their beliefs and saying that they don't feel comfortable/ good voting for someone who is saying they will continue to support genocide? Or the person that sees people saying that and points the finger at them as the problem instead of hearing them out and changing your policy to gain their votes? I understand that also poses the risk of losing votes, but do you really want the votes of people thirsting for genocide?

All of this being said I do completely understand that this is the choice that we've been stuck with, and that things will be massively worse if Trump does get elected. I'm voting for Harris, but I can't say that I really blame people who feel like they can't in good conscience. And I hate seeing everyone telling them to just shut up, vote Harris and worry about it after.

This looks amazing! Especially love the kitchen, workshop, and clean up areas. It's great to give people a space to do things they don't necessarily have the equipment or means to on their own. Which reminds me I should see if there are any publicly available workshops in my area.

To me it seems like less of a double standard and more of a representation of the divide between Americans.

Trump gets plenty of criticism from all around. Including from the same people that are also criticizing Harris. But his voter base is in full support of the stuff he's spewing, and will believe anything he says wholesale. Even if it's crazy, or unsubstantiated, or demonstrable lies.

The people who make legitimate criticisms of Harris are not supportive of trump. But them criticizing Trump will not change Trump. He already has unwavering support from a large number of people. Why would he do anything to gain the support of someone who is willing to call him out on his bullshit and hold him to an actual standard? And it's not going to change the minds of any of his cult-like voters. However they do have hope that by criticizing Harris they might see her actually make changes towards becoming a candidate they wholesale fully support. Not a candidate that they are forced to choose because of the alternative. But a candidate that they actively want to be elected. These criticisms might also be persuasive to other Harris supporters and call them to be vocal and advocate for her to change as well.

So it's less of individuals having double standards and treating the candidates differently, but the two polar opposite standards that the voter bases have.

Under the funny and spooky category, one of my favourite movies is Murder Party.

Right. We will be defending Israel from the incoming Iranian ballistic missiles after they kill innocent civilians on a scale larger than they already have been, prompting a response from Iran large enough that the iron dome is not capable of handing it. Which totally doesn't make us participants. We're not directly doing the bloodshed, just enabling it and defending Israel from feeling any consequences.

Genuine question. What do you think should happen with people that have committed violent crimes? If they have no interest in voluntary rehabilitation, imprisonment with the goal of rehabilitation seems to be a better alternative to just letting them roam freely and do as they please. And it seems a lot better than the death penalty. Specifically for reasons like what we're seeing here. You can release someone from prison if evidence comes later that casts doubt on their guilt. It doesn't prevent the harm that has already been caused, but it gives them an opportunity to take back their life. You can't un-execute somebody.

If the prisons are focused on rehabilitation and reintegration instead of just keeping people locked up and treating them like they're not human? Yes. Do I believe prisons in the US are like that? No.

This is such a nothing argument. If all you're talking about is a summary of a book, people have been able to get that long before AI. I can go to a wikipedia entry right now of any book and look at a plot summary. The author does not get paid for me looking at the summary on Wikipedia. There are numerous other sites where you can find summaries of books. And if you're asking an AI for a summary of a specific book by a specific author, what attribution would you like to see? The user already knows the source because they're specifically asking for a summary of that source.

A bigger concern would be the AI reproducing your works and using them in responses.