An eloquent and comprehensive “call to action” for the Right that mirrors sentiment regarding the progressive agenda now that it’s been more fully exposed to the light of rational inspection.
As Integralists I think we need to be considering what “Include and Transform” really looks like.
Excerpt: We are in the middle of a cultural revolution that is marginalizing ordinary people from decision-making. The moral relativism of the recent past slashed and burned the traditional values of our culture, producing the tabula rasa on which tyrannical revolutionaries always seem to build their utopias. Now, that building has begun, and they have replaced their moral relativism with arrogant moral certainty. That is why they are so intolerant. People who disagree with them are not to be listened to but silenced. The central aim of the new revolution, antithetical to our core founding idea, is to reduce freedom and concentrate power in the hands of like-minded politicians in Washington. To do this, they camouflage their ideology in the guise of public good. This do-gooding is inflicting terrible damage.
It is time to stop it. Indeed, it is long past time. But one must start somewhere, and now is better than later. And although it is necessary to stop inflicting damage on our polity and culture, applying the brakes is not enough. We must go further and reverse the process, restore what has been lost, reclaim and embrace what has been abandoned. Thorough and effective restoration is painstaking work, but it is worth it.
I didn’t read any actual “action” described in the “call to action”.
Just a bunch of whining, straw manning, blaming others and refusing to accept responsibility.
I would call this a “call to scapegoating”: the practice of singling out a person or group for unmerited blame and consequent negative treatment.
Maybe it’s a call to exhibit qualities: “a call for steady strength, resolution, and courage among ordinary people to demand that decades of despoilation cease,”, but the place they should be looking is within themselves to exhibit these qualities, rather than just blaming everyone when they cannot find these qualities in themselves.
I will do all those things the day after you storm the White House with your militia brothers, put Trump back in charge and lock up Hillary and Bezos and burn down their pizza parlor.
The Center for Technology and Civic Life (CTCL) and The Center for Election Innovation and Research (CEIR) passed a staggering $419.5 million of Zuckerberg’s money into local government elections offices, and it came with strings attached. Every CTCL and CEIR grant spelled out in great detail the conditions under which the grant money was to be used.
This is not a matter of Democrats outspending Republicans. Private funding of election administration was virtually unknown in the American political system before the 2020 election.
Big CTCL and CEIR money had nothing to do with traditional campaign finance, lobbying, or other expenses that are related to increasingly expensive modern elections. It had to do with financing the infiltration of election offices at the city and county level by left-wing activists, and using those offices as a platform to implement preferred administrative practices, voting methods, and data-sharing agreements, as well as to launch intensive outreach campaigns in areas heavy with Democratic voters.
1 - Present a biased and only fractionally true problem
2 - Sit back and wait for others to come up with an Integral perspective. No reason for you to do any actual heavy lifting
3 - React to other’s perspectives with straw manning, deflection and name calling
4 - never actually even try present your own ideas from an integral perspective. Wait for others to try
5 - when someone tries to pin down the actual facts of the topic, go back to #1 with another issue - preferably in another thread
6 - After several days, return back to original thread with another provocative topic (return to step #1)
From the Article: Analysis conducted by our team demonstrates this money significantly increased Joe Biden’s vote margin in key swing states. FALSE
The research methods showed correlation, not causation., regardless of what the article falsely claims.
Data point 1 - 2016 voter turnout
Data point 2 - 2016 Hillary voter share
Data Point 3 - County share of State poplulation
Data Point 4 - longitude and latitude
Data Point 5 - Per capita CTCL and CEIR spending
Data points 3 and 4 are clearly irrelevant. What does longitude and latitude and population density have to do with anything. So we don’t even have 5 useful data sets - we are down to 3. So then we have a situation where people did not turn out to support Hillary in 2016. There is no data set regarding Hillary’s popularity (the real reason for the low number in 2016). And there is no data set for the unpopularity of Trump in 2020 (the most likely reason for increased votes for Biden).
So they set up the experiment to come up with a conclusion and are just using (incorrectly) a fancy-sounding model to make it sound good, but they are programming in confirmation bias by only using 3 relevant data sets.
From the Article:
BART is a machine-learning algorithm that is considered a gold standard in making causal inferences.
OK
It enables us to avoid mistaking correlation for causation in our estimations.
False. No it does not.
The people who created this analytical model don’t even use such language in the fields where it was intended to be applied - much less something as complicated as analyzing the complex behavior of society.
They only entered 5 data sets, which is absurd. And only 3 of those are clearly relevant. An AI can’t “learn” anything from just 3 data sets - except what you want it to learn by only entering 3 specific data sets. It can only make conclusions from within those data sets. It would only be a legitimate “learning” if thousands of data sets were included.
If I tell you only 3 things and ask you to formulate a conclusion - that answer will be limited to those 3 variables. It I then tell you two additional variables (like both Hillary in 2016 and Trump in 2020 were very unpopular) your conclusion will shift dramatically.
Fun fact - I took a University course on similar methods 30 years ago.
The model is more accurate the more data sets there are, and less accurate the fewer data sets there are, and each additional Data set will increase the likelyhood (never certainty). Less than 20 data sets would have gotten me a complete F.
@raybennett So are you saying that Facebook’s Zuckerberg DID NOT funnel $419M into directly influencing voting structures? Sorry but it’s hard for me to figure out what you’re getting at in your post.
Coming soon: Biden’s full blown Recession
How long will the “assumption of good intentions” continue in the face of literally every Biden Administration executive decision negatively impacting Americans?
Joe Biden has had a rough few months. Polling has his approval falling below 40 percent and Friday’s jobs report won’t do anything to prop it up. The Afghanistan catastrophe, COVID-19 deaths surpassing those during Donald Trump’s tenure, and the increasing crisis at the southern border all will be secondary compared to the coming recession. Unlike many other economic events, this one will be the direct cause of policies promulgated by the White House.
1 - Present a biased and only fractionally true problem
2 - Sit back and wait for others to come up with an Integral perspective. No reason for you to do any actual heavy lifting
3 - React to other’s perspectives with straw manning, deflection and name calling
4 - never actually even try present your own ideas from an integral perspective. Wait for others to try
5 - when someone tries to pin down the actual facts of the topic, go back to #1 with another issue - preferably in another thread
6 - After several days, return back to original thread with another provocative topic (return to step #1)
Already to Step 3 I see.
Why bother to actually read and consider a complex view when you can just deflect to the next straw man.
I understand. However, if you present a complex mathematical model in a discussion as some kind of talking point you should be able to competently discuss it with someone and not just say “I cant figure out the topic”.
I don’t know why you keep beating the ZUckerberg drum. You’re REALLY late to that party. My Leftist friends here in Hawaii have been legally fighting him and protesting him for over a decade.
So you finally joined the left in disliking Zuckerberg?
ooohhh - so woke.
Notice the dates on these articles.
But hey - welcome to the left’s woke Zukerberg bashing party 4 years later.
The left has NEVER trusted Zuckerberg. He’s a frat boy who got his start by making a social network that rated women on University campuses.
He completely kissed Trump’s ass and plays whatever side is winning.
He’s that guy who year after year is always rooting for the favored team to win the Superbowl, lol.
Are we talking about Zuckerberg or that idiotic “study” you posted?
Again, you want to divert the discussion to be about Zuckerberg - as if that will somehow make the study you posted more legitimate, when it won’t.
Rather than discuss the substance of the article you introduced about a “scientific study” - you are deflecting the topic onto Zuckerberg. I guess you are doing that because you think I like Zuckerberg? Because for some reason if your Right wing echo chamber suddenly hates someone, your binary approach to people believes that if you suddenly dislike him that means I like him?
So just to emphasize the point - you did not understand the article you posted and are not able to discuss it competently and instead wanted to divert attention to a future possible rescission (which I completely agree is highly probable without the infrastructure bill) and Zuckerberg (who I agree is a turd).
So we are at your standard step 5 again. You can’t competently engage in an actual useful discussion so you’ll return to your post conservative media who will tell you what to think next.
@raybennett Mr. Bennett, I started the thread titled as “Existential War - the Right understands” to enable posting and discussions on “the Right understands” now and understands what the stakes are.
Zuckerberg’s $400M infusion into the actual election precincts in order to influence outcomes (for the Left this time around) should concern all US eligible voters - not just the Right or just the Left.
I’m glad you agree that Facebook and Zuckerberg are an “issue” regardless of political leanings.
Perhaps from an Integral perspective, if we can shift towards an Integral discussion, Facebook is a perfect example of a technological capability that enables the very collectivist, globalist communication that we seem to be striving for in the world. It also is perhaps a perfect example of what can go wrong:
fake accounts
massaging what people see in order to evoke specific behaviors - and for profits
exercise of power outside our established power hierarchies - Federal, State, Legislative, Administrative, Judicial, etc…
So perhaps we could postulate that FB is the most amazing Integral platform humanity has ever seen, or it’s the most destructive platform we’ve ever seen.
Be forewarned, I am likely to post more “Existential War - the Right understands” that might not track exactly with what you want to discuss, when you want to discuss it, or at a depth you want to discuss. So please have a bit of compassion if I don’t engage on every post.
I was discussing exactly the topic you posted. My point is that you don’t even engage your own topics - repeatedly over several months. In other words, you do not want to “discuss” the topics you present in a discussion forum - which is counter to what discussion forums are all about (because they are called discussion forums and not facebook or twitter, for example.)
I do not believe just posting articles with half-baked logic and then refusing to discuss the points presented in those articles is an honest attempt to find “Integral” positions or solutions.
I think I will consciously choose NOT to have compassion about this. It’s not my responsibility, obligation or burden to have compassion for you. That’s someone else’s system of beliefs, not mine - and it would fail to give you an opportunity to hold yourself accountable for your own ideas and behavior. I decline your request to give you compassion on this subject.
So ok, back on track with your topic.
Saying the right understands is is even more silly in light of how they are chasing their tail with regards to Facebook and make zero sense. Are you now saying that the right wants to force facebook to let them continue to post fake news, which in turn brings more advertising revenues to facebook and increases Zuckerberg’s net worth with each shared post? Essentially what the right is saying is that they want to force Zuckerberg to allow them to continue to make fake accounts and massage what people see in order to manipulate them into behaviors for profit - as long as they are the ones doing the manipulating.
If we are going to talk about who funds elections - we should first recognize that it is the right and duty of each state to run their elections and figure out how to fund them. Texas is a Republican controlled State. How do you figure that a Republican controlled State Legislature and Governor allowed Zuckerberg to fund their elections to favor Democrats and Zuckerberg spent $419 million to swing the state to Biden - but the electoral college votes went to Trump?
It doesn’t make sense from top to bottom the way you are presenting it. I suspect the reason you are presenting such a nonsensical point of discussion is that you just don’t critically read what you use to form your opinions, and you don’t bother to even try to understand the actual details. In a sentence, you are being intellectually lazy.
Here is some information about how elections are funded. Note, Texas (the state the study you posted was about) does not have an income tax and so surely has limited means to fund elections through tax dollars even with federal fund matching, so Republican controlled States are more likely to need to make up the shortfall with corporate partners.
Note states with Income tax filing usually have a box at the top to contribute some money to the election campaign fund. States without personal income tax filings would obviously not have this fund. In my state of Hawaii, which is Democrat controlled and has required annual income tax filing - we do not need to ask private companies to fund our elections.
Essentially at the root of the problem is the way Republicans run their state governments, if we want to get down to the nitty gritty.
So quite the opposite - the Right does NOT understand the problems intrinsic to how they run their own states. https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/election-costs-who-pays-and-with-which-funds.aspx
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to hold myself accountable.
As someone on the “Right”, I do think that the Right is waking up to the Left’s “Existential War” they have been waging for 5,10,20 years. This is a fundamental shift in the Right’s thinking. Up until the most recent elections and radical Leftist DNC agenda, the rank and file Right has been extremely Libertarian in beliefs. i.e. Live and Let Live, Don’t Tread on Me, You do You,…
The Right “get’s it” now that the Leftist agenda is in fact destruction of Western Civilization as we know it. After the 2022 elections, it won’t just be “oh well, radical left can try again in 2 years” but more a complete shoring up of the US system that has been confused and eroded.
It doesn’t really matter if you or I “want” this to happen. In my opinion, it’s going to happen regardless of your wants or my wants.
Ah, that’s the code now for tyranny, a one party system, an end to democracy and an end to rule by the majority. The left will prohibited from “trying again”.
Funny how you are telling us exactly what you and “the right” want when we listen to what you are literally saying.
Are you trying to be cute? Funny? You come across as confrontational.
And no, it’s to simply reinvigorate our Constitutional structure of legislative, administrative, judicial as well as Federal and State responsibilities.
No, the contrary. I am not being cute or funny but taking your words completely seriously and reading exactly what they say.
But yes, I am being confrontational - intentionally. Your posts are non stop confrontational for over six months with everyone who doesn’t share your world view, but at the same time you are sensitive to being confronted by what you are actually saying. You want your ideas and belief to be understood and included by others but at the same time you refuse to understand and include that same other. It’s obvious from interacting with you for several months that you don’t want to come to any kind of healthy solutions, but just want to beat the war drum, fan the flames and raise mobs up against those you perceive as “other”. Since you decided long ago that I was “other” and have continually reinforced it - what will you expect except confrontation? Do you expect me to be better than you and above you and indulge you and be nice? Sometimes I’m not in the mood for that.
Something is going to happen - and if you think you know exactly what, then you’re delusional. These kinds of things spin out of everyone’s control very quickly. If you think for a minute that 100 million people or more who can’t even think logically are going to do anything other than spin completely out of control, you’re going to have a very difficult time coping with 2025. I decided a decade ago that I don’t want to be anywhere near tens of millions of hysterical people as their mental and emotional states erode.