@federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world avatar

federatingIsTooHard

@federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world

I generate an address then I generate its sequel

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. View on remote instance

federatingIsTooHard ,
@federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world avatar

it's a problem on .world, too, including their matrix instance.

federatingIsTooHard ,
@federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world avatar

no one is promising to end democracy

federatingIsTooHard ,
@federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world avatar

with the rise of executive power from executive orders, every president is a dictator say one, rolling back previous administration policy and implementing their own.

federatingIsTooHard ,
@federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world avatar

To link executive orders to a dictatorship shows a misunderstanding of executive orders, dictatorships, or both.

Also, in the quote of being a “dictator for just one day,” executive orders were not mentioned

no one is accusing trump of being a knowledgeable statesman.

federatingIsTooHard ,
@federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world avatar

That’s not what a dictatorship is. A dictatorship is where one person (the dictator) has almost complete control over the government with few, if any, restrictions.

they are literally creating policy by dictate. your pet definition seems crafted to exclude this obvious use of dictate.

federatingIsTooHard ,
@federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world avatar

i think he's a dummy, and he may be operating on my folksy definition of "dictator". my assumption is just as valid as yours.

so it's dumb to say it that way, but i don't believe he ever said he's planning to "end democracy" or even meant to imply that.

federatingIsTooHard ,
@federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world avatar

These are not my “pet definitions” but accepted definitions of what a dictator/dictatorship is in the political sphere. It’s called context.

can you substantiate this claim, that governing by dictate is not an accepted definition"in the political sphere". while we're on it, what do you define as "the political sphere"?

federatingIsTooHard , (edited )
@federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world avatar

No one in the government should say “I’m going to dictate policy that I have control over, but this policy can be overturned by the other two branches. Thus, I’m a dictator.” That’s not what that word means. You are trying to use a nonspecific definition out of context to justify defending a wannabe dictator.

i'm not defending a wannabe dictator. i'm explicitly saying i think trump's stupid, and i don't believe he meant "dictator" in the same sense that you insist he must have meant it.

federatingIsTooHard ,
@federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world avatar

he disputes that accusation

federatingIsTooHard ,
@federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world avatar

right. i have no reason to believe he believes he was trying to overthrow the government nor that he was planning to end democracy.

federatingIsTooHard ,
@federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world avatar

it's my reading that you think facts are incontrivertible, but, actually, they are claims that can be proven or disproven. therefore some facts are false.

federatingIsTooHard ,
@federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world avatar

baby, i'm an anarchist

federatingIsTooHard ,
@federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world avatar
federatingIsTooHard ,
@federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world avatar

i would know.

federatingIsTooHard ,
@federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world avatar

i'm not far right at all.

federatingIsTooHard ,
@federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world avatar

you don’t care about anyone other than yourself.

this is a leap of logic

federatingIsTooHard ,
@federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world avatar

I'm a leftist and I don't vote for capitalists or war criminals.

federatingIsTooHard ,
@federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world avatar

Both abstaining from vot8ng and voting third party are mathematically equivalent to voting for a capitalist

no, they're not. calling your storytelling "math" doesn't change its veracity.

federatingIsTooHard ,
@federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world avatar

i've seen explications before, but i'm open to the possibility that you have a novel theory that is testable, falsifiable, and valid.

federatingIsTooHard ,
@federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world avatar

terrorism is a crime. you use police to deal with crimes. investigate, get a warrant, and bring them to a judge.

Anonymous users are dominating right-wing discussions online. They also spread false information ( apnews.com )

The reposts and expressions of shock from public figures followed quickly after a user on the social platform X who uses a pseudonym claimed that a government website had revealed “skyrocketing” rates of voters registering without a photo ID in three states this year — two of them crucial to the presidential contest....

federatingIsTooHard ,
@federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world avatar

Because I don’t live in a swing state my lack of voting for Biden does not support Trump

i live in a swing state, and my lack of voting for biden also does not support trump. only a vote for trump supports trump.

federatingIsTooHard ,
@federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world avatar

You see, people don’t have to answer you to still be correct.

no, but a claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, and any claim made in such a way should be doubted until it is evidenced.

Israeli troops shoot and kill a Palestinian shepherd reading the Quran on his land ( www.haaretz.com )

Three soldiers pounce on a shepherd sitting outside his sheep pen. They knock him over and then one of them shoots him to death at point-blank range. Fakher Jaber, a father of four, was suspected of involvement in an incident that probably never happened...

federatingIsTooHard ,
@federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world avatar

Hamas could end hostilities today by returning all hostages and surrendering its leaders to an international court.

there is no reason to believe that. the wall would still be there. palestinians would still be subject to arrest and imprisonment without trial. they would still suffer under a blockade.

the hostilities have never ended since 1947.

federatingIsTooHard ,
@federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world avatar

but why would taxes need to be increased at all? just change the account values.

federatingIsTooHard ,
@federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world avatar

The president does not have carte blanche to just eliminate hundreds of billions of dollars in personal debt with the swipe of a pen.

yes, he does. the supreme court has no enforcement mechanism. they're the only ones who said he couldn't do it.

federatingIsTooHard ,
@federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world avatar

biden will push us further into fascism just as he has for the past 50 years. voting for him does not, in fact, ensure we don't fall further into fascism.

i can believe the other guy is worse without believing its moral to help biden maintain power.

the spoiler effect is story telling.

federatingIsTooHard ,
@federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world avatar

yea. you are just telling stories, not doing science.

federatingIsTooHard ,
@federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world avatar

i wrote a pretty in depth treatment of this yesterday, but i don't like to just spam copy pasta everywhere.

you might want to ask your self "what would a critical rationalist say about my postulate?"

federatingIsTooHard ,
@federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world avatar

First-past-the-post voting systems inevitably trend to two-party systems over time. We see it play out in election models and we see it play out in real life.

this claim is not falsifiable. it's a tautology with no genuine predictive power. it's not science, it is storytelling.

everything you said after this was also wrong

federatingIsTooHard ,
@federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world avatar

what makes you think you know anyone else's gender on the Internet? why should anyone believe you're female? on the Internet, non one knows you are a dog

federatingIsTooHard ,
@federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world avatar

i was sure you'd blocked me

federatingIsTooHard ,
@federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world avatar

you're characterization of my actions and motive have no bearing on whether anything I've said is correct, and they do not support any of your claims. this is just posturing and rhetoric.

federatingIsTooHard ,
@federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world avatar

you find both primary options equally acceptable.

i don't finde them equally acceptable, but i find them both unacceptable.

federatingIsTooHard ,
@federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world avatar

Throwing your vote away on a third party is equivalent to not voting.

election misinformation. my vote must be counted just as everyone else'.

federatingIsTooHard ,
@federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world avatar

i provided just as much evidence an he did.

federatingIsTooHard ,
@federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world avatar

a tautology is also an appropriate term for any post hoc explanation of material facts that gives no insight into how the future will happen.

duverger's "law" is storytelling, it's not science.

federatingIsTooHard ,
@federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world avatar

The last time I encountered someone claiming that something didn’t have predictive value “because it’s a tautology” was a creationist saying the same of evolution

i don't know the exact context you're referencing, but i do know that trying to pigeonhole me with creationists is underhanded.

federatingIsTooHard ,
@federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world avatar

stating that something is a tautology implies that you believe it’s true.

i believe anyone may claim that the price of a good can be described as the point at which temporal demand met temporal supply, but that doesn't make it a useful observation. it's not even disprovable, as there is no way to test it. so there is no reason to believe it's actually true.

federatingIsTooHard ,
@federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world avatar

in a show of good faith, i'm about to break from my usual rhetorical style. i hope you find this explanation helpful


Duverger’s Law is a tautology because, from a critical rationalist perspective, a tautological statement is one that cannot be empirically tested or falsified—it’s true by definition. Duverger’s Law states that a plurality-rule election system tends to favor a two-party system. However, if this law is framed in such a way that any outcome can be rationalized within its parameters, then it becomes unfalsifiable.

For example, if a country with a plurality-rule system has more than two parties, one might argue that the system still “tends to” favor two parties, and the current state is an exception or transition phase. This kind of reasoning makes the law immune to counterexamples, and thus, it operates more as a tautological statement than an empirical hypothesis. The critical rationalist critique of marginalist economics, which relies on ceteris paribus (all else being equal) conditions, suggests any similarly structured law should be viewed with skepticism. For Duverger’s Law to be more than a tautology, it would need to be stated in a way that allows for clear empirical testing and potential falsification, without the possibility of explaining away any contradictory evidence. This would make it a substantive theory that can contribute to our understanding of political systems rather than a mere tautology.

federatingIsTooHard ,
@federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world avatar

I’m not getting in another argument with you; you’re dishonest and annoying.

i don't want to argue with you, either. but i do think anyone reading this should know that you are poisoning the well, here.

federatingIsTooHard ,
@federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world avatar

because despite your claims otherwise you’re clearly ignorant.

saying it doesn't make it so.

federatingIsTooHard ,
@federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world avatar

always happy to be of help where i am needed.

federatingIsTooHard ,
@federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world avatar

your accusation of bad faith is itself bad faith

federatingIsTooHard ,
@federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world avatar

people argue if Biden made material compromises with leftists and progressives then moderates and liberals wouldn’t vote for him.

they didn't say they believe this

federatingIsTooHard ,
@federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world avatar

your argument supposes they believe that. you literally said that's a premise.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • supersentai
  • WatchParties
  • Rutgers
  • jeremy
  • Lexington
  • cragsand
  • mead
  • RetroGamingNetwork
  • loren
  • steinbach
  • xyz
  • PowerRangers
  • AnarchoCapitalism
  • kamenrider
  • Mordhau
  • WarhammerFantasy
  • itdept
  • AgeRegression
  • mauerstrassenwetten
  • MidnightClan
  • space_engine
  • learnviet
  • bjj
  • Teensy
  • khanate
  • electropalaeography
  • neondivide
  • fandic
  • All magazines