**** Elections thread *****

[OngBonga]

It's not just whether you trust them to do what's best for the country, it's whether you trust them more than the collective will of the citizens in a direct democracy to do what's best for the country. At least the former group usually has a solid idea of the consequences of their choices; the latter often does not.

I trust the collective will of the people to be as close to sincere as possible. I didn't vote to leave the EU because it suited me, rather because I felt it was in the country's best interests. Doesn't matter if I'm wrong or right, the sincerity is what matters.

It's not about making the "right" decisions. It's about putting power in the hands of the people, and hoping that over time the people become less stupid and make less mistakes.

[MadMojoMonkey]

It's not just whether you trust them to do what's best for the country, it's whether you trust them more than the collective will of the citizens in a direct democracy to do what's best for the country. At least the former group usually has a solid idea of the consequences of their choices; the latter often does not.

That frames the decision point pretty well.
Both have flaws, and this makes a relatively direct comparison of the flaws in these 2 systems.

I trust the collective will of the people to be as close to sincere as possible. I didn't vote to leave the EU because it suited me, rather because I felt it was in the country's best interests. Doesn't matter if I'm wrong or right, the sincerity is what matters.

It's not about making the "right" decisions. It's about putting power in the hands of the people,

*nods*

and hoping that over time the people become less stupid and make less mistakes.

[OngBonga]

How many people got burned before we learned how to control fire? Should we have left fire alone?

[OngBonga]

Learning from mistakes is a crucial aspect of becoming smarter. Not sure why that's facepalm worthy.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Learning from mistakes is a crucial aspect of becoming smarter. Not sure why that's facepalm worthy.

A person can learn. "The people" can't.
For every person that learns, another ignorant baby is born knowing nothing.

In fact, there are more babies born than (supposedly) learned people dying, so the trend is not promising.


I think there's every bit of evidence showing that humans today are no more human (no smarter / none more civilized / equally ingenious) than the Romans or the Egyptians, or the countless generations that came before except in the accrual of cultural knowledge. Insofar as they were genetically modern humans, we're the same as them on average, aside from cultural knowledge.

The assertion that "people will get smarter over time" is facepalm-worthy, IMO.

[Poopadoop]

I sincerely want to eat chocolate cake three times a day for the rest of my life. And after I get diabetes, I hope I'll know better in my next life. But at least I got to be stupid in this one.

[OngBonga]

Yeah nice analogy. Thanks for supporting my point. I mean, society has already learned that eating like shit increases the risk of diabetes, which means people are better informed. Just because some fat fuck is dead, doesn't mean society cannot learn from that mistake.

Remember when I said this wasn't about me, that it was about society in general? I know it's hard, but try to think about it from that angle. Maybe you could come up with a better analogy.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Yeah nice analogy. Thanks for supporting my point. I mean, society has already learned that eating like shit increases the risk of diabetes, which means people are better informed. Just because some fat fuck is dead, doesn't mean society cannot learn from that mistake.

Remember when I said this wasn't about me, that it was about society in general? I know it's hard, but try to think about it from that angle. Maybe you could come up with a better analogy.

Be careful with societal knowledge, though. It's not like personal knowledge. Not everyone in the society knows all the pertinent societal lessons that they may need to keep safe. I.e. not everyone in the world knows about diabetes, despite most people knowing such.

Societal knowledge can be fickle.

I mean, it may be a long way in the past, but societal knowledge can be lost, either by accident (the Middle Ages) or on purpose (the European conquest of the Americas).
The on purpose reasons are still ongoing. There have been a near constant stream of genocides happening throughout my life, and each of them is an attempt to force a society and its cultural knowledge out of existence.

[boost]

I think in the analogy, society is the fat fuck.

There are games in which learning from your mistakes is not an option. Considering these societies you want to put in the hands of the people so they can learn from their mistakes have nuclear arsenals that could end the human experiment, this may not be a learn from your mistakes situation.

To be fair, one of my big issues with direct democracy is that it tends to be binary and makes for drastic swings. Representative democracy tends to find some sort of average of the will of the people, instead of the extreme current fad of the majority. This is the point I was trying to make that Leave(even with no deal) isn't necessarily the will of the people, or at least not the most accurate representation of it.

[Poopadoop]

I think in the analogy, society is the fat fuck.

There are games in which learning from your mistakes is not an option. Considering these societies you want to put in the hands of the people so they can learn from their mistakes have nuclear arsenals that could end the human experiment, this may not be a learn from your mistakes situation.

Thank you. Ong seems more interested in ad bananuming me than trying to see what my argument actually is.

The idea that learning from your mistakes is good (which no-one would dispute) is being used as a sop by Ong to argue we should be happy to let people make collective mistakes just so they can enjoy the learning process, mistakes that could be avoided if we let the experts run the show. I don't want "the people" to learn how to govern by trial and error. I want those who know how to govern to do the governing.

This isn't kindergarten and it's not about letting people learn how to count on their fingers while someone with a calculator goes "Oh, you guys think 2+2=5? ok then, let's go with that." and then later, "Oh sorry you guys made a mistake and now we all lose a dollar. Ok, fork over your dollar. Aren't you happy you learned something from your mistake? What? No, you can't have your dollar back now."

[Poopadoop]

This is the point I was trying to make that Leave(even with no deal) isn't necessarily the will of the people, or at least not the most accurate representation of it.

This highlights another problem with the referendum. If you can't make the question sophisticated enough to capture what could actually happen because most of the population isn't informed enough to understand the nuances, don't ask the fucking question!

here's how it should have been phrased:

Referendum to British people
Do you want:
a) Brexit with no deal and harm to our trade and economy for a decade.
b) Brexit with a modest trade deal and less harm.
c) Brexit with a trade deal like we have now, sovereignty but free trade.
d) Status quo (Remain)

And below that, a probability estimate of the feasibility of each option being carried out, assuming it was voted for:

a) 100%, we can do this. It'll hurt us a lot, but fuck it arrrgghgghgh.
b) meh, 33% we can make this happen. And it will still hurt us economically.
c) yeah, pretty much < 1% the EU will ever let us do this. Best case outcome though.
d) 100%, this is how things are now.

This would be posing the question in a useful way.

It would also be making it clear it's a complicated issue, and by the time they read this far most people would probably throw their hands up and go home. The ones who would vote would pick either a) or d) 'cause at least they know they're real possibilities. And in that scenario, whether you ran this in 2016 or now, d) would get more votes than a) imo.

[boost]

Yeah, I mean I think you've made some good points here Poop, but even still it's a poor referendum. The problem is status quo will always be one option, while the nuance of action will split the action vote.

Ong also makes good point about experts going rogue. It's similar to the paradox of a functioning state needing to maintain some number of secrets, but a state's ability to keep secrets from the world, and its own citizens in particular, opens the door for abuse by bad actors. The issue with Ong's stance, imo, is the same as that of a radical transparency advocate-- sure there's the potential for abuses and there have certainly been abuses, ones we know about, ones we have yet to find out about, and ones we'll likely never know about. None the less, a functioning state needs the ability to maintain secrets, just as a society needs to give some deference and authority to experts.

Like so many other scenarios, these issues are a balancing act, but due to status quo blindness and axioms, like democracy is good, experts should be in charge, etc, which don't perform as well as we'd like under stress, people end up seeking extremes.

[OngBonga]

Referendum to British people
Do you want:
a) Brexit with no deal and harm to our trade and economy for a decade.
b) Brexit with a modest trade deal and less harm.
c) Brexit with a trade deal like we have now, sovereignty but free trade.
d) Status quo (Remain)

You can't even suggest referendum questions without loading them with your opinion.

[Poopadoop]

You can't even suggest referendum questions without loading them with your opinion.

Give us your options as you see them.

[OngBonga]

Give us your options as you see them.

1) Leave
2) Remain
3) Negotiate a different relationship, subject to another referendum


Two rounds of voting, after round 1 the one with the least votes is eliminated, and then after round two, majority wins between the two remaining options.

[Poopadoop]

1) Leave
2) Remain
3) Negotiate a different relationship, subject to another referendum


Two rounds of voting, after round 1 the one with the least votes is eliminated, and then after round two, majority wins between the two remaining options.

All you've done here is add a second, even vaguer option to Leave....

[OngBonga]

A person can learn. "The people" can't.

This from a scientist?

Dude.

[MadMojoMonkey]

This from a scientist?

Dude.

"If I have seen further than others, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants."
-Isaac Newton (probably a paraphrase or otherwise apocryphal)

Take away those giants' shoulders (destroy the accrued societal knowledge) and we all fall back to the ground.

[Poopadoop]

Yeah, I mean I think you've made some good points here Poop, but even still it's a poor referendum. The problem is status quo will always be one option, while the nuance of action will split the action vote.

But in the real referendum, the choice was made as binary between some vague version of leaving which could happen under any number of circumstances and with varying degrees of pain, and the status quo. Not sure that's any better.

Maybe a solution would be to ask people "under what circumstances would you be willing to leave the EU?". In that case, I'd probably have voted for c) myself.

[OngBonga]

The idea that learning from your mistakes is good (which no-one would dispute) is being used as a sop by Ong to argue we should be happy to let people make collective mistakes just so they can enjoy the learning process

Amusing.

Quote where I said the words "happy" and "enjoy". Then when you don't, because you know I didn't, please define this little catchphrase of yours... "ad bananum". Cheers.

My point is that if we allow ourselves to make mistakes and learn from them, in time we evolve into a better society. Maybe if we started like this 100 years ago, we wouldn't be bickering today about how uninformed the people are when it comes to subjects like politics and economics.

I don't want "the people" to learn how to govern by trial and error. I want those who know how to govern to do the governing.

Well this is a fundamental difference between the two of us. I don't trust people to govern on the basis of "we know best". You end up ruled by a shower of cunts who are in it for themselves.

[Poopadoop]

My point is that if we allow ourselves to make mistakes

Funny how your stance has gone from "Brexit will be great, we'll be free again and our fishermen will prosper!" to "Brexit: we should allow ourselves to make mistakes"

[OngBonga]

Funny how your stance has gone from "Brexit will be great, we'll be free again and our fishermen will prosper!" to "Brexit: we should allow ourselves to make mistakes"

For me the discussion has moved on to democracy in general, but don't let that stop you taking cheap shots.

[Poopadoop]

For me the discussion has moved on to democracy in general, but don't let that stop you taking cheap shots.

You keep saying we should be allowed to make our own mistakes. I just assumed you were referring to Brexit here.

[OngBonga]

You keep saying we should be allowed to make our own mistakes. I just assumed you were referring to Brexit here.

Naturally. I'm acknowledging that Brexit might be a mistake. You won't hear any remainers say it might result in a better economy.

Yet is us who are apparently the dumb ones.

[OngBonga]

Ong also makes good point about experts going rogue.

This is a fundamental difference between you and poop. You acknowledge my agreeable points and are willing to discuss them.

None the less, a functioning state needs the ability to maintain secrets, just as a society needs to give some deference and authority to experts.

Agreed. Doctors being a fine example, one cited earlier. We don't need to have referendums for local budgets, or if we upgrade Heathrow Airport. We don't need to be that informed. But when it comes to matters of who governs us, and what form of government that is, then yes, absolutely, that is something the people should decide. That includes membership of continental unions.

Me and poop don't even agree on what the EU is. That's how informed society is right now. One of us is fundamentally wrong. Maybe both of us. And that isn't on me or poop. That's on the people who are actually in control, who find it in their vested interests to keep people uninformed. It suits them, especially if it means less democracy. Poop doesn't realise that by allowing "smarter" people to govern your affairs, you give them a very strong motivation to keep you stupid.

[Poopadoop]

This is a fundamental difference between you and poop. You acknowledge my agreeable points and are willing to discuss them.

Yeah, great insight there Ong. Power corrupts people. Gee, never heard that one before.

Poop doesn't realise that by allowing "smarter" people to govern your affairs, you give them a very strong motivation to keep you stupid.

No, I do realise that. I just manage to live with it. If the boiler repair man prefers I don't learn how to fix my own boiler, I get it. But I still have other things to do with my life than become an expert plumber, so I'm willing to pay him £80 to do what he's good at, just like he's willling to pay me to teach his kids.

[OngBonga]

No, I do realise that. I just manage to live with it. If the boiler repair man prefers I don't learn how to fix my own boiler, I get it. But I still have other things to do with my life than become an expert plumber, so I'm willing to pay him £80 to do what he's good at, just like he's willling to pay me to teach his kids.

King of analogies.

We're talking about a nation of people being informed enough about economic and political matters in the context of whether or not we should have direct democracy, and you're talking about your fucking boiler.

[Poopadoop]

King of analogies.

We're talking about a nation of people being informed enough about economic and political matters in the context of whether or not we should have direct democracy, and you're talking about your fucking boiler.

Well if you respond to it that way, then it suggests to me you don't understand the argument I'm making. Sorry, not sure how to make it any clearer for you.

[OngBonga]

Take away those giants' shoulders (destroy the accrued societal knowledge) and we all fall back to the ground.

I don't agree. I mean, you're right of course, but how do you remove those giants' shoulders? Governments will surely stockpile information in the same way as they do seeds. If an asteroid hits the planet, and just one group of people survive underground with nearly all the books ever written on a hard drive, along with solar panels and the like, we're still in business.

That ignores the vast number of libraries that exist.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I don't agree.

I mean, you're right of course

but

how do you remove those giants' shoulders? Governments will surely stockpile information in the same way as they do seeds. If an asteroid hits the planet, and just one group of people survive underground with nearly all the books ever written on a hard drive, along with solar panels and the like, we're still in business.

That ignores the vast number of libraries that exist.

I agree that it will take more than 1 catastrophic event to cause something similar to the Dark Ages again. A "nearby" supernova could do a lot. Maybe wipe all life, but I suspect that at least in small, isolated groups, some people will get by. The utility of most of our societal knowledge drops dramatically when the population's needs drop. I mean think of all the advancements in hairdressing and telephone sanitizing that have come about in the past decades? Where does that societal knowledge go when there are too few humans to justify a hair dresser or telephone sanitizer?

FYI, those solar panels are not likely to be of use during the "nuclear" winter that follows the asteroid in your hypothetical. Geothermal is always there, though.

[OngBonga]

...but I suspect that at least in small, isolated groups, some people will get by.

Yeah, the people who have government funded underground bunkers with supplies and... wait for it... books and computers.

The probability of someone surviving is directly related to the probability of knowledge surviving. Those who survive will be in the same place.

FYI, those solar panels are not likely to be of use during the "nuclear" winter that follows the asteroid in your hypothetical. Geothermal is always there, though.

I thought that when I read back my post, but meh, small details. A nuclear submarine, buried underground.

Or yeah, geothermal wells.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Yeah, the people who have government funded underground bunkers with supplies and... wait for it... books and computers.

The probability of someone surviving is directly related to the probability of knowledge surviving. Those who survive will be in the same place.

I agree, and my hypothetical about hairdressers and telephone sanitizers is silly, but gets at a deeper point.

In this hypothetical near-doomsday scenario:
If there aren't enough people to justify one of the people knowing how to create positrons, then the fact that somewhere in the cultural record are the designs and instructions for a PET scan doesn't matter. No one is going to know about it. The reduction in the number of people reduces the amount of things we can know there are to know. Ergo, knowledge that is catalogued is effectively still lost. We may not lose all knowledge, but vast swaths of cultural knowledge will be lost.

Gov't types aren't typically that fond of saving the scientists and engineers (The Mongols notwithstanding). Who's in that bunker that actually knows how to drill oil and manufacture gasoline to run their generators and keep their computers running? Who in the bunker knows how to build and maintain geothermal or nuclear power supplies?

Books don't last that long without HVAC. Computers are useless without a power supply.

It's all a fascinating hypothetical to think about but I simply can't see everything being "remembered" whether in books/computers or by people.
It'd take a full scale loss of large-scale power and communications networks coupled with a catastrophic loss of population, though.

A nuclear submarine, buried underground.

Wouldn't that make it a nuclear subterrain?

[OngBonga]

It's all a fascinating hypothetical to think about but I simply can't see everything being "remembered" whether in books/computers or by people.

Everything won't be remembered. But while we're on the subject of government funded bunkers, I'd be inclined to assume that such a bunker would be filled with people who are most likely to successfully rebuild society. That does include scientists, or at the very least certain types of scientists.

What knowledge is lost will be rediscovered in much less time that it took to initially discover. It's not like we're back to banging rocks together to make fire. And even if we were, even I could do a better job than homo-erectus (I love that term) of developing fire making technology. Certainly I can filter water better than they can. I'm a complete dumbass compared to the people who will be buried in the bunkers.

So while I do accept that lots of knowledge will be lost, some of it for a long time, the vast majority of our knowledge will be saved, except in the most extreme circumstances where there's only a few hundred people left.

Wouldn't that make it a nuclear subterrain?

Hmm... nice, but no. If you have a boat on your driveway, it's still a boat. A car at the bottom of the ocean is still a car.

[MadMojoMonkey]

So... the House is almost certainly going to impeach Trump.
So far, they're still pushing the Ukraine scandal, but the more the White House refuses to cooperate with the investigation, the more easily they can pivot to obstruction of justice.
There are 71 outstanding requests for documents from the House that have not been honored.

The Senate still looks like the Reps will hold together and not remove Trump from office, though.
I'll be surprised if any of them flips their vote over Ukraine. MAYBE if the pivot to obstruction happens, but I doubt that, too.

It's "good old boys" politics, where your guys can do no wrong, and the ends justify the means... so long as it's your guys' ends.

[oskar]

So... the House is almost certainly going to impeach Trump.
So far, they're still pushing the Ukraine scandal, but the more the White House refuses to cooperate with the investigation, the more easily they can pivot to obstruction of justice.
There are 71 outstanding requests for documents from the House that have not been honored.

The Senate still looks like the Reps will hold together and not remove Trump from office, though.
I'll be surprised if any of them flips their vote over Ukraine. MAYBE if the pivot to obstruction happens, but I doubt that, too.

It's "good old boys" politics, where your guys can do no wrong, and the ends justify the means... so long as it's your guys' ends.

I am very confused at how impeachment is going. I guess it's because I don't understand the process. It would be disappointing if there are no articles of impeachment regarding the treatment of migrant children.

[Poopadoop]

Yup, think that's probably right Mojo.

I'm a bit curious now if Trump will invade NATO for making fun of him.

[MadMojoMonkey]

The only thing surprising about that video was Boris's hair looked roughly the way a normal person's hair normally looks.

[Poopadoop]

Boris has tidied up his hairdo lately. I think he's been watching Scott Adams' thing about anchoring, where you start out looking ridiculous and then try to look less ridiculous so you'll look awesome by comparison to your old self.

[oskar]

Trump update:
https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/s...423255553?s=20
https://twitter.com/Stop_Trump20/sta...286718976?s=20

[oskar]

Peter Bootiecheech be like: This is me. This is how I walk.

https://twitter.com/PrettyGoodPhil/s...590664705?s=20

[Poopadoop]

Remember when Trump was talking about getting the Nobel Prize for his "talks" with N. Korea?

[oskar]

Remember when Trump was talking about getting the Nobel Prize for his "talks" with N. Korea?

TIL the word dotard describes an old and senile person, and not somebody who plays Dota badly. I refuse to stop using it the wrong way.

[Poopadoop]

Meanwhile in the UK, Captain Retard Jr. is doing his best to lose the election.

[OngBonga]

https://twitter.com/Holbornlolz/stat...533298688?s=20

I'm not sure what's going on with that poop, but don't just take everything at face value, especially days before an election. I don't trust Boris, and he certainly handled it like shit when challenged, but who reacts well to ambush journalism? I also don't trust a politician who holds up a tabloid newspaper as though it is factual. The tweet I link above claims the boy had tonsillitis and was initially given a bed, then was asked to give it up for an emergency. Oh and he wanted to lie on the floor, rather than on his Mother's lap. Do I believe that? Not really, but it's as credible as anything the Daily Mirror publishes.. Oh, and the photo was apparently taken by a professional photographer, Ben Lack.

It sure makes for a great photo though if you're a Labour voter.

Oh, and this...


This was under Labour.

To be clear, I have no horse in this race. I'm not voting either Tory or Labour. I'm spoiling my ballot. If Labour were pro-Brexit, I'd probably vote for them. So I'm commenting on this from a neutral pov.

[Poopadoop]

The tweet I link above claims the boy had tonsillitis and was initially given a bed, then was asked to give it up for an emergency.

Does this seem plausible to you? That parents take a child to A&E because he has a sore throat? Those must be some super fucking protective parents.

And even if you accept that, the kid is being given oxygen. You don't give that to someone with tonsillitis, you do it when they're having respiratory issues.

If it's tonsillitis, it's some serious mutant infection if it's impairing his breathing.

[Poopadoop]

Yeah it wouldn't surprise me if it was exaggerated, that's not why I posted the video of Boris being a douche though.

[OngBonga]

Yeah it wouldn't surprise me if it was exaggerated, that's not why I posted the video of Boris being a douche though.

Fair. Boris was a douche. But so was the journalist. I hate ambush journalism.

Does this seem plausible to you? That parents take a child to A&E because he has a sore throat? Those must be some super fucking protective parents.

I've never had tonsillitis, so I have no idea if it's comparable to a "sore throat". That said, if the child has been unwell for a week, then yes it's plausible.

And even if you accept that, the kid is being given oxygen. You don't give that to someone with tonsillitis, you do it when they're having respiratory issues.

This is another point that is being mentioned... the fact the kid has an inflated oxygen mask is being challenged by doctors and nurses... if he really needs that, then no way would they let him lie on the floor.

Three days before an election. Sorry, I'm skeptical. It screams photo op.

[Keith]

dont forget traingate where Corbynn claimed he had to sit on the floor for a 3 hour journey and released it as a media stunt until virgin publihed the onboard video showing he had a seat for the trip. No point letting the truth get in the way of the message you are trying to scare voters with.

[Poopadoop]

Fair. Boris was a douche. But so was the journalist. I hate ambush journalism.

Not sure I'd call it an ambush though. Seems fair game to say 'here's what happened today, what do you have to say about it?' All Boris has to say is 'mumble, mumble, children are the future, we're doing everything we can, blah blah'. Not steal the guy's phone and then say something about 'call my agent for a proper interview'.

I've never had tonsillitis, so I have no idea if it's comparable to a "sore throat". That said, if the child has been unwell for a week, then yes it's plausible.

You know what tonsils are though right? And you know 'itis' means inflammation. So basically it means your tonsils are infected, and yeah you have a sore throat. It might be really sore, but any parent with any sense can look at the kids throat, see the inflamed tonsils, and say 'oh fuck, little Billy has tonsilitis, let's take him to a doctor', not 'oh my god, my kid has a sore throat, he needs immediate surgery. A&E here we come!'

This is another point that is being mentioned... the fact the kid has an inflated oxygen mask is being challenged by doctors and nurses... if he really needs that, then no way would they let him lie on the floor.

So what's the argument? The mask was photoshopped in? Or it didn't have oxygen in it but was a toy mask the parents bought the kid for his fun trip to A&E?

Three days before an election. Sorry, I'm skeptical. It screams photo op.

Even if you accept the photo is 'shopped' and the kid only has a cold or some shit, it doesn't change the fact the NHS is severely understaffed.

I had a student getting constant headaches. Went to the doctor a few times then finally got booked for an MRI. It took 6 months to get that test. Fuck off, that's not proper health care.

[OngBonga]

Yep, solid point. Corbyn has form for this sort of thing. Find me a politician who can be trusted, and I'll find you a goose that shits golden eggs.

[Poopadoop]

So, this CMO either doesn't exist or she's just lying to feed the liberal media?

Do you find her more trustworthy than the random guy on twitter you posted with no sources? Just wondering how deep your paranoia runs...

Dr Yvette Oade, Chief Medical Officer at Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust said: “Our hospitals are extremely busy at the moment and we are very sorry that Jack’s family had a long wait in our Emergency Department. Our Chief Executive Julian Hartley has spoken to Jack’s mum and offered a personal apology.

“We have seen a significant increase in the number of people visiting our Paediatric Emergency Department, and this week we saw the highest attendances we have seen since April 2016. Despite this, our staff are working tirelessly to provide the best possible care under these extreme pressures.

“Jack was quickly assessed upon arrival and seen in two different clinical treatment rooms in the Paediatric Emergency Department.

“Within four hours a decision was made to admit Jack to our Children’s Assessment and Treatment (CAT) Unit for further monitoring overnight. Unfortunately, the unit was also experiencing exceptionally high levels of demand which meant that Jack was required to wait in the clinical treatment room in the Paediatric Emergency Department until a bed became available. Jack was admitted to the CAT Unit later that evening and was discharged home the following morning after a medical review.

“We are extremely sorry that there were only chairs available in the treatment room, and no bed. This falls below our usual high standards, and for this we would like to sincerely apologise to Jack and his family.

“We are increasing the bed availability in our Children’s Hospital and our Children’s Assessment and Treatment Unit will be relocating to a larger area in the new year. We are continuing to develop the plans for our new Children’s Hospital in Leeds which will be built in 2025.”

[OngBonga]

You know what tonsils are though right? And you know 'itis' means inflammation. So basically it means your tonsils are infected, and yeah you have a sore throat.

Yes and yes.I'm sure you do have a sore throat. I wouldn't be surprised if other symptons were sometimes present, such as being sick.

It might be really sore, but any parent with any sense can look at the kids throat, see the inflamed tonsils, and say 'oh fuck, little Billy has tonsilitis, let's take him to a doctor', not 'oh my god, my kid has a sore throat, he needs immediate surgery. A&E here we come!'

Most sensible parents would indeed go to the doctor rather than A&E, but I think we both know that there are plenty out there prone to overreacting when it comes to the wellbeing of their offspring.

So what's the argument? The mask was photoshopped in? Or it didn't have oxygen in it but was a toy mask the parents bought the kid for his fun trip to A&E?

No idea. I doubt very much it's shopped, that's kind of ridiculous and likely to be exposed very quickly. And it's probably not a toy. I'm also skeptical of those on Twitter who claim to be nurses and doctors, but I don't disregard their comments entirely either.

Even if you accept the photo is 'shopped' and the kid only has a cold or some shit, it doesn't change the fact the NHS is severely understaffed.

True. I'm not disputing this.But what makes you think it'd be any better under Labour? It wasn't in 2009. The issue here though isn't the hospital being understaffed, it's a lack of beds, or more accurately, not enough hospitals for the population. If all the beds are taken, then that implies Leeds needs another hospital, not more nurses.

I had a student getting constant headaches. Went to the doctor a few times then finally got booked for an MRI. It took 6 months to get that test. Fuck off, that's not proper health care.

Agreed. The NHS has been going down the pan for as long as I can remember. let's not forget Labour have been in power during this time.

Do you find her more trustworthy than the random guy on twitter you posted with no sources? Just wondering how deep your paranoia runs...

Will you please try to tone down your sarcasm and attempt to have a civil discussion with me? Just because we disagree on so much, doesn't mean we have to be shitty to each other. I know I have my moments too, but it's not constant like you.

That CMO doesn't tell us what was wrong with Jack. If he had tonsillitis, or flu, perhaps he's the lowest priority child in the hospital. Perhaps he'd have been better off at home. Should they tell the kid that just came in with a broken leg or whatever to go home? Or perhaps send him to Sheffield?

I do agree that healthcare needs more investment. In fact, the only time I've ever voted in a GE, I voted for Doctor Richard Taylor, an independent who was campaigning for the restoration of Kidderminster A&E, which had been downgraded in favour of a super-hospital in Worcester, 20-odd miles away. Dr Taylor won, but sadly the hospital remained underfunded.

[Poopadoop]

Yes and yes.I'm sure you do have a sore throat. I wouldn't be surprised if other symptons were sometimes present, such as being sick.

You feel unwell, yes. You don't feel like you can't breathe, not just from tonsillitis.

Will you please try to tone down your sarcasm and attempt to have a civil discussion with me? Just because we disagree on so much, doesn't mean we have to be shitty to each other. I know I have my moments too, but it's not constant like you.

I'll try. It'd be easier if you actually thought before you spoke instead of just reflexively looking for a way to contradict me with whatever crap you can find on the internet.

That CMO doesn't tell us what was wrong with Jack. If he had tonsillitis, or flu, perhaps he's the lowest priority child in the hospital. Perhaps he'd have been better off at home. Should they tell the kid that just came in with a broken leg or whatever to go home? Or perhaps send him to Sheffield?

Reports are the kid had influenza A on top of his tonsillitis. So, not surprising he was having trouble breathing.

And I'm not questioning how well the hospital does its triage. I'm happy to assume the hospital kicked him out of his bed because the other kid was in bigger difficulty. I'm questioning how a situation arises where a kid needs oxygen but there's no bed for him. It's a problem just like the student who needed a brain scan and had to wait 6 months. And there's plenty more similar stories.

But you seem more concerned with whether someone tried to make political capital out of it, and with trying to present "evidence" (i.e., something posted on twitter) that it never happened when all the actual evidence suggests it not only did happen, but it's the kind of thing that happens a lot.

[OngBonga]

I'll try. It'd be easier if you actually thought before you spoke instead of just reflexively looking for a way to contradict me with whatever crap you can find on the internet.

I guess this is why you have such contempt. You assume I'm just deliberately disagreeing with you for fun. I guess that's my own fault, because sometimes I do. But most of the time I don't. I just see the world differently to you. I've actually tried to be neutral in this discussion, because it's not something I felt strongly about. It's just the first activity here for a week. So I chipped in, And I'm more skeptical than you.

This story will affect how some people vote, Leeds in particular. You have to question the motives of everyone involved. You can't just take stories that are highly politicised three days before an election at face value. This is the nut high time for propaganda. I don't know what to believe. I might be completely legit, it might be faked. How the hell would I know? There's times I've felt like the Conservatives are trying to lose this election. Frankly I just haven't got a clue what the fuck is going on in politics these days. It's a complete shitshow in which everyone is fiercely divided, and I don't think this is by accident. They've socially engineered us this way, probably to distract us and give us the illusion of choice. Fuck knows. All I know is that I don't want any of them to win the election.

You think I'm paranoid, but I just think the media and politicians cannot be trusted. I don't think that's paranoia, I think that's healthy.

[Poopadoop]

More fake reporting. Not the PM being a knobhead at all.

[OngBonga]

Not fake reporting, ambush journalism. Hey Boris, you're live on Good Morning Britain, I know this wasn't arranged but SURPRISE!

Boris wasn't even that much of a twat there, not like the hospital incident.

[oskar]

I am so desensitized by Donald Trump's unending stupidity that a prime minister hiding in a walk-in fridge does NOTHING for me.

[Keith]

did poop DDOS the forum to avoid the outcome ?

[Poopadoop]

What's DDOS and how would it change the election results? If I had known that, I'd have tried it.

Enjoy your next ten years of being poorer than you are today.

[MadMojoMonkey]

DDOS = Distributed Denial Of Service

It's basically an internet attack where a server is overloaded with access requests, shutting it down.

Like if your phone keeps ringing, but every time you answer it, it's a crank call, then it's hard for you to answer any of the real calls, and all they get is a busy signal.

[OngBonga]

Enjoy your next ten years of being poorer than you are today.

There are two main reasons the Tories won by such a large margin - people are sick to fucking death of Brexit uncertainty, and people do not trust Labour's economic model.

I spoiled my ballot. When can I change my mind? Tomorrow?

[Poopadoop]

There are two main reasons the Tories won by such a large margin - people are sick to fucking death of Brexit uncertainty, and people do not trust Labour's economic model.

Remain parties won 52% of popular vote, Leave won 48%.

This, according to some math a guy on the internet taught me, is a decisive victory for Remain.

The reason Labour didn't win is because people are too dumb to vote strategically and the Remain vote got split between Labour and Lib Dems.

I spoiled my ballot. When can I change my mind? Tomorrow?

First, lol at people who spoil their ballot. "I want to make a statement with my vote, and that statement is I dislike every party so much I'll take the time to go and spoil a ballot." What is the point? Just stay home.

Second, legally you'll get another chance to spoil a ballot in five years or less. By then your benefits will probably be too little to get you to the polling station, but at least you will still be eating British fish.

[OngBonga]

Remain parties won 52% of popular vote, Leave won 48%.

I mean, I appreciate you're responding to my claim that Labour suffered because of their Brexit policy, but this wasn't a Brexit vote. Brexit was simply the dominant issue. Not everyone who voted Leave voted for a pro-Leave party, and not everyone who voted Remain voted for a pro-Remian party. But that doesn't change the fact that Labour's Brexit policy has cost them dearly. And the Libs.

SNP got 45% of the populae vote in Scotland. 62% voted to Remain.

I do agree that the result does not give Boris the mandate he thinks it does, but that's ok because the referendum we had years ago does give him that mandate.

The reason Labour didn't win is because people are too dumb to vote strategically and the Remain vote got split between Labour and Lib Dems.

I like the way the Tories won because "people are dumb", rather than because "Labour is unelectable". This is the problem with libs. Blame the masses, rather than the incompetence of people whose actual job it is to do politics and economics.

Farage did what he had to do. He stood aside and allowed the Tories to walk it. If only Swinson had done the same, huh?

First, lol at people who spoil their ballot. "I want to make a statement with my vote, and that statement is I dislike every party so much I'll take the time to go and spoil a ballot." What is the point? Just stay home.

I disagree, and you're in the minority here. The vast majority of people would say the opposite... better to spoil your ballot than to stay at home. Spoiled ballots get counted, and if there's a lot of them, that in itself is a statement. More so than low turnout. I mean, you're entitled to your opinion here, there's not much between the two, but I chose to be actively apathetic, rather than lazy.

Second, legally you'll get another chance to spoil a ballot in five years or less. By then your benefits will probably be too little to get you to the polling station, but at least you will still be eating British fish.

Fun fact - I've been in receipt of benefits for the vast majority of ten years of Tory rule. Not once has my income been reduced during this time. Did you read that on the side of a bus or something?

[Poopadoop]

SNP got 45% of the populae vote in Scotland. 62% voted to Remain.

This is so disingenuous as to be funny. The SNP was not the only party in Scotland that supported Remain.

I do agree that the result does not give Boris the mandate he thinks it does, but that's ok because the referendum we had years ago does give him that mandate.

And now he has 6 weeks (minus xmas) to do what the Tories haven't managed to do in 3 years. This should be interesting. Imho, either

a) He rams through a shitty deal; or
b) He fails to ram through a shitty deal, and we're back at square one
c) He gets a decent-to-good deal.

What do you assess as being most likely? I'm betting on b) myself, followed by a) and c) seems least likely.

I like the way the Tories won because "people are dumb", rather than because "Labour is unelectable". This is the problem with libs. Blame the masses, rather than the incompetence of people whose actual job it is to do politics and economics.

Half of the general population has a less than average IQ. I also wouldn't be surprised to find that in uncontested seats, the average IQ of a voter is lower.

Farage did what he had to do. He stood aside and allowed the Tories to walk it. If only Swinson had done the same, huh?

Exactly. Or if the people had the sense to vote tactically. Either one would have worked.

The vast majority of people would say the opposite...

1. Citation needed.
2. See above about what I think about asking dumb people's opinions.

Spoiled ballots get counted, and if there's a lot of them, that in itself is a statement.

I get that you think it's a kind of protest but seems there's more articulate ways to voice your protest than spoiling a ballot.

I chose to be actively apathetic,

An oxymoron. You can't care enough to spoil a ballot at the same time as being too lazy to care.

rather than lazy.

I prefer the term 'using your time wisely.'

It may shock you to hear this, but I don't usually vote. The reason is that I understand how little likelihood my vote has of making a difference. In this election, for example, the district I live in was overwhelmingly Tory, and has been for decades. I'm not going to waste my time going to the polls and filling out a ballot just so my side can lose by 49 999 votes rather thann 50 000.

Fun fact - I've been in receipt of benefits for the vast majority of ten years of Tory rule. Not once has my income been reduced during this time. Did you read that on the side of a bus or something?

There's been no Brexits in those 10 years.

Did you read that on the side of a bus or something?

I thought you were going to stop being sarcastic?

[Poopadoop]

It would be interesting to know how many spoiled ballots are cast deliberately as a means of protest and how many are just people fucking up on the cognitive part of the task.

[Poopadoop]

On a related note, I overheard the following conversation in the park yesterday:

A: "So what now, Scotland is going to separate?"

B: "Yeah. And who's going to pay for their membership in the EU? Not us, I'll tell you that!"

These are two people who are allowed to vote where I live. They probably think Britain still pays for things for Canada too.

[OngBonga]

This is so disingenuous as to be funny. The SNP was not the only party in Scotland that supported Remain.

Fair point.

What do you assess as being most likely? I'm betting on b) myself, followed by a) and c) seems least likely.

You missed "no deal".

Half of the general population has a less than average IQ. I also wouldn't be surprised to find that in uncontested seats, the average IQ of a voter is lower.

This is how the median works, not the mean. Usually, when people refer to the average, it's the mean. I have no idea if the mean IQ is equal to, higher or lower than the median, but simply saying "half the population has a below average IQ" is probably inaccurate, at least if we're talking about the mean, which is the best measure of "average".

But even so, there's no reason to think that stupid people vote Tory and clever people vote Labour. Some people would argue the opposite is true, because the high IQ folk are generally well off, and Tory policy tends to favour the rich and successful. I'd be inclined to think that the low achievers are more likely to vote Labour.

Exactly. Or if the people had the sense to vote tactically. Either one would have worked.

It's very much debatable that Labour could have won if the Libs stood aside, but certainly it would have been closer. Between Labour and Libs, they just about collected more votes than the Tories. But that doesn't mean more seats than the Tories, even if literally every Lib supporter voted Labour.

The problem is though, a lot of Lib voters wouldn't have voted Corbyn. This is as much a rejection of his economic policy as it is his Brexit policy. The electorate do not trust Corbyn, people actuallt trust Boris more. That's a damning indictment.

1. Citation needed.

Seriously? You really think that most folk prefer a "fuck it stay at home" attitude to a "draw a penis on your ballot" one? This forum is not the only place I discuss politics. There's Twitter and Facebook too. I started off this election saying I was probably going to stay at home, and most people who responded to me said at least go and spoil your ballot. I thought about it and agreed it was better.

Most people on social media that I have seen discuss the issue of apathy prefer a spoiled ballot to staying at home. If you don't believe me, fine.

2. See above about what I think about asking dumb people's opinions.

You sure like to call people dumb for disagreeing with you. Might I ask... what's your IQ?

[QUOTE]I get that you think it's a kind of protest but seems there's more articulate ways to voice your protest than spoiling a ballot./QUOTE]

Like what? Start a blog? If I'd stayed at home, you'd probably be laughing, saying I should have spoiled my ballot. I suspect you're just being "opposite" here for the sake of argument. I fail to see how you can feel strongly about this.

An oxymoron. You can't care enough to spoil a ballot at the same time as being too lazy to care.

What? It's not that I'm too lazy to care, quite the opposite in fact. If I didn't care, I wouldn't talk about politics. I used the term "lazy" in the context of staying at home instead of spoiling ballot, it has nothing to do with caring. If I didn't care, then I'd stay at home.

It may shock you to hear this, but I don't usually vote.

Nor do I. I've voted once in a GE, and once in a referendum. I've spoiled my ballot once, that was last week.

I'm not going to waste my time going to the polls and filling out a ballot just so my side can lose by 49 999 votes rather thann 50 000.

Fair enough, but if this is how you feel, don't mock people for spoiling their ballot. There was a party on your ballot that you could vote for, that suits your ideology. Yet you couldn't be bothered because "my vote doesn't count". Meanwhile, there's nobody I can vote for, but I still took a walk, still did my bit, even if my spoiled ballot means fuck all. I'm not going to tell you that you should vote, that your vote means something, because it's bollocks. But don't tell me to stay at home when I want to draw a dick on my ballot.

There's been no Brexits in those 10 years.

Oh right, you think we'll have our benefits docked when we leave the EU.

I'll keep you posted on that.

I thought you were going to stop being sarcastic?

No, I asked you to be more civil. But then you called me a "math guy" and said "blah blah blah fish" so I figured I'd be a sarcastic twat too. Besides, I don't mind a bit of sarcasm, it's just your tone of contempt when engaging with me is relentless. I do try to have civil conversations with you, but you don't make it easy.

[Poopadoop]

You missed "no deal".

I include that under "shitty deal"

This is how the median works, not the mean. Usually, when people refer to the average, it's the mean. I have no idea if the mean IQ is equal to, higher or lower than the median, but simply saying "half the population has a below average IQ" is probably inaccurate, at least if we're talking about the mean, which is the best measure of "average".

In a normal distribution, the mean = the median = the mode. IQ is normally distributed. So yes, half the people are below average IQ. I guess a little less than half since some people will have an IQ of exactly 100, but I'm not overly enthusiastic about average either.

But even so, there's no reason to think that stupid people vote Tory and clever people vote Labour. Some people would argue the opposite is true, because the high IQ folk are generally well off, and Tory policy tends to favour the rich and successful. I'd be inclined to think that the low achievers are more likely to vote Labour.

Theres' research to show that in the US, conservatives are 20 IQ points lower on average than liberals. No reason to think it differs in the UK, or anywhere else. It could though.

It's very much debatable that Labour could have won if the Libs stood aside, but certainly it would have been closer. Between Labour and Libs, they just about collected more votes than the Tories. But that doesn't mean more seats than the Tories, even if literally every Lib supporter voted Labour.

It's an academic question, but I'm pretty sure if you counted it up, the Lib+Labour votes combined in each seat would have won more seats than Tories.

The problem is though, a lot of Lib voters wouldn't have voted Corbyn. This is as much a rejection of his economic policy as it is his Brexit policy. The electorate do not trust Corbyn, people actuallt trust Boris more. That's a damning indictment.

You don't know why people vote for who they vote for that specifically.

Seriously? You really think that most folk prefer a "fuck it stay at home" attitude to a "draw a penis on your ballot" one?

You misunderstand me. I think it's irrelevant what most people think and also you have no way of knowing what they think unless you actually have some research to back it up.

This forum is not the only place I discuss politics. There's Twitter and Facebook too. I started off this election saying I was probably going to stay at home, and most people who responded to me said at least go and spoil your ballot. I thought about it and agreed it was better.

What was the point of doing that? Do you think drawing a penis on a ballot affects the government? It's not like someone at the polling station counts penises on ballots and if it reaches a certain value the government has to debate it in parliament. And what is the difference between 1000 spoiled ballots and 1001? And if there is a difference (which I assert there isn't), is it enough of a difference to make it worth your time? I doubt it.

Most people on social media that I have seen discuss the issue of apathy prefer a spoiled ballot to staying at home. If you don't believe me, fine.

yeah, your sample is a bit biased if that's the group you polled as 'most people'.

You sure like to call people dumb for disagreeing with you. Might I ask... what's your IQ?

Don't know, probably above average though given the grades I got in school and the job I ended up with.

Like what? Start a blog? If I'd stayed at home, you'd probably be laughing, saying I should have spoiled my ballot.

I guarantee you I would never tell someone it's a good use of their time to spoil their ballot.

I suspect you're just being "opposite" here for the sake of argument. I fail to see how you can feel strongly about this.

I don't feel strongly about it. I just think spoiling your ballot is ridiculous, that's all. You don't have to agree.

What? It's not that I'm too lazy to care, quite the opposite in fact. If I didn't care, I wouldn't talk about politics. I used the term "lazy" in the context of staying at home instead of spoiling ballot, it has nothing to do with caring. If I didn't care, then I'd stay at home.

But your action has absolutely zero impact on the outcome. Staying at home has zero impact as well, but costs you nothing.

Nor do I. I've voted once in a GE, and once in a referendum. I've spoiled my ballot once, that was last week.

Can I ask what your reasons are for not usually voting?

Fair enough, but if this is how you feel, don't mock people for spoiling their ballot.

I'm mocking the behaviour, not the people (or at least not directly). Smart people can do dumb things sometimes, myself included.

I know some people think it's a good use of their time, I just don't see it.

There was a party on your ballot that you could vote for, that suits your ideology. Yet you couldn't be bothered because "my vote doesn't count".

This is what I don't understand about people; why so many feel it's necessary to waste your time when your vote is not going to make a difference. Like I said, it doesn't matter one iota whether my side wins/loses by 50 000, 49 999 or 50 001. It just doesn't. So what is the point of trudging somewhere to queue up and tick a box that effectively does nothing? What does this accomplish?

Meanwhile, there's nobody I can vote for, but I still took a walk, still did my bit,

"Did your bit"? What does that mean? You went and added a number to a tally that makes absolutely no difference in the outcome of the election? Is that how you see your role in democracy?

don't tell me to stay at home when I want to draw a dick on my ballot.

Is this actually what you did? That seems a bit juvenile if true.

Oh right, you think we'll have our benefits docked when we leave the EU.

I'll keep you posted on that.

Are you guaranteed a cost of living increase every year? 'Cause that coming inflation is going to sting otherwise.

[Poopadoop]

Here's an idea for how to fix democracy. Not sure how well it would work, haven't given it much thought, but seems better than what we have now.

https://www.ted.com/talks/brett_henn...eople#t-692414

[OngBonga]

Here's an idea for how to fix democracy. Not sure how well it would work, haven't given it much thought, but seems better than what we have now.

Ok you offered an alternative. I'll respond to this when I've watched it, maybe later.

[OngBonga]

In a normal distribution, the mean = the median = the mode. IQ is normally distributed. So yes, half the people are below average IQ. I guess a little less than half since some people will have an IQ of exactly 100, but I'm not overly enthusiastic about average either.

I have no idea how anyone could state as fact that IQ is a "normal distribution". By all means, show me.


From what I can tell from some quick googling, 2/3 of us have an IQ in the 85-115 range, while 1/3 of us have an IQ 115+. Everyone is accounted for here, the sub 85 demographic is negligible. It doesn't look like a "normal distribution" to me. And I'm in the 115+ group.

Theres' research to show that in the US, conservatives are 20 IQ points lower on average than liberals. No reason to think it differs in the UK, or anywhere else. It could though.

20? I find this incredibly hard to believe. Incredibly.

It's an academic question, but I'm pretty sure if you counted it up, the Lib+Labour votes combined in each seat would have won more seats than Tories.

I doubt it. If you throw in the SNP, then probably. The problem is that a lot of Scottish people vote for Labour and Libs, but hardly any vote for Tory. So if we're talking just Labour and Libs, I can't see how they challenge the Tories in England.

You don't know why people vote for who they vote for that specifically.

No, but I have social media accounts and read what people say. How sincere they are is another matter, but the electorate clearly trust Boris more, because he won.

You misunderstand me. I think it's irrelevant what most people think and also you have no way of knowing what they think unless you actually have some research to back it up.

Ok. My "research" is my experience. Small sample size, granted, so moving on...

What was the point of doing that? Do you think drawing a penis on a ballot affects the government?

Of course not. It amuses me, nothing more. It's exactly the same as putting a blank ballot in the box, or writing "fuck this shit", or "none of the above".

And what is the difference between 1000 spoiled ballots and 1001?

One spoiled ballot.

...is it enough of a difference to make it worth your time? I doubt it.

Definitely. People around the world don't have the luxury of democracy. If anything, it makes me feel good to be a part of a democratic process. It doesn't matter that my vote, or lack of vote, makes no difference in the grand scheme of things. What matters is that I like living in a democratic country, I've been lazy most of my life when it comes to elections, and I don't want to continue being lazy. I'd prefer to have someone to vote for, but I don't. The least I can do is enjoy democracy day when it happens.

yeah, your sample is a bit biased if that's the group you polled as 'most people'.

I made an assumption, and I still suspect my assumption is correct.

I guarantee you I would never tell someone it's a good use of their time to spoil their ballot.

Fair enough. I still think it's a lot better than staying at home. I enjoyed drawing a dick on my ballot, it gave me a few seconds of joy. Plus it got me out of the house for half an hour or so.

I don't feel strongly about it. I just think spoiling your ballot is ridiculous, that's all. You don't have to agree.

Well for me, it's less ridiculous than wanting someone to win, but not voting for them because you feel your vote doesn't matter.

But your action has absolutely zero impact on the outcome. Staying at home has zero impact as well, but costs you nothing.

Going for a short walk costs nothing either. In fact, it counts as exercise, so it's better than staying at home on that basis alone.

Can I ask what your reasons are for not usually voting?

Similar reasons here, except minus the Brexit. No parties represent me. The only time I have voted was for an independent.

Also, I wasn't really interested in politics when I was in my 20s, I was more interested in sex, drugs and techno.

This is what I don't understand about people; why so many feel it's necessary to waste your time when your vote is not going to make a difference. Like I said, it doesn't matter one iota whether my side wins/loses by 50 000, 49 999 or 50 001. It just doesn't. So what is the point of trudging somewhere to queue up and tick a box that effectively does nothing? What does this accomplish?

I think you know the argument to this...

"...if everyone thought like this..."

I do understand what you're saying here, and respect your right to not bother voting for whatever reason you like. But for me, I wanted to take part because democracy is important to society, even if on an individual basis it's a waste of time.

"Did your bit"? What does that mean? You went and added a number to a tally that makes absolutely no difference in the outcome of the election? Is that how you see your role in democracy?

Frankly, yes. There were just shy of 32,000,000 million votes cast. If you feel like you need a louder voice, well democracy isn't for you.

Democracy is not about me, it's about society. We just had this discussion, but if you have any better ideas, fire away. What alternatives are there?

Is this actually what you did? That seems a bit juvenile if true.

There's definitely a part of me that never grew up. I'm not ashamed of immaturity.

Are you guaranteed a cost of living increase every year? 'Cause that coming inflation is going to sting otherwise.

It goes up with inflation. If the cost of living rises above inflation, I might be a few pounds worse off, but I can't say I've noticed a squeeze on my budget over the years.

[Poopadoop]

I have no idea how anyone could state as fact that IQ is a "normal distribution". By all means, show me.


From what I can tell from some quick googling, 2/3 of us have an IQ in the 85-115 range, while 1/3 of us have an IQ 115+. Everyone is accounted for here, the sub 85 demographic is negligible. It doesn't look like a "normal distribution" to me. And I'm in the 115+ group.

I don't know where you're getting this information. Maybe you read something by some IQ-skeptic, dunno.

When you have a variable that is the summation of a large number of other variables, it's going to end up in a normal distribution. IQ is no different from height or weight in this way. The only question is what you decide the mean and stdev are. For IQ they're set to a mean of 100 and standard deviation of 15.

20? I find this incredibly hard to believe. Incredibly.

It might not be 20, but it's a significant difference. Would have to look it up.

Of course not. It amuses me, nothing more. It's exactly the same as putting a blank ballot in the box, or writing "fuck this shit", or "none of the above".

This seems funny, because it seems like you're just mocking the democracy that you in other places in the conversation seem to hold so dear.

Definitely. People around the world don't have the luxury of democracy. If anything, it makes me feel good to be a part of a democratic process. It doesn't matter that my vote, or lack of vote, makes no difference in the grand scheme of things. What matters is that I like living in a democratic country, I've been lazy most of my life when it comes to elections, and I don't want to continue being lazy. I'd prefer to have someone to vote for, but I don't. The least I can do is enjoy democracy day when it happens.

This is another thing I hear, we have to 'celebrate democracy'. Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favour of the things that arise from democracy, and the principles it's based on (representation by population is one, btw, that our current system doesn't uphold). It's the voting I find pointless. I get that it has to happen for it to be 'democratic', but I also see the personal futility in it.

Well for me, it's less ridiculous than wanting someone to win, but not voting for them because you feel your vote doesn't matter.

When I was a kid I used to think if I cheered for my hockey team while watching the game on TV that was helping them win. I no longer believe that. Now I believe that actions that don't affect an outcome, however much I might want that outcome, are not worth undertaking.

Going for a short walk costs nothing either. In fact, it counts as exercise, so it's better than staying at home on that basis alone.

You also got to practice your drawing skills.

I think you know the argument to this...

I do know the argument. One of my old profs said it to me in fact. And my answer was the only time I ever stumped him in two years.

"...if everyone thought like this..."

...and the retort: I'm not everybody, nor can I control everybody. If I could it would be worth the effort. But I can't so it isn't.

But for me, I wanted to take part because democracy is important to society, even if on an individual basis it's a waste of time.

But the part you played was inconsequential. It's like saying you want to help your sports team by buying their jersey. It doesn't make a difference to how they play at all. But I guess if it makes you feel good, then go ahead.

Frankly, yes. There were just shy of 32,000,000 million votes cast. If you feel like you need a louder voice, well democracy isn't for you.

Not sure what you're getting at here. I never said I shoud be the one to decide an election outcome.

It goes up with inflation. If the cost of living rises above inflation, I might be a few pounds worse off, but I can't say I've noticed a squeeze on my budget over the years.

Great, more of my taxes going to pay someone to draw a penis on a ballot.

[OngBonga]

I don't know where you're getting this information.

The internet. How reliable that info is is another matter. I didn't spend a great deal of time researching this.

You say the mean is "set" at 100. That... doesn't make sense. The mean will be fluid, it will change as collective intelligence changes. It should increase over time, I'd have thought the mean IQ is higher now than it was in 1900. But I really don't know, I have no idea how IQ is calculated.

It might not be 20, but it's a significant difference. Would have to look it up.

20 is a large difference. If that's a sincere figure, I can only assume the study was heavily biased, like it compared university students and lecturers with trailer park trash and George W Bush.

I'd have been surprised if there's a difference of 5, either way.

This seems funny, because it seems like you're just mocking the democracy that you in other places in the conversation seem to hold so dear.

That's how you see it. I see it as mocking those who are standing for election. I aptly illustrated how I feel about politicians, not democracy.

This is another thing I hear, we have to 'celebrate democracy'.

We don't have to. I just choose to.

It's the voting I find pointless.

Again, from an individual pov, you're right, but from a society pov, you're wrong.

...and the retort: I'm not everybody, nor can I control everybody. If I could it would be worth the effort. But I can't so it isn't.

Try saying this to a psychology prof. I mean, I'm no expert, but there seems to me a heavy hint of "control freak" here. You only want to engage in activities you have control over. There's a fundamental difference between us both. I'm happy to participate in activities that I do not have control over, that is in the hands of the collective. I have 1/32000000th control, which is ok by me. In fact, if I got to choose the leader of this country, I'd find that to be a rather heavy burden. I think I prefer not having control on this matter. I'm not at fault if it all goes wrong, everyone is.

But the part you played was inconsequential.

This isn't the point.

It's like saying you want to help your sports team by buying their jersey.

Holy shit, a decent analogy! Well done! You're right. One person buying the shirt will make no difference to a team's finances. But 20,000 doing so will. I know 19,999 is, for all intents and purposes, the same as 20,000, but that isn't the point. We're back to "...what if everyone thought like this". You do your bit, however inconsequential it might seem.

Not sure what you're getting at here. I never said I shoud be the one to decide an election outcome.

No, not directly, though you did say it would be worth the effort if you could control everyone. And you're arguing that there's no point in voting because your vote is pointless, which is a reasonable observation. But you don't vote because your one vote might make a difference, you vote because as a collective, you hold politicians to account. I don't have a problem that my vote is worth so little. Everyone else's vote is worth equally as little. That's the point. Everyone has an equal influence in the outcome.

Great, more of my taxes going to pay someone to draw a penis on a ballot.

You were doing so well, and you finish with this. I'm not sure why you have a problem with people's benefits rising with inflation. Would you actually prefer unemployed people to be proper fucked? Would you prefer the government to slowly squeeze the life out of people who can't get a job?

Don't be so bitter about how your tax is spent. If unemployed people had to literally fend for themselves, your tax would go up, and crime would increase. More people would be in prison. It costs a lot more to imprison someone than it does to give them a cheap place to live and a pittance to live off.

[Poopadoop]

I'd have thought the mean IQ is higher now than it was in 1900. But I really don't know, I have no idea how IQ is calculated.

It has been going up a few points every generation, yes. The data are normalized to a mean of 100 and stdev of 15. So the average voter now is smarter than the average voter in 1900, if that makes you feel better. Still not very smart though.

Try saying this to a psychology prof.

He was a psych prof, and he had no answer because he knew my logic was airtight.

I mean, I'm no expert, but there seems to me a heavy hint of "control freak" here.

Haha, that's pretty funny. Everyone who knows me finds me pretty patient and easy to get along with. I certainly don't get accused of being a control freak.

You only want to engage in activities you have control over.

The debate is not really about me, but no. It's more like I only want to expend effort on things I can influence. I dont go around shouting at the clouds to make them stop raining.

There's a fundamental difference between us both. I'm happy to participate in activities that I do not have control over, that is in the hands of the collective. I have 1/32000000th control, which is ok by me. In fact, if I got to choose the leader of this country, I'd find that to be a rather heavy burden. I think I prefer not having control on this matter. I'm not at fault if it all goes wrong, everyone is.

1/320000000 control is statistically indistinguishable from 0 control.

I'm not at fault if it all goes wrong, everyone is.

At least you get this much. You don't blame individual people for voting for a party if that party turns out to suck.

This isn't the point.

It is to me.

You do your bit, however inconsequential it might seem.

There's a difference between something that seems inconsequential and something that is inconsequential. You don't seem to want to accept that so fine, I'll let it go.

you vote because as a collective, you hold politicians to account.

The collective has the same effect whether or not I vote. As such, my individual participation, or lack thereof, is meaningless.

I don't have a problem that my vote is worth so little. Everyone else's vote is worth equally as little. That's the point. Everyone has an equal influence in the outcome.

That's the great illusion of it and how democracy seems to "work." There are enough people who don't understand how little effect they have as individuals that they go and vote, which results in a collective outcome that reflects the will of the majority (or, in the case of FPTP, the largest share of voters). It's a great way to dupe individuals into thinking they're taking part when they're really only wasting their time.

You were doing so well, and you finish with this. I'm not sure why you have a problem with people's benefits rising with inflation. Would you actually prefer unemployed people to be proper fucked? Would you prefer the government to slowly squeeze the life out of people who can't get a job?

You missed my point. I don't have a problem with being taxed to give you a pittance, I have a problem with you using that pittance to go and draw a penis on a ballot.

Someone has to look at that, maybe some old lady, and it's fairly likely they don't share your lack of decorum. So the net effect of your act which you call "mocking the politicians" would be to offend a person who is volunteering their time to help the country, and gets rewarded by seeing a drawing of a penis. Meanwhile the people it's intended to mock never know anything about it. It's just a chidish, antisocial thing to do that has no possible benefit to anyone besides yourself.

Here's an idea: If you really want to take part in democracy and actually 'do your bit' for it, next time volunteer to work at a polling station.

[OngBonga]

Haha, that's pretty funny. Everyone who knows me finds me pretty patient and easy to get along with. I certainly don't get accused of being a control freak.

Control freaks aren't necessarily impatient or difficult to get on with. They just like to be in control. I guess it was the comment where you said "if you could control everybody then it would be worth the effort" that made me think along these lines. I might be very much wrong, obviously. But there's definitely a difference in the way we look at such matters. It doesn't bother me that I can't control everyone, that my vote is inconsequential. It does seem to bother you.

The debate is not really about me, but no. It's more like I only want to expend effort on things I can influence. I dont go around shouting at the clouds to make them stop raining.

Back to poor analogies. If everyone shouts at the clouds, it still doesn't stop raining. You have 1/32000000th of an influence in an election. Well, much more if we break it down into constituencies, but the point is you do have a tiny amount of influence. It's just too tiny for you to care about.

1/320000000 control is statistically indistinguishable from 0 control.

You just said the debate isn't about you, then you imply it is. When 32000000 vote, your 1/32000000 influence is a great deal more than zero. It's one. If it were zero, then 32 million people voting would have no influence.

I'm not trying to convince you to vote, that's up to you, I'm just pointing out that when you vote, you're part of a collective that has an influence as a whole.

At least you get this much. You don't blame individual people for voting for a party if that party turns out to suck.

No, and I don't call people dumb, or racist, or insult them in any way, either individuals (unless they give good reason) or as a mass. I just say the people made a mistake, and hope they learn from it.

There's a difference between something that seems inconsequential and something that is inconsequential. You don't seem to want to accept that so fine, I'll let it go.

I think we just differ in opinion on whether a vote "is"or "seems" inconsequential. I'm in the "seems" camp.

The collective has the same effect whether or not I vote. As such, my individual participation, or lack thereof, is meaningless.

Sure, but you're not the only person holding this opinion. If everyone who felt like this changed their mind, that would be significantly less inconsequential.

That's the great illusion of it and how democracy seems to "work." There are enough people who don't understand how little effect they have as individuals that they go and vote, which results in a collective outcome that reflects the will of the majority (or, in the case of FPTP, the largest share of voters). It's a great way to dupe individuals into thinking they're taking part when they're really only wasting their time.

This is nonsense. I understand I have a tiny effect, I can even quantify it as 1/32000000th of an influence. Most people understand this. But if nobody voted, then democracy doesn't work. It's not a waste of time. This is how we stop tyrants from dominating control of a nation.

You missed my point. I don't have a problem with being taxed to give you a pittance, I have a problem with you using that pittance to go and draw a penis on a ballot.

This doesn't make sense. It cost me nothing to draw a dick on my ballot. I doesn't cost you anything at all. I use my pittance of an income to eat and smoke, and occasionally go out and have a drink.

And what do you care how I spend my time? You talk about me wasting my time taking a walk to the polling station, yet here you are spending more time than I did doing that arguing with me about how it's a waste of my time and your tax.

I'd say that's as productive a use of my time as most of the shit I do. You should be more bothered that I'm talking shit on the internet than I am looking for work.

So the net effect of your act which you call "mocking the politicians" would be to offend a person who is volunteering their time to help the country, and gets rewarded by seeing a drawing of a penis.

Nope, sorry. First off, I don't care if I offend a sensitive soul. It's a picture of a dick, not a swastika. Approximately half the world's population has a dick. Secondly, it might amuse whoever counted it. I doubt very much it's the most offensive thing drawn or written on a ballot.

It's just a chidish, antisocial thing to do that has no possible benefit to anyone besides yourself.

Not entirely true. I helped boost turnout, reinforcing democracy, so it does benefit society, albeit very slightly.

Here's an idea: If you really want to take part in democracy and actually 'do your bit' for it, next time volunteer to work at a polling station.

Not the worst suggestion I had thrown at me. I currently volunteer for Oxfam, so I'm not against this idea.