Moderation

[6ix]

@anon38180840

You left out the part where the argument is mostly in good faith for hundreds and hundreds of posts over several weeks, with like the worst things being directed at nunn as “LOL” only to eventually have nunn start mis-characterizing our positions

I wasn’t leaving anything out in that sense, I was just providing an illustration of why the thread was insane in that most/all of it stemmed from initially mischaracterizing and/or simply misunderstanding Nunn’s original position.

Like, I just read you repeating this line,

Motherfucker, Mitch McConnell is NOT going to respond by doing the right thing. 0.0% chance.

but his entire position was predicated upon Mitch McConnell not responding by doing the right thing! That’s the entire point of taking the shitty deal and guaranteeing some people help now (in past tense), the only help guaranteed.

It’s like it was a minor misunderstanding of a game theory problem that snowballed into World War UP because you people have a (justifiably!) bad history with Nunn.

Dr. M summed some of it up:

@DrModern

Did you guys, like, all watch that Showtime Russiagate movie and lose your cool while I wasn’t posting? Or are you all really just this bad at conditional probability? The histrionics ITT are pretty ridiculous, though it is amusing to me to see this back-of-envelope trolley problem thinking revealed in its full utilitarian splendor. Let me indulge you, though. Here are the options:

1. Get $1T now + win across the board in November + get another relief bill in January (best outcome)
2. Get $1T now + lose either Senate or presidency + no relief bill in January (mediocre outcome)
3. Get $0 now + win across the board in November + get a relief bill in January (mediocre outcome, but the best possible under your strategy)
4. Get $0 now + win across the board in November + no relief bill in January (unlikely but possible)
5. Get $0 now + lose either Senate or presidency + no relief in January (most likely outcome under the strategy you’re urging)

You guys are saying we have to go for option 3 because taking the $1T makes the Republicans look good. It’s left completely unaddressed why Democrats couldn’t just come out with rhetoric saying something to the effect of “While we recognize that this amount is grossly inadequate, we realized something needed to be done to restart the flow of money, and this paltry amount is all those bastards would give us. Vote for us in November to get the relief you really deserve!”

In short, you’re all ignoring that scenario 5 is by far the most likely outcome for your plan. Which amounts to ignoring the slight upside of scenario 2 and the highest upside scenario 1. I’d say it’s the classic mistake of “making the perfect the enemy of the good,” except you’re actively refusing to consider the worst case scenario for your plan and refusing to see the best case scenario. This is especially amusing coming from Biden supporters, since he promises to govern well to the right of Obama–he won’t pass M4A, won’t restore the social welfare state, won’t pass a Green New Deal, won’t pass UBI, likely won’t raise the minimum wage, and won’t raise taxes on the wealthy.

IOW you think you’re playing poker, but you’re actually playing chess. When someone dies, they’re gone forever. Give me the full mathematical equation using the effect on Biden’s estimated win% and all of the relevant Senate races as wedge variables, with deaths as the relevant units, and a full estimate of the death toll of a second Trump term, with specifics as to cause of death. No verbal shortcuts. I want to see you calculate in blood. Of course, an accurate calculation will take hundreds of hours of research, but I believe in you guys.