What is the significance of this? I tried to read the Wikipedia article about Moore’s Law but i don’t get why it matters if/when actual counts exceed predicted counts.
Yeah, I don’t even understand what “technology bubbles are underrated” even means. They’re a bigger problem than widely thought? A smaller one? Actually good? Something else?
I really think these constant purity tests are a huge problem for progressives. Can someone explain their value to me?
Does Maher have some terrible ideas? Of course. But he also aligns with 90+% of the values of everyone on this forum. He also has a huge megaphone he uses every week to promote those same 90% you all agree on. I would guess he has given more air time to climate change than the entirety of television, combined. He has been a constant voice against the religious right, Trump, corporate welfare and for LGBTQ+ rights, criminal reform women’s rights etc.
Whatever happened to the idea that politics is compromise? I know for a fact someone is going to quote the last sentence with a well argued “lol” but I obviously don’t mean compromise with the right. Can we not compromise with our own side a little? Are we only allowed to align with people we 100% agree with?
Can we join forces with some feminists who have retrograde views of sex? How about gun control advocates who only want assault rifles controlled? Pro-choicers against late term abortion? Black activists who want full reparations?
Politics is messy. Everyone is not always going to agree with each other. That’s not a reason to write them off. It’s a reason to convince them they are mistaken on some points.
If we write everyone off who we disagree with, even a little, we are left standing next to nobody.
(Inb4 someone responds completely ignoring that I acknowledge Maher has some terrible ideas).
2 Likes
I definitely don’t care about ideological purity tests, just don’t like Maher because he’s an insufferable, smarmy, know-it-all dipshit. And most importantly, not nearly as funny as he thinks he is.
3 Likes
Dubious, imo. What’s the actual charge here, though - do we have to pretend to like Bill Maher, or to think he’s funny, or to ignore his raging anti-Muslim sentiments? Does compromise mean never criticise and, if not, what are you actually complaining about? And why does compromise always mean Shut up about that guy’s terrible views and seemingly never That guy should shut up about his terrible views?
1 Like
I’m not sure but I think she might be using the term “bubbles” without regard to them bursting ie that in the 90s actual was a fraction of Moore, but after 2000 it began to outstrip Moore, a possibility that I guess had been underrated?
Who knows? Great graphic though.
1 Like
Except I explicitly said the goal should be dialogue to convince allies when we disagree. My point was writing them off is the mistake.
1 Like
Yeah, sounds about right.
I don’t know what this means. People ITT are, apparently, doing something with respect to Bill Maher that you disapprove of. What is that thing and what is the thing that we should otherwise be doing? Because I don’t have Bill Maher’s phone number, you know?
Despite everything that has happened in recent history and all the available research on the topic, you still cling to this thoroughly debunked idea that polite discussion changes peoples’ minds. Constantly yelling about all the ways Bill Maher sucks changes minds, and we should keep doing it because he does.
Twice, in the old country, I argued him to a standstill on this issue - or whatever you call it when someone just stops replying because they have no response. The irony appears lost on him.
I ignore you because you are never debate in good faith. It’s funny you see it as a victory. I’ll reply when I find Maher’s phone number. 
It does? Can you provide some supporting evidence of this claim?
Yes, I still think debate with those who share similar ideas is the answer. I see no other path.
I doubt anyone even believes that you believe this, never mind believing it themselves. Good to hear you’re Actually Laughing, though.
This is categorically untrue of most posters here, including Flynn, and comes across as projection.
I didn’t make the claim of anyone but him. It’s good faith to suggest I was arguing we call Maher?
Yes, and I’ll share it even though I know it won’t have any effect on you and we’ll be right back here next week.
I believe he believes it, but I don’t believe it and doubt anyone else believes it.
1 Like
It’s bad faith to suggest I was suggesting that, imo. I was - and I say it’s bad faith because you know this - wondering what ‘dialogue with those we disagree with’ has to do with ‘complaining about Bill Maher’. Clearly, dialogue with Bill Maher is an implausible option. Hence my questions along the lines of “What are you actually talking about” etc, which you ignored because something something bad faith.
1 Like