Who will Harris pick as VP? It’s Walz!!

LOL. The NRA has more than its fair share of gun owner idiots. Dial in poorly educated for a perfect storm of people who have no business owning a firearm.

 

And Kamala. He wanted to hit them both.

 

Yeah a lot of loss of death on Jan 6th one rioter shot and one died of a drug OD. 3 died a couple of days later from natural causes. huge death count and all trumps fault.

 

Irony is that 84-year old woman Pelosi is probably in better shape than he is, she might be the one doing the beating up.

 

Harris-Walz ticket loooks like the Mondale-Geraldine Ferraro ticket if it was flipped with Ferraro at the top.
Mondale was a highly skilled politician. Walz is not.

JD Vance reinforces the Trump brand. Strong with hardworking blue collar cworkers needed to win Wisconsin Michigan and Pennsylvania

Walz reinforces the weakest part of the Kamala brand. Walz is worse on illegal immigration and BLM
Walz believes babies born alive after botched abortions can be executed.

Walz.pretends to be a moderate rural Minnesotan. Not true.

Kamala was going to pick Shapiro but changed her mind at the last moment which is why the Walz announcement was in Philly

Shapiro was too smart for Kamala's liking. Obama thought he was too Jewish. He would have outshone Harris. Walz is dumber, making the insecure Kamala feel.less inferior

Look at the Harris-Walz campaign signs. Why is the name Walz in such tiny letters? ent. To make Kamala feel better.

Harris-Walz will be a disaster imo. I will enjoy the show and profit from it. Fun times.

 

There is virtually no way that a doctor would perform a procedure under those circumstances. A doctor is not going to kill a viable child in utero, especially when the mother is still going to have to go through labor or a C-section to deliver the fetus anyways. It's utterly nonsensical. Physicians would risk major liability or even losing their license in such situations. Unless there are major health risks for baby or mother, it's a direct violation of their Hippocratic oath.

You don't need a legal limit with criminal penalties to dissuade something that: (1) virtually no pregnant woman is going to pursue without serious and legitimate reason, and (2) virtually no practicing physician is going to perform that procedure.

 

And yet one illegal immigrant murder is the fault of every Democrat according to your brain addled side.

FYI, the death/injury count was way worse than you are minimizing it to be.

 

Midwest military reservist high school football coach raised on a farm is too extreme because he demonstrates empathy for people. This will sell really well inside the echo chamber I guess.

 

Don't forget that he made tampons readily available also. He's quite the monster.

 

Nah, he ain't no monster

Just a big ol pile of mushy shit.

 

I am sure there are plenty of idiots that are members of every organization. There are plenty of idiots that have college degrees that have no business even owning a knife much less a gun. It seems you somehow think that because someone has more education they are smarter. Do you have a reference to show the education level of NRA members? Seems maybe you are not near as smart as you think you are.

 

It seems you have two independent claims: 1) that the idea people are prone to in-group bias might be invalid, and 2) that advertising this inclination would actually intensify it.

I’ve provided serval lines of evidence for the first point that are compelling for me, but I guess we need to know what evidence, if it existed, would make you take this hypothesis seriously?

For the second point, I’m again interested in whatever evidence we have. Do we have any studies that show that people are more likely to show more in-group bias after learning about the existence of that bias? Most efforts rely on the opposite assumption that making people aware of their biases is important for them to counteract them. This is why bias training usually starts with evidence of the existence of the bias. Perhaps this is wrong headed, but it’s an empirical question.

I can’t believe you read Lewontin’s book! I have it but haven’t read it yet. This makes me want to get to it. I’ve read several books by his intellectual partner, Gould. Indeed, I think the argument from the Bell Curve has problems. I think saying something is “hardwired” often leads to misunderstandings, which is why I try not to use such language. Lewontin and Gould were two people who worked the hardest to make people understand the mechanics of interactions. I think this is what I am trying to do here.

People can have a tendency under certain conditions to behave more or less charitably to outsiders. My hope is that we better promote the conditions of openness, rather than hostility. Making people focus on their membership to a particular identity group seems to result in them being less open. You are absolutely right that people often belong to multiple identity groups. This is great and has indeed been found to be correlated with more openness to other perspectives. This is precisely the sort of solution for which I’m advocating.

Lastly, I want to reiterate that the taint of ideology will run both ways. While we should take Lewontin’s point seriously that many scientific theories may be products of the culture in which they are conceived, so too should be true of the criticisms of those theories. Evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne argues that several valid scientific theories are currently being replaced by ideological hogwash. It makes the problem of knowledge fascinating but also harrowing.

 

It’s all in the packaging…

 

This and other documents/timelines have debunked the service attacks on Walz. The propaganda has been shared by the likes of @vegasfox. Do these posters have an obligation to update their posts with the new facts? If they do not, what conclusions can be drawn about their motivations and credibility?

What other attacks have been debunked?

 

I remember when Republicans were pro military (and pro police).
Hopefully trump and his merry band of extremists go away, the R party can find some sort of moral compass again.

 

The article is based largely on statements that Walz made in 1989 when he was a teacher in China. That was 35 years ago when Walz was 25 years old and although you may have forgotten at the time there was feeling that we were seeing the emergence of a new China with a capitalist economy, more freedom and a less adversarial relationship with the West. While it never happened and China has since regressed context matters, 2024 is not 1989.

How about some evidence including statements by Walz regarding China since he became involved in politics? By the way the column conflates the payments that Hunter Biden received from Chinese interests with a supposed bias by Walz even though the two are completely unrelated.

Edit: What's really "funny" is that someone thinks that statements made 35 years ago are still relevant when there has been absolutely no evidence that the candidate who is the subject of the article is still a supporter and/or influenced by China.

 

I read somewhere that Walz still speaks some Mandarin. Not sure if that's true, but if there are clips, I assume I would have seen them by now?!

 

Adds some color to Walz's involvement in the tampons in "boys'" bathroom. Take from it what you will.

 

That was a needle. If it’s temporary then it has to have biodegradable ink meaning she has that on her forehead a minimum 9-12 months. Yikes. I think the company’s website says it fades completely within three years…

What It's Like to Get a Temporary Tattoo With a Real Tattoo Needle

 

I don't know if the 'intensity' would change per se, I'm just saying that making it a concrete notion, one that trickles into lay understanding would lead to a sort of calcification of debate it seems. It would simply be the lens through which we view all politics or human interactions involving groups, one in which it becomes easier to dismiss dissenting views, especially ones that challenge the status quo. Anyways, I will always remain skeptical of thinking that more or less boils down to "normal people cant make good decisions according to experts" the implication always seems to be there is someone that knows better, or that the people in charge have to stay in charge, or else chaos. To some extent the idea of "free exchange of ideas" and "reasonable debate" and even the idea of reason itself are all fictions or myths of sorts, important ones for sure, but prone to subversion, and not just by people who have no regard for those things. I'm sure there are plenty of rich people funding scientific research of all varieties that would love to "prove" democracy cant work. And lets face it, in a capitalist society, lots of that money for scientific pursuits is coming from people who dont have much interest in social equality. Fortunately we have other means of funding too, but those are always at risk to politics. I will always be on team anti-determinism, as should anyone with any interest in changing the world for the better, whether they are people of faith, secular humanists or historical materialists.