Republicans are fascists, not conservatives.

Democrats are the conservative party.

I agree with everything you said except, im confused about the use of the term lost generation. That’s a generation born in the 1880-1900s.

Exactly this. I’m fortunate enough that the skills I’m good at have a lot of demand at the moment, but people I know that are more hard working than I am and very talented, struggle to get by just because their job for some reason is considered less worthy to pay for.

Wanting to maintain this rotten system is the purest form of greed.

Everyone knows it’s a gateway chore

You joke, but if you ever talked to a homeowner about their lawn and heard them complain about their neighbor’s lawn…

Yeah, for now. That might change. Millennial was originally Gen Y.

Which is weird since conservative politics is all about cutting funds for schools, gutting the department of education completely, no pre k or free lunches for kids, and getting rid of a large portion of our law enforcement. Just doesn’t make sense why any one who cares about education or safety would be conservative

Then why conservative when they actively hate children and society in general? It seems insane to lean that way.

Economic issues always come down to economic incentives. You care about property values because your home is an investment. You care about stocks because you have a retirement plan. You care about not being a burden on your children when you’re old and having inheritance to leave behind when you die. You care about crime because you have things to steal and a life to lose.

I don’t have property. I will never retire. I will never have children. I am nothing and no one and that will never change.

When I was younger I was a pretty typical liberal. By 30 I was a Marxist-Leninist and desired nothing but the complete destruction of the demon shithole country called Amerikkka. 😘

Not in my case. I grew up pretty conservative she moved right libertarian until learning economics in college which moved me left. I bought a home and have two kids and am squarely on the left. I care about schools and crime which is why I want more funding for education and programs that actually decrease crime.

Healthcare is the big one for me. We should not be forking over 20% of our paychecks for healthcare. People on the right are fucking nuts to believe that the cost is because of too much regulation considering we have the least regulation and pay twice as much with now limited options. We need Medicare for All.

I care about schools. I want them to be free and public.

I care about crime. I want to abolish the police and use that money to on social safety net programs including healthcare, social workers, housing, and more which is proven to reduce crime.

I care about children. I want paid parental leave for both parents, guaranteed job return, free childcare, free healthcare for children, and a monthly check for groceries.

Conservatives want none of that, and actively work against every point. Centre/centre-left only want some of that performatively and will undermine any implementation of these programs. The only people working for this are the “hard left.” And because of decades of anti-communist propaganda, no one will touch it.

The only reason I can think of to be conservative and “socially liberal” is to protect your own capital at the expense of others while not wanting to feel bad about doing it.

Yet they are fools everywhere. I can confirm for Germany, bunch of anti-science idiots who make my blood boil.

greatest comeback

I will never stop learning. This is actually something I admire my parents in. They never stop learning new things

They want small government for the rich and big government for anyone that’s not a conservative pentecostal Christian. Simple. Lol

Literally the story of my life, without the ultra part. They were evangelicals, however.

Mid-40’s, same.

49 here. Liberal AF.

It’s a famous example of survivorship bias. The idea is, adding armor to planes make them heavier, so you want to minimize where you put armor. After some flights, you take note of where the bullet holes are in the planes that come back.

Where do you put more armor? Do you put it where there are the most bullet holes? That seems to be where the planes are being shot the most.

The problem is, your sample isn’t representative of your underlying population. These are the planes that came back. If they get shot it the cockpit, they die.

So, where should you put the armor? Well if they can get shot and come back, it’s not all that important, so put it everywhere else.

During WW2, the Allies wanted to armor their planes better so more would survive missions. But armor is expensive and heavy so you’d have to prioritize where to put it.

So they go out and collect data on the returning planes to see where they’d been hit. That picture is basically the data collected: where returning planes had sustained the most damage.

So most of the engineers looked at that and went “Aha, the points with the most damage should be armored, since they get shredded up pretty good.”

And one engineer went “Um actually, if they got shot there and came back, armor doesn’t matter. We need to armor the spots with no bullet holes, since a plane shot there wasn’t able to return.”

And so it was, and they called it Survivor Bias.

In this case, it’s survivor bias about becoming more conservative as you age

It’s an old diagram showing where damage to an airplane could be identified after it returned to base without crashing while still damaged.

In short, the places you don’t see damage are parts that the plane can’t get hit in if it is expected not to crash before landing again.

Survivorship bias.

I think it’s the most common places that the planes got hit when returning back to base during WW2, it’s most commonly used when discussing survivorship bias. Which I believe is their intent with said picture.

deleted by creator

I think it also depends on whether or not they were provided the education to use the internet well. If all people get is a vague “have at 'er!”, of course we would have more echo chambers. Ever hear the saying “don’t believe everything you read online?”

Properly teaching people how to verify their information sources and how to reflect on things would probably result in fewer echo chambers. “Huh. I don’t want to keep looking like a fool who spreads obviously false things around.”

There’s also internal bias to think about here. If someone is already dead-set in believing only their current mindset, they’re likely not going to be open to other sources. Instead, they’re probably going to search for whatever will back up their claim. People don’t usually try to prove themselves wrong in an argument.

This means that part of getting rid of echo chambers will also be teaching people to accept and acknowledge their own errors. We should be teaching people to go for the best answer, not to just prove themselves right. In this way, this problem also preceeds the internet. That mindset has hindered science for literal centuries. It even goes back to the first days of science in Greece. (Thanks for that attempted halt of progress, religion.)

It’s easier to blame the internet than the people doing these things. Sadly though, it’s in human nature.

My kids made me more liberal…our conservative government cut property taxes to starve our public education system, I donated most of the rebate to my kids school, some of it went into their education fund.

People who aren’t as fortunate as we are, deserve the same opportunities we have when it comes to public services.